◆ SpookStack

earlier. It might, for instance, have led to an carlier prosecution of Ward and an earlier discovery of the truth about Mr. Profumo. This was dee to s failure in co-ordination for which no one individual wee<te. Blame (paragraph 85). But save for: this failure the police fa(ie® their responsibilities, The substance of Christine Keeler’s story wes pail the Security Service on 7th February, 1963, and thencefdiward the responsibility passed to the Security Service. The police did eventually take 2 statement from Christine Keeler on 4th and Sth April, 1963 (while they were inquiring into the case against Ward). This disclosed further details of moral misbehaviour by a Minister, but added nothing on the security issue. And it was not their duty to disclose a moral misbehaviour. The police are not to report upon private lives, even of Ministers. In any caso the substance of the story had been passed to the Security Service as long ago as 7ih February, 1963... ep ees ey a 283. I have already considered in detail their position. I need only repeat that they work under a strict directive to confine themselves to danger to the Realm as a whole. Once they came to the conclusion that there was no security interest in the matter, but only moral misbehaviour in a Minister, \ they were under no duty to report it to anyone. They did come to that conclusion. They came to it honestly and reasonably and I do not think Sesh Ur Ska Sake See ASS Poet ye oy db oe a 0 Was no one to Blame? . a If it be asked, why then, was no’one to blame except Mr. Profumo my answer is that none of the governmental services was to blame. As I have said before, this was an unprecedented situation for which the machinery of government did not cater (paragraph 270). We are, I suggest rightly, so anxious that neither the police’ nor the Security Service should pry into private lives, that there is no machinery for reporting the moral misbehaviour of Ministers. Certainly the police must not go out to seek information about it. Nor must the Security Service. But even if it comes incidentally to their knowledge, as it did here, there is no machinery laid down for reporting it. It is perhaps better thus, than that we should have a ‘ police state’. If that be so, then when a Minister is guilty of moral misbehaviour and it gives rise to scandalous rumour, it is for him and his colleagues to deal with the rumour, as best they can. It is their responsibility and no one else's. roe 4 hao, 4 96