Mr. Colin Wallace: Inquiry (Hansard, 14 February 1990)

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, an inquiry is being undertaken by Mr. Calcutt to consider whether any injustice may have been done to Mr. Wallace in respect of his appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board. An internal Ministry of Defence inquiry is also being conducted into the reasons why relevant departmental papers came to light only last year. The Government see no need for a wider inquiry.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, given that Mr. Wallace has made further statements since the Government's last very unsatisfactory statement on this matter, and that some of his former colleagues in the army information service have offered to give testimony, can the Minister explain further why the Government do not establish a wider judicial inquiry to establish the truth once and for all in this matter and to finally kill off the disturbing rumours that former Ministers, some of whom are noble Lords in this House, were the victims of a smear campaign? In particular, will the Minister give an assurance that present and former officers and servants of the Crown will not be deterred from giving evidence either by departmental pressure or by threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the errors recently discovered in ministerial statements primarily concern Mr. Wallace's involvement in the use of disinformation against the Provisional IRA. No evidence was found of the use in headquarters Northern Ireland of disinformation designed to denigrate Members of Parliament or Ministers. If anyone has substantive evidence of illegal or improper activities by Crown servants in Northern Ireland they should submit it to the proper authorities.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the allegations about a campaign to discredit members of the Wilson Government will not go away, as I told the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, some time ago? In my own case, the documentary evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. If this Government will not set up an inquiry, the Labour Government who will most certainly come 1380 in in 1992 will do so. We would rather that this Government set up an inquiry now.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the Prime Minister reported in another place in 1987 the very full assurances that she had received from the director general of the security services that he could find no basis for the allegations that there had been a plot to destabilise the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as he now is. Nothing that has recently come to light in departmental papers concerning the Wallace case casts any doubt on that statement.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, is it really too late to kill off the terrible word "disinformation"? What is wrong with the good old English word "lies"?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, there are proper uses for disinformation.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister really saying to this noble House that there was no attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government? We want to know whether the Government intend to investigate what many of us believe was a real attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government. Will he answer quite clearly that there will be an investigation, or do the Government intend to dodge it?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I have already answered that question. If there is any further evidence, it should be submitted to the proper authorities.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, when the Prime Minister has spoken on this matter she has referred to incorrect statements made by herself and other Ministers which misled Parliament, but she has refused to tell us what those misleading statements were. Can the Minister help us where the Prime Minister has refused to do so? Cannot the noble Lord recognise that, now that the Defence Select Committee of another place has taken the decision to widen the inquiry from its narrow terms of reference, it will be doing the job that the Government ought to be doing?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the manner in which incorrect advice came to be tendered to Ministers is the subject of an internal inquiry. The outcome will be reported to your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, will the Minister clear up the point about the lack of evidence? The Government rest their case on the contention that there is no evidence. What appears to be evidence has already been printed, for instance, in the back of Mr. Paul Foot's book. Is it the Government's contention that that is forged —it may be inconclusive but it appears to be evidence —or is there some other explanation as to why it does not count as evidence?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I cannot comment on Paul Foot's book. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has not received any papers containing new material of significance.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government would consider evidence. May I ask specifically whether they have considered the evidence in my case which they already have? Have they asked Scotland Yard for the results of its inquiries into my case, if they can obtain them, which I cannot?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, then he should submit it to the proper authorities.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether the Government had considered the evidence in my case; and secondly, whether they had considered the results of Scotland Yard's inquiries in my case. Specifically, have the Government considered that evidence, or not?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, as I have replied on several occasions, the Government see no reason for a further wider inquiry. If the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, he should submit it to the proper authorities.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that my noble friend has raised this matter before on more than one occasion? He has repeated a very serious statement that he has made on previous occasions. Will the noble Lord be good enough to convey this to his right honourable friend? The noble Lord said during Question Time in answer to a question from me last week that he would ask his right honourable friend to consider an inquiry when, and if necessary after, the Calcutt inquiry has been completed. Did he do that, and what response did he receive from his right honourable freind? Furthermore, can he say a word about the disappearance of the 200-page document which Mr. Wallace sent to No. 10 Downing Street in 1984? Is there an inquiry into that disappearance? Is he aware that there is grave and increasing disquiet not only in Parliament but in the country generally about the way in which the Government are handling this case? The fact that they are not responding is causing people to think that the Government have something to hide.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, in the first place I am quite happy to give an assurance that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the protest of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. If the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was referring to Mr. Wallace's handwritten notes, all I can say is that there is nothing to indicate that they were part of his official duties or that he was authorised to compile them.
On the wider point raised by the noble Lord, there is an opinion different from his and it is not only held by members of the Government or by noble Lords on this side of the House. Another distinguished and powerful member of the Downing Street staff of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, Mr. Joe Haines, takes a different view.
1382 Writing in his column in the Daily Mirror on 9th February he has this to say: The hysteria about M15 and dirty tricks is getting out of hand. What we are seeing is rumour masquerading as fact, gossip pretending to be truth. This dirty tricks hare won't run. The sooner it is derailed the better".

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, would that not happen sooner if the Government agreed to an inquiry?

§ Lord Reay
No, my Lords. As I have said, the Government do not see any need for a wider inquiry.