◆ SpookStack

+5} ‘of sboth sides of the House who ha hag considerable experience of the ‘m@iters and we have excluded in ti min those ‘with direct Foreign ond ponsibility during the period wh ‘this matter was under discussion.” He added they had also chosen present and ‘past Home Secretaries with experience | of. security problems. (Mr Herbert Morrison was a war-time Home Secre- tary and, among other things, he had to administer the notorious security regulation 18B. He was alsq Foreign Secretary when Maclean and Burgess escaped but that had evidently not been considered a reason for excluding him ‘from the conference). Mr Emrys Hughes saw the conference as another branch of the Secret Service. tHow far were members going to learn yanything about the investigation, asked Mr Hughes. The Prime Minister thought the selection of leaders from ‘both sides of the House should inspire ‘confidence (his own words) “in r breast." “If it does not,” he supp mented, “it is past me to providela cure for you.” This implied recom- mendation that Mr Hughes should hare faith in his leaders was not likely to camry much weight with him. He has noJbump of veneration for his leaders, if they are his leaders, “Profound Disquiet” | | he QGabour member, Mr Percy Daines, while conceding that some parts , of the investigation must be treated as confidential, suggested that there were other aspects on which published information would be welcome. He urged the Prime Minister to consider publishing what could be revealed with safety because there was still profound disquiet arising out of the Maclean- t ' Burgess affair, a disquiet, he added,” $$ RR A RR reflected in yesterday’s debate jn the’ House ‘of Lords. The Prime Minister repeated that the’ report will be made to him, which con=" formed to the undertaking he gave in the recent Commons debate. He con- sidered the het men wo were not in office wen secur arrangements were tight- afteg@he escape of Maclean d B rgess “Weuld now be able [to ern. . in vestigate erit of the conference was. y we OO, . : _ AQKT TAIT COAVINIANC., | SM LN CUMMUND | ouse Querulous : /May Hear Nothing - From our Political Correspondent The Privy Counsellors who are to compose the “conference” are all too experienced in politics to be seriously upset by the lack of enthusiasm with, which the announcement of their names was received in the House of Commons yesterday. The House is rather querulous about the inquiry since members may never be_ told anything about it: the Privy Coun- sellors are to report to the Prime Minister, and unless the law has to be changed as a result of the report, Parliament may hear nothing, more. This possibility has concentrated atiention on the composition of the patty. If the security arrangements arg to be surveyed privately by six Privy Counsellors, are these the six whb would have been chosen by secret ballot (and preferably by proportional representation) ? The Prime Minister said it had been decided to exclude from the inquiry those who in the main had had direct Foreign Office responsi- bility during the period when * these Matters"—that is, the Burgess and Maciean affair—were .under discussion. Exceptions?) ot _But Mr Herbert Morrison, who fs one ot the six, was Foreign Secretary when Burgess and Mat¢lean disappeared, and Lord Salisbury, who is another, ‘acted as Foreign Secretary for somé weeks in 1953. It has been noted, too, that there is no Liberal in the list, and go one who could be regarded as an Inde pendent, if one excludes Sir Edward Bridges, who is not’ only a Privy Counsellor but Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. The choice of members to serve on this body was limited, according to the SS Vernment, io Privy Counsellors whoa h had recent experience of the .seturity system of the Government. bee | > 4 Tae gerne es oT aa fis —— a ny, hoa . Ae cote pit et ie eon fi the agitation caused by that cdse.. There would not have been time, {t ts said, to have-instructed other Privy Counsellors in the finer points -of security, By this test, Mr George Strauss, for example,.qualifles *through— his experience of the Ministry of Supply, . Mr Clement Davies does not quality. There are, however, a number of Privy Counsellors who have had great expe ence of the’ security system and w are outside the run of party: polities— Lord Mountbatten of Burma. for instance. ' ; ‘ Another curious feature of the “con- ference ""—apart from the collective noun chosen by the Prime Minister ‘for this body—is its legal status. This may be of no more than academic interest, but it has caused some comment. The conference is not a Select Commilteg of | the House with powers that a:- fell understood; but, like a Select m- mittee, the Privy Counsellors will ve. power “ta call for persons and papers.” So the Prime Minister told the Hduse yesterday. Presumably the persons most likely to be called will be civil Servants who are, in any case, answerable to the Govern- | ment of the day. But what would be the legal position of anyone outside the | Civil Service whom the Privy Coun- | seliors might invite to attend upon them? Supposing such a witness were obdurate, would the “conference ” have any santtions to use against him, and if so what is the source of such authority ? The members of the con- ference themselves are all bound by’ their cath as Privy Counsellors.. The Privy Counsellors will not be concerned in any way with the Burgess and Maclean case, except in so far as the reason for their appointment has’ ey are to examine the security pro dures “ now applied, ” and these, he overnment has said, are different frpm [hose which were in operation — wien urgess and Maclean disappeared. - 3 Fe tng hin Be, FaDE Eins Sac 7