◆ SpookStack

sg thecpeimte tea eer ae atin ot Dn ae perma RE ga REIT BORE ELPA . . Pod patina Be vane ee fete gt Pa Ea oe RE AR aS IAS AE LTTE TN ee Se agh i! a aA ee IE Chee a Fi canaries earned ag enamel ANA Fab BEE AE - niet 1601 Former Forcign Off@ = 1 NOVE to a colleague in the same building. They collapsed on a bed and fell asleep. hh was here in the evening that subsequently his wife found Macican and, with help from a sister, half-dracced a completely sodden husband downstairs to a car and tock him home. . toes _ Is the right hon. Gentleman tellirig me that everybody in the Embassy did not knov: about that incident? [Is he sugeest- ing that this White Paper reveals one-half of that shocking story? 1 was not the only incident, but what happened to him? i§ POOr, Overstrained, overworked gentleman came back to this country, was given six months’ leave of absence, and then was given the job in the Foreign eat ba Gl apne Te de ee ee os ge wane arly ig Oe aE a z a aS patedlhy a tty \ a cen wee ame ‘ “4nt aT = ia ho. hoes . a a uff » tS, f The Prime -Minister:’ Who was a) blame? ~” Sta pee bag toe te Mi, Robens ; | am noi aliocating blame to individuals, I am saying that within the Foreign Office there is a close circle of covering up. f repeat to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Secretary that it does not matter how many times either stands af that Box and says that it is not 60. I do not believe that the public will accept that this is not the fact. .. : Disgraceful behaviour of the kind in hich Maclean ind which was well known within the Foreiza’ years ago and he should have been sacked. So J say that there is a need for two inquiries——y oo. glue tnt Mr. C. Pannell: Before ‘my right hon. Friend Jeaves that point, will he ask somebody representing the Forcign Office whether the facre af tenident oeaooe ehether the facts of that incident were ™ a ro Meee ae > ~ een ped “ ever brought to the notice of the then Sec-” «‘ I repeat that the Prime Mivister should’ °°" 7" f retary of State for Foreign Affairs? If he Was not acquainted with those facts it is wrong to ask the Minister io “carry the can” in the $ast resort. Ministerial re- sponsibility depends upon knowledge Contend that only a being brought to the po iical head, and I say that it was not brow been making, that the doctrine ministerial yesponsibility is accepted, and i accept it, it is the responsibility of the these .men were protect Deparimental advisers to keep — the Bht.tro yt ¥—- the Service as completely unreliable and unfitted to represent their country at home * Mr. Robens: That is the point I have- 01 _~ e@ that # the POI ine of: or abroad. oe ee ET MBER ‘1985 = Officials fappearance elt? T say, therefore, that there should be"" * two inquiries. There should be one into ~~ recruitment for the Foreign Office, There .- Should be an investigation of what has . happened since the chanpes decided upon in 1943, whether they have broadened thé -+:--- basis of recruitment, whether a close circle FY exists or not and in what way covering ~~" 7 up takes place. That kind of inquiry a 4 could be made easily by @ number of “*° methods which the Prime Minister can _ envisage for himself—either by Privy. 4 Councillors, by a Select Commitiee or by ; some other method. If we want to wipe ' out of the public mind the idea that there ; any covering up inside the Foreign tenie t pen so Office then we must have an inquiry ‘in Which these facts can be brought out.” a - The second inquiry should bein selac ‘ tion to security and this could not be iE carried out by a Select Commitice of this = = House. We suggest that it should be done : by way of a judicial inquiry, the judges _--— - reporting to the political head of security; .——- -- who is the Prime Minister. If the 13 eats es hon. Gentleman refuses such an inquiry,” ~ the report of which obviously would ce Private, other than to himself and his ims <2. - mediate advisers, then we shall fall into, =: the same error as the United States Ad- °F ministration fel into, and we shall make Bo! t things unhappy for many fpeonle for ||| Of Burgess, what is it that the secarity. . .+ I people were able to say? Nothing at all; ~ -- :- ndced, but for the fact that he left this “~~ country. Burgess might easily be working - |. E. at the B.B.C. today. He would have been 7° *"~ fired from the Foreign Office because he - was due to be fired. Here again, we had ...-- . the same type of individual, All these’ things were well known.) j-0.4 tage enka be prepared to have some sort of inquiry. not necessarily on the lines we indicate: .2<2" _ j although what we have advocated seemg: © "=~" to us to be the best way to do. it We} -~*- 2. t searching inquiry can 5 reveal why both men were not dismissed “-22-~ ‘7 i . » . toy ia @ittetes.) aaah acd ‘Another interesting thing is that while’ and excuses” ° Minister fully informed. 1 was asking whether these facts were known to the individuals concerned. because IT am suggesting that they were nob-~ #0 4: .- Up 2 | hi can indulged, noi only ia Cairo but in Washington and in this city, Office, ought to have been dealt with Pr warm may ee yee wren romp were made for their drunkeaness and pers) 2: 4g. versions, ordinary working men who fae! - Communist affiliations were kicked out of 9 .-— their jobs almost at a moment's notice,' |. Does this mean that there is one law’: : ; 3 "> fete) ti edgy * Setaests SEE i i — _ Conese eee og ere a ; A: t Lif Be IR am . eet ee : ; cr . 3 ae aon pe te