◆ SpookStack

reg Gl me fen ail! sei on: 74 orf cosy ate ay CHAPTER xvii" seod OK said scab | "MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY a eae 235. There has been considerable misapprehension about the ’ Minisborial responsibility for the Security Service: and this misapprehension seems to me to be the cause of some of the troubles that have arisen. The relevant documents are so littie available that it may be helpful if I give considerable extracts. (i) The Prime Minister till 1952 236. Up till 1952 the Prime Minister was responsible for security. This followed from Sir Findiater Stewart’s Report in 1945. He took as his starting point its purpose. “Its purpose ”, he said, “ is Defence of the Realm and nothing cise. It follows that the Minister responsible for it as a service should be the Minister of Defence, or, if there is no Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister, as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It has been argued that this would place an undue burden upon the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister, and upon the staff of the Cabinet Secretariat. But from the very nature of the work, need for direction except on the very broadest lines can never arise above the level of Director-General. That appointment is one of great responsibility, calling for unusual experience and a rare combination of qualities; but having got the right man there is no alternative to giving him the widest discretion in the means he uses and the direction in which he applies them—always provided he does not step outside the law.” (ii) Sir Norman Brook's Report 237. In 1951, however, a proposaf was made to transfer the responsibility for the Security Service from the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary. This was done in a report made by Sir Norman Brook. In March, 1951, he recommended that the Security Service should in future be responsible to the Home Secretary. He said: “| believe that Sir Findlater Stewart exaggerated the ‘ defence” aspects of the Security Service. In practice the Security Service has little to do with those aspects of the ‘defence of the realm’ with which the Minister of Defence is concerned. And the arrangement by which the Security Service is directly responsible to the Prime Minister is now justified mainly by the fact that t enhances the status of the Service. In practice the functions of the Security Service are much more closely allied to those of the Home Office, which has the ultimate constitutional responsibility for * defending the realm’ against subversive activities and for preserving law and. order. I recommend that the Security Service should in future be to the Home Secretary. I believe that it would be helpful to the General of the Security Service to be able to turn to a senior Secretary for advice and assistance on the policy aspects of his work and on his relations with other Government Departments; and that he would receive from the permanent head of the Home Office. support and guidance 79