§ 3.47 p.m.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
"The House will recall that last Thursday, 12th May, when I was questioned about the position of Sir 479 Peter Ramsbotham, HM Ambassador in Washington, I said that Sir Peter had served with distinction and that I had no criticism to make of him. I added that when I became Foreign Secretary he was on the point of taking up his post and that as incoming Foreign Secretary I confirmed him in it.
"Since then, as a result of reports in the newspapers, it has been charged that a smear campaign has been launched against Sir Peter Ramsbotham, which—and I quote—
… bears all the marks of being governmentally inspired".I therefore wish to make clear that no such campaign has been launched. The honourable Member for Blackpool South first raised this in a public letter to me late on Thursday evening, and I replied immediately to confirm that what I had said in the House at Question Time represented my view in all respects."I have myself since then been able to examine the account written by the Press Association of the official briefing on Thursday morning, and this contains no offensive personal reference to Sir Peter Ramsbotham.
"The Press Secretary at No. 10 issued a personal statement on-the-record' on Friday morning to this effect.
"During the past weekend further Press reports appeared alleging that the personal remarks about Sir Peter Ramsbotham were made subsequent to the official briefing, in private conversation. By their very nature, it is impossible to prove or disprove these charges. In these circumstances, I think it right, therefore, to say to the House that I do not hold these views about Sir Peter Ramsbotham; and I should perhaps add that he himself is in no doubt about this, since I telephoned him immediatly last Thursday, after the stories had appeared, in order to assure him of my confidence and to confirm that the reports I have referred to do not reflect the views of Her Majesty's Government."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 3.49 p.m.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that the House will wish to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. I believe that I should say at the outset that the disquiet which this incident has aroused has nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Jay as Ambassador in Washington. Those who know him and know of him will, am sure, believe that he will make a very successful Ambassador and envoy of this country.
I welcome and, of course, accept what the Prime Minister has said in the Statement, and I am glad that he was able to make it. However, I think I must say that the whole of this episode has left a very nasty taste in my mouth, and it raises questions about the identical headlines in the two London evening newspapers. I have known Sir Peter Ramsbotham for over 40 years, and I regret and deplore the fact that so distinguished a servant of this country should be subjected to the kind of comments that have been made about him. I hope that he will note that there will be nobody on any side of your Lordships' House who would subscribe to any of those sentiments.
§ 3.51 p.m.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, from these Benches we, too, would endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, and we would certainly acquit the Prime Minister of any responsibility for any type of smear campaign against the present Ambassador. However, it seems equally clear that such a campaign was organised from somewhere, and to that extent we deplore it very much indeed. I accept what is in the Statement. I think that it is very difficult to prove or disprove allegations of this kind. All we can say is that they seem to arise from circumstantial evidence, but I should not think that we would be pursuing a very profitable course if we were to take this matter further. I think we ought to let it settle here.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am for the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers. I, too, knew the Ambassador when he held his Cyprus 481 post. I also stayed with him when I visited the United States some time ago, and I have every confidence in him. I am most grateful for what has been said. Let us leave it at that.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, before we leave the matter absolutely at that, I should like to say that no one had ever thought that the Prime Minister had been a party to any of the words that were used. But in the Statement one sees no evidence that he has had any inquiry made into the matter—not even a personal inquiry—to see whether or not, even inadvertently, something damaging was said against a senior civil servant who cannot answer for himself. Do I understand that he did not make any kind of inquiry, so that a withdrawal could be made—even of something which may have been said inadvertently—not only on behalf of himself and members of the Government, but on behalf of the governmental system, which is, after all, part of the image that is given abroad today?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I thought the Statement of the Prime Minister confirmed exactly what had been said.
§ Lord SHERFIELDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while most of us—though I can speak only for myself—roundly condemn the slur, whatever its origin, on Sir Peter Ramsbotham, many of us also regret the handicap which this furore may have imposed on Mr. Peter Jay on taking up his appointment? Therefore, does the noble Lord not think that this affair, after there is drawn from it whatever conclusions may be appropriate, should now he left to the healing process of time?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, a former Ambassador, for the views he has expressed.