Mr. Colin Wallace (Hansard, 30 January 1990)

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton

In the course of recent work in dealing with parliamentary inquiries about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace, records have been found which have brought to light new information relating to matters which arose under earlier Administrations. Ministers have not, of course, been told what advice was given to former Labour Ministers, nor what views they expressed, with the exception of decisions by the then Attorney-General. I think it right to report this new information to the House. My noble Friends Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds South (Mr. Rees) have been consulted about the terms of this statement.

As the House knows, Mr. Wallace accepted on 15 March 1968 an appointment as an assistant information officer at the Army's Northern Ireland command headquarters (HQNI). He became an established information officer from 14 December 1971 and a senior information officer with effect from 27 September 1974, having first held this latter post on temporary promotion.

Mr. Wallace left HQNI for the Army's north-west district headquarters on 4 February 1975, having handed over his duties at HQNI on 31 January 1975. On 4 February 1975 Mr. Wallace delivered a restricted document at the home of a journalist, without any authority to do so. On 25 June 1975, Mr. Wallace was informed that he would be dismissed from the Civil Service for this action.

He appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board, which heard his case on 17 October 1975. The CSAB concluded that there was justification for the Department's decision that Mr. Wallace's services could not be retained: but that, having regard to his previous good record of service, if Mr. Wallace wished to offer his resignation, the Department should accept this as an alternative to dismissal. Mr. Wallace resigned with effect from 31 December 1975.

Mr. Wallace claimed in his appeal that his action in passing the document to the journalist was done with the intention of safeguarding the interests of the Department, and that it was in accordance with his terms of reference and the nature of his duties. He said that those duties included unattributable briefing of journalists, which sometimes included the revelation of privileged and sensitive information; and that he often had to exercise his judgment as to how much information he could reveal.

In its statement to the CSAB, the Ministry of Defence accepted that the duties of the post, as described in the job specification set out in the relevant trawl notice, came in practice to include some kinds of unattributable briefing. Mr. Wallace claimed that the job specification given in the 109W trawl notice dealt only with his straightforward public relations duties and that there was also a further job specification classified secret.

MOD did not contest the evidence on Mr. Wallace's behalf, but it did not acknowledge the existence of a supplementary job specification; nor did it make a copy available, as Mr. Wallace had requested. More recently, the existence of any supplementary job specification has been denied; and indeed no evidence has been found in the documentation still available that Mr. Wallace was given any formal supplementary directive or job specification.

However, the papers which have now come to light indicate that, when the case was made to establish Mr. Wallace's post, it was proposed that its duties should include responsibilities for providing unattributable covert briefings to the press; and it was stated that the incumbent would be required to make on-the-spot decisions on matters of national security during such interviews.

It seems that, in the event, the arguments for including these responsibilities in Mr. Wallace's job description were made orally rather than in writing to those who approved the establishment of the SIO post. But presumably Mr. Wallace was told what duties he was expected to carry out; and indeed it would appear that he had already been undertaking unattributable briefing activities of this kind, which may have included disinformation. It has not since the mid 1970s been the policy to disseminate disinformation in Northern Ireland in ways designed to denigrate individuals and/or organisations or for propaganda purposes. That remains the case.

The fact remains that the disciplinary offence with which Mr. Wallace was charged was committed after he had relinquished his post at HQNI; that he sought no authority for the disclosure from his successors or from his former superiors; that he did not even report what he had done; and that if he had sought permission for his proposed action he would certainly not have received it. Whilst he attempted to argue that he had not completed the handover of his duties at HQNI at the time that he made the disclosure, it seems clear that the CSAB did not accept that argument.

Nevertheless, in the light of this re-examination of the papers it would be right to consider again the handling of Mr. Wallace's appeal to the CSAB.

Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has invited Mr. David Calcutt QC, the Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, to make an investigation of the papers on these matters. Mr. Calcutt has agreed to do so. His terms of reference will be as follows: To consider, and to advise the Secretary of State for Defence, whether an injustice was done to Mr. Colin Wallace as a result of the manner in which his case was presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board when on 17 October 1975 it considered the decision of the Ministry of Defence to terminate his employment on disciplinary grounds; and, if so, to recommend whether compensation should be paid to him. Procedures will be discussed with Mr. Calcutt to ensure that he sees all relevant papers in circumstances that protect their confidentiality. Mr. Wallace will, of course, be able to make representations to him. My Department is writing to Mr. Wallace to advise him how he should do so. Mr. Calcutt's conclusions and recommendations will be made public; but classified matters and material will not, of course, be published.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that the re-examination of departmental papers has revealed no 110W evidence at all that the decision to terminate Mr. Wallace's employment was taken for reasons other than his serious lack of judgment in disclosing classified information to the media without having proper authority to do so.

I should also like to take this opportunity to correct a number of errors in previous statements which have now come to notice as a result of the re-examination of departmental papers.

Some of Mr. Wallace's allegations relate to a project with the title "Clockwork Orange". Two documents have been found dating from 1975 which contain brief references to a proposed project with that title: the second of these documents was clearly based on the first. It appears that this title was given to a project contemplating the dissemination of an account of the organisation and activities of PIRA. The documents show that Mr. Wallace was involved in the project. The documents also state that the project was not cleared.

No evidence has been found that, before work on the "Clockwork Orange" project was stopped, it had been extended to cover Protestant organisations and individuals or to include Northern Irish and British politicians, as Mr. Wallace has alleged. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 6 May 1987 at column 723–732, allegations that the Security Service was engaged, during the mid and late 1970s, in a plot to destabilise Lord Wilson's Government were thoroughly investigated by the then director general, who gave her his personal assurance that these stories were false.

I should also make it clear that the new information which has come to light does not substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' hostel in Belfast. If, nevertheless, Mr. Wallace has allegations that he wishes to press about criminal activity or other wrongdoing in Northern Ireland, then the best way for him to deal with this is to give any information in his possession to the RUC in the first instance: if this information is classified, he should first consult the Director of Army Security.

I am writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about some further points of detail which require correction or classification. I will place copies of my letters in the Library of the House.

I greatly regret that the fact that relevant records were not brought to Ministers' attention has in recent years caused inaccurate statements to be made to the House and in both ministerial and official correspondence. I have thought it right to correct these inaccuracies forthwith; and to settle once and for all the allegations of injustice to Mr. Wallace over his appeal to the CSAB by arranging the investigation by Mr. Calcutt.