HL Deb 26 July 1973 vol 344 cc1933-6

11.15 a.m.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any Ministers of the Crown in the present century have been considered to be security risks; whether any have been dismissed from office or resigned because there were doubts about their integrity in security matters; how many persons in the Civil Service, or employed in Government service were discovered to be security risks, and what action was taken in such cases.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)

My Lords, I cannot answer for any former Administrations, but under the present Administration no Minister has been dismissed from office. The House will appreciate that it is not for me to elaborate on the reasons for resignation given by Ministers in published correspondence with the Prime Minister. Each Department in the Civil Service is responsible for security within its own field. Centralised records about security risks and the action taken about them are not kept. It may, however, be helpful for the noble Lord to know that since the war there have been some twenty important cases of prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts of persons with access to Government secrets who were discovered to be security risks.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, does not that Answer disclose that throughout the whole of this century not a single Minister has been involved in a security matter, and that Ministers leave the court without a stain on their character? On the other hand, can the noble Lord explain why the Government accepted the recommendation in the recent Report on the Lambton case, which provided that, instead of Ministers' keeping an eye on civil servants, the Permanent Under-Secretary in each Department responsible for its own intelligence should keep a watchful eye on the Minister? Does he suppose that we are prepared to accept recommendations of that kind, which seem to indicate that Ministers are suspect? Can the noble Lord also explain why, subsequent to the submission of the Report, it was stated that Lord Lambton was not accused of any misdemeanour because he went with call girls but because he took drugs? Was this not known when he was in the Department?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, the Prime Minister asked the Security Commission to verify that no breach of security had taken place, and their Report is available. We discussed it at some length when I repeated the Prime Minister's Statement. I also said then, and I can repeat now, that while the Prime Minister has an overall responsibility for security, each Departmental Minister has a responsibility which he accepts for the security in his own Department. It is not left to civil servants.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, does not the noble Lord recall that he undertook to consider the desirability of having a Minister specially charged with this responsibility, rather than leaving the responsibility to civil servants to keep an eye on Ministers?

LORD WLNDLESHAM

My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding on this point. Each Departmental Minister has a responsibility for security within his own Department, and the Prime Minister himself has accepted an overall responsibility for the security of all Ministers in all Government Departments. It has not been left to civil servants.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to explain why the Government have accepted recommendations in the Report that the Permanent Under-Secretary in the Department should guide the Minister, should keep a watchful eye on the Minister? If not in the Report, why does not the Prime Minister, who is primarily responsible for security over all Departments, make it abundantly clear that Ministers have as much right to keep an eye on the civil servants as the civil servants have to keep an eye on the Minister?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, civil servants can give guidance to Ministers on all manner of matters, but Ministers remain responsible.

LORD HALE

My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the implication of the Report is that civil servants are to keep an eye on their Ministers? Will some direction be given as to how this can be done, and also advice to Ministers as to the changing questions and conditions of security? Am I safe in continuing to collect durable cigarette cards while the Minister is collecting ephemeral French butter? If a civil servant sees his Minister in the Place Pigalle or at Kempton Past in the absence of Her Majesty are those matters he must enter on the table? Is it not rather more important to know whether we have a security report on Mr. Brezhnev or Mr. Nixon? Is the Minister aware that when I was a boy—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Speech!

LORD HALE

I am extremely sorry if I am offending my noble friend in front, but I have listened to him often with great attention and at some length. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the act of copulation used to be a legitimate objective of male ambition when I was a boy? Why has the attitude now changed, and why is payment in the form of a mink coat acceptable and payment in money disreputable? Is not payment in floating currency rather more of a security risk to the recipient?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I am not aware of the circumstances when the noble Lord was a boy, and I do not think I ought to comment on them. Nor am I aware that the words "keep an eye on" appear in the Report of the Security Commission. I can only repeat that the highest priority is given throughout the Government to this question of security. That has been the position in the past; it is now, and it will continue to be in the future.