◆ SpookStack

"hay of gboth sides of the House who ha’ considerable experience of the: mgtters and we have excluded in t mfin those with direct Foreign Offi repponsibility during the period wht ‘this matter was under discussion.” He added they had also chosen present and past Home Secretaries with experience -of security problems. (Mr Herbert Morrison was a war-time Home Secre- tary and, among other things, he had to administer the notorious security regulation 18B. He was alsg Foreign Secretary when Maclean and Burgess escaped but that had evidently not been considered a reason for excluding him ‘from the conference). Mr Emrys Hughes saw the conference as another branch of the Secret Service. «How far were members going to learn anything about the investigation, asked Mr Hughes. The Prime Minister thought the selection of leaders trom ‘both sides of the House should inspire confidence (his own words) “in ir breast.” “If it does not,” he supp mented, “it is past me to provideja cure for you.” This implied recop- mendation that. Mr. Hughes should hawe faith in his Jeaders was not likely to cagry much weight with him. He has no]bump of veneration for his leaders, if fhey are his leaders, “Profound Disquiet” | Labour member, Mr Percy Daines, while conceding that some parts , of the investigation must be treated as confidential. suggested that there were other aspects on which published information would be welcome. He urged the Prime Minister to consider publishing what could be revealed with safety because there was still profound disquiet arising out of the Maclean- Burgess affair, a disquiet, he added, reflected in yesterday's debate jn the House ‘of Lords. : The Prime Minister repeated that the report will be made to him, which con-" formed to the undertaking he gave in the recent Commons debate. He con- sidered the merit of the conference was ' that men wo were not in office wen thh securityg arrangements were tight- e1 aftepghe escape of Maclean dnd Burgess ‘weuld now be able |to injestigate them. . > upset by the lack of enthusiasm with] ‘ a pre ENTHUSIASM IN COMMONS) ‘House Querulous: ‘May Hear’ Nothing » From our Political Correspondent The Privy Counsellors who are to compose the “conference” are all too experienced in politics to be seriously which the announcement -of their names was received in the House of Commons yesterday. The House is rather querulous about the inquiry since members may never be told|t io, anything about it: the Privy Coun- sellors are to report to the Prime Minister, and unless the law has to be changed as a result of the report, Parliament may hear nothing,more. This possibility has concentrated atiention on the composition of the pafty. If the security arrangements ard to be surveyed privately by six Privy Counsellors, are these the six whb would have been chosen by secret bailot {and preferably by proportional representation) ?. The Prime Minister said it had been decided to exclude trom the inquiry those who in the main had had direct Foreign Office responsi- billty during the period when “these matiers”—that is, the Burgess and Maclean affair—were .under discussion. Exceptions?’ .,But Mr Herbert Morrjson, who is one St the six, was Foreign Secretary when Burgess and Matlean disappeared, and Lord Salisbury, who is another, ‘acted am ~ There would not have been time, It is said, to have-instructed other Privy Counsellors in the finer points -of security, By this test, Mr George Strauss, for example,.qualifies through his experience of the Ministry of Supply. ; Mr Clement Davies does not quality, There are, however, a number of Priv: Counsellors who have had great exvege ence of the’ security system and wi are outside the run of party-politics— Lord Mountbatten of Burma, for instance. ' Another curious feature of the “con- ference”—apart from the collective noun chosen by the Prime Minister for this body—is its legal status. This may be of no more than academic interest. but it has caused some comment, The conference is not a Select Commiiteg of | the House with powers that a:. frell understood; but, like a Select Cbm- mittee, the Privy Counsellors will Have power “to call for persons and papérs.” So the Prime Minister told the Héuse yesterday. Presumably the persons most likely to be called will be civil Servants who are, in any case, answerable to the Govern-; ment of the day. But what would bey the legal position of anyone outside the Civil Service whom the Privy Coun- seliors might invite to attend upon them? Supposing such a witness were ‘obdurate, would the “conference” have any san¢tions to use against him, and it so what is the source of such authority? The members of the con- as Foreign Secretary for somé weeks ingference themselves are all bound by 1953. It has been noted, too, that there is no Liberal in the list, and go one who could be regarded as an Ind< pendent, if one excludes Sir Edward Bridges, who is not’ only a Privy Counsellor but Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. ‘The choice of members to serve on tits body was limited, according to the Gyverament, to Privy Counsellors who h had recent experience of the -seturity system of the Government. their oath as Privy Counsellors. The Privy Counsellors will not be concerned in any way with the Burgess and Maclean case, except in so far as the reason for their appointment has’ en the agitation caused by that cdse- ey are to examine the security pro redures “now applied,” and these, fhe overnment has said, are different frpm_ hose which were in operation wien urgess and Maclean disappeared. we,