◆ SpookStack

Leg fein, asking him questions, eliciting his answers, and considering his conduct. Then, having come to the conclusion that his assurances could and should be accepted, they felt they should go no further. Thi Chief Whip tested his assurances in @ commonsense way and also aftepted them, It is a matter for Parliament to consider whether theg, gan have gone further. I only record the fact that they did not Have a sight of the ‘Darling’ letter. They did not ask the newspaper to let them see it, nor did they ask Mr. Profumo to get it for them. (The Attorney-General told me he felt it would be improper, on behalf of 2 prospective plaintiff, to ask a prospective defendant what evidence he had.) I also record the fact that they had no knowledge of the statement made by Christine Keeler to the police on the 26th January, 1963, or by Stephen Ward to the police on the Sth Feb- ruary, 1963, which was passed to the Security Service on the 7th February, 1963. (Both the Chief Whip and the Attorney-General told me that if they had had those statements they might have taken 2 very different view. They might not have been content to take Mr. Profumo’s word, and they might have insisted on going further, as, " for instance, by confronting Mr. Profumo with them. Mr. Profumo told me that, if he had been faced with them, he too might have taken a different attitude.) Loo! - (7) They were all conscious of the very damaging situation which would arise if Mr. Profumo was not telling the truth and that is why they tested it, as far as they felt they possibly could, before accepting it. ' (B) The Leader of the House (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. William Deedes) had much fess to do with the matter. They had heard the rumours but had taken no part until this night. They had no special knowledge and they took part in the meeting for these reasons: Mr. Macleod because he was the Leader of the House and specially sy! \ [N e concerned if a personal statement was to be made: and Mr. Deedes because ~ he was on the front bench and had heard all that had been said in the House, and was able to give a first-hand account of it. They did not regard this meeting in the least as an investigation or inquiry, but only as a refutation of rumours by a Minister whose reputation had been unjustly assailed. (ix) The Home Secretary 182. The Home Secretary left the House immediately after the debate ended and went home. He was not called back to the meeting. The question has been asked, why was he not called back? The answer is that no one thought of it: He had never been ia the picture previously. It never occurred to the Chief Whip or the Attorney-General that he was concerned in any way. The meeting was concerned with a personal statement apling = Minister’s reputation. It was not regarded a8 a security matter, incidentally. Even if it had been regarded as a security matter, yf wonkd have thought that it was the responsibility of the Prime Minister a@ matter for the Home Secretary. This seems to have been a understanding at that time. The Directive of Sir David Maxwell of 24th September, 1952 (referred to in Part II of this Report, which makes the Director-General of the Security Service responsible ta the Home Secretary 59 |