◆ SpookStack

r Fe salt Deel wayne ey th ump a epee: erry | er Ca 2 Brpetidees~ are T OE a ay Mi a A deat + ene aie to tt anette = ve eee Sele ae “G ‘ eee PRT cs - ee a + i est _ ~ 1519 Former L. Ofice [Mr. Darnes.] - - * of inquiry just after Maclean affair. [Hox. MimMpBers: “No."] What my right hon. Friend conveyed to ‘me was that -he was copnisant of the Maclean case only just before the setting up of the committee of inquiry. Clause 10 of the White Paper says: “In January, 1949, the security authoritics received gw report that ceriain Forcign Office information had feaked to the Soviet aviho- rities some years earlier.” Was my right hon. Friend, as Forcign Secretary, informed of that by his heads of departments, ot by the security 1 1 a q é. ‘ i t t ee a : . ay _ Mr. Morrison: 1 said I was informed IN pencral terms about certain problems which had arisen in the middle of April, 195i. To the best of my recollection that was the first time. I do not know. of course, what had been conveyed to earlier Foreign Secretaries. My hon. Friend has misunderstood what 1 said about the inquiry. It was not into the case of Burgess and Maclean specifically but into the question of whether the in- ternal arrangements affecting security were adequate. It was a useful inquiry, which I think did useful work. . I come to the record of these two mep and my feasons for thinking that there is ground for some unhappiness about the way in which they were treated. Maclean was guilty of disgraceful conduct jn Caire in 1950, Apparently he ont drunk’ pee wrens Pi od got out of hand, went to a party jn a fiat and proceeded to smash the place up. § do not think that overstrain and drunkenness are adequate explanations of, if they are, that they are adequate excuses for conduct of that sort on the per of an important officer of the oreign Office serving abroad... ~ Both men were Communists at Cam- bridge, and I have dealt with that point. The White Paper says both of them were cured when they Jeft the university. Whether that was so or not we cannot now be quite sure. The White Paper assumes that because Burgess joined the Anglo-German Club that is evidenced to the effect that he was cured. I am speak- ing from memory, but my recollection is that the Anglo-German Club about 1935-36 was a body under some suspicion as being under Nazi influence. -- Mr. Hugh Balton (Bishop Auckland): It stank with Nazis. .: .....; y 11 36 ee oe . : a ro | 4 + * ~ ° e 4a" ate Lael oa} ' at war yt ow ape wT a * tae ee nn 4 poe septa i iii te ad ul ny sys an r ae 1 ia ew aos. © dens » 78 as Pot ees = | -+- j mR Bear ae fof me ee am a * . . an ~" a ee a ‘ at r . Ten sie eh a r or _ | . bone { ek . * - . . cee ee ak eee aa Be oe eae nine etnies Ea nr ge 7 NOVEMBER 1955 he heard of the were eimge Jo = gee Officials—-Dsuppearance 1320. Mr. Morcison: My right hon. Friend,; being more projetarian in his language 1 ‘than T am, and having had a university 1 education, says it stank with Nazis, and } I am prepared to accept that. It is a0 1 defence of Burgess, in any event, that he { slid from the Communists to the Anglo- German Club, un vers gasy paid ee od Nt is recorded in the White Paper, and . has been slated by the Secretary of State, ° ihat carly in 1950 Burgess was reported for indiscreet talk about secret matters in the fater part of 1949. For that, after - a hearing by a disciplinary board, he was - “severely reprimanded, Later—but this — was not until 1950 or 1951, I am pot quite sure which—there were complaints as to his work and behaviour. at Washington. The State Department complained about is reckless motor driv- ing, and he was careless with confidential papers. That situation was dealt with land he was brought home and was due for either resignation or dismissal. In - thy judgment, in the case of Burgess also, in view of careless talk about secret . matters in 1949, a severe seprimand was not good enough. I think that is both of these cases they should, for those offences, have been dismissed... py:60 - #-:: t = (Uf I do not like to say this but I feel 1 must say it. It is not a peculiarity of the Foreign Office for it runs through the Civil Service, and the motives are, I think, in many ways meritorious. it is not a matter to be recklessly condemned. + 1 think that in the Civil Service as a whole—whether it is more so in the Foreign Office I do not know—there is a tendency, if an officer falls down or his job or is guilty of an offence which somewhat Serious, to say, “ He is an old colleague. Can we not do something about it to prevent him from being fired? pe Often what happens is that he may be transferred to other work. [Hon. Men- BERS: “Promoted.”) 1 would not say “promoted,” for that is perhaps going rather far, but one never knows. He — may be transferred to another State Department, and new State Departments * are particularly likely to get such men. Or he may be rebuked. 1 think that a little sacking now and again would not do aay harm It would do some harm bat ite fee! 1 Sie dele auy hari. - SOME to the men concerned but it might do a — lot of good to the rest of the Service. -: ’ tae ae eee ee De A ls ae ate ie me pe aren Srp TO ITT a SD e FESR