§ 4.5 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on the Report of the Security Commission about the Bossard and Allen cases, which the Prime Minister has just made in another place. Copies of the Report will be available in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon. The Prime Minister's words were as follows:
"I should like first to say that the Government is grateful to Lord Justice Winn and his two colleagues for the time and care which they have devoted to carrying out a most thorough inquiry. The House will also wish to endorse the tributes paid to the Security Service on the high degree of professional skill shown in the process by which the offenders were detected.
"Certain specific references in the original Report have been omitted or amended in the published text in the interest of security. These amendments have been made in consultation with Lord Justice Winn and also with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, in accordance with precedent, has been shown both the full and the published version of the Report. The amendments made are few in number and do not affect the substance of the Report or its conclusions.
"It is the responsibility of the Security Commission, when so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in 910 the public service and to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable; and in this Report the Commission have suggested a number of possible changes. Some of their proposals have already been accepted and acted on. The others are being considered. As the Commission themselves recognise, some of them involve difficult considerations of principle.
"As honourable Members have not yet had an opportunity of reading the Report I do not propose to comment on it in detail; but I should tell the House that the Commission have referred to the actions of individual civil servants and members of the Armed Forces, and their comments raise the question whether these individuals may have committed some offence against discipline.
"I have therefore decided that the actions of the serving officers concerned, who are subject to the Army Act, should be referred to the Army Board for investigation and decision as to whether the facts show a prima facie case for disciplinary action under that Act. In the case of the civil servants concerned, I have decided to appoint a board of inquiry to examine the facts and to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect of duty which may have occurred in order to assist in deciding whether disciplinary action is required. The individual civil servants who will appear before the board may be appropriately represented if they so wish. The members of this board will not be serving civil servants.
"In this connection I would remind the House that, in my Statement on May 10, I explained that the original concept of the Commission, which was announced by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on January 23, 1964, after consultation with me, was defective because the Commission could not begin its operations in a case which involved court action resulting from a breach of security until the case had been concluded. In the present cases we overcame this difficulty by asking a small Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Laurence 911 Helsby, to carry out a preliminary, confidential inquiry. The Security Commission in their Report pay tribute to the usefulness to them of the work of this inquiry and acknowledge that valuable steps were thus able to be at once taken whilst the prosecutions were pending. For the future, the procedure has been altered so that a reference can be made to the Security Commission as soon as the Government are satisfied or have good reason to think that a breach of security has occurred in the public service. The Report of the Commission on this occasion has, however, now pointed to the further problem which arises where individual civil servants or serving officers may be held by the Commission to have been at fault. The remedy we have adopted this time is, as I have said, to institute further investigations specifically directed to the acts of the individuals concerned and during which they may be advised and represented. It may be that some other procedure would serve better in future and this is a matter which must be considered in due course.
"One last point. The investigation on this occasion—the first on which the Security Commission have operated—has put a heavy burden on the three members of the Commission. I hope that we shall not often need to ask the Commission to act, and there is at this time no case pending which would suggest that they will have to be activated again in the near future. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Winn and his colleagues have suggested that it would be prudent to enlarge the membership of the Commission, and with the agreement of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I propose to accept this suggestion. On any future occasion when a reference is made to the Commission, it will still be the practice for three members to sit, but they will be drawn from a larger total. I shall announce the additional names as soon as I can."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement of the Prime Minister.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. Security is a matter of great 912 national importance and it is, as I know from personal experience, a very complicated matter which sometimes gives rise to conflicts of principle. For this reason I do not think that it would be very helpful or wise for me to comment in any detail on what the noble Earl has said, before I have had a chance, as my noble friends behind me, of reading the Report. Certainly we shall read it with great interest, and I am sure that if there is anything there we want to know the noble Earl will be only too pleased to give us the answer.
There is one question that I would ask now, on a matter which I do not quite understand in the Report. It is not entirely clear from the Statement whether or not the two classes of person who might be considered to blame in some respect, that is serving officers and civil servants, are to be treated in exactly the same manner. It appeared that the serving officers' cases are to be looked into by the Army Board but that the civil servants will have a Board of Inquiry specially set up for that purpose. Surely the Army Board is hardly likely to be in exactly the same position to inquire into this matter as is a Board specially set up for that purpose? Could the noble Earl clear up that point for me?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am most grateful for the understanding attitude of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I need hardly say that I shall be only too anxious to give him any information in my power, now or at any time, about this matter. I suppose that the point one should make is that if the Army Board finds that a prima facie case does lie against the officers, they would then, under the Army Act, be liable to trial by court-martial. Of course I am not saying that that point would be reached, but that is what would happen. It is open to any serving officer in those circumstances to insist on a trial by court-martial. On the other hand, the responsibility for disciplinary action—since we are not talking of criminal prosecution in any case—in the case of a civil servant rests with his Minister, and that appears to be the basis of the distinction drawn.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not want to follow this up, but my 913 point is that the Army Board is the direct descendant of the Army Council, and is set up for an entirely different purpose. It discusses all sorts of general Army matters. A Board of Inquiry would consist of rather different people with specialised knowledge, presumably, of security. The only point I was concerned with was that both serving officers and civil servants should have exactly the same sort of treatment.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I should not like to say exactly what is involved here at every point, but I personally feel confident—and I hope I am right—that in each case the procedure adopted is that which is most likely to be helpful to the individual who may be placed in this rather awkward situation.