◆ SpookStack

som Sci Office When, therefore the Press announced on 28th April, 1954, that Petrov possessed Information bearing on ibe case of Burgess and Maclean, we were unable to confirm or deny the truth of that information, The statement was made in the first place on 28th April that his information was hearsay in- formation, which, of course, it’ was, and was to be treated with reserve until @ fuller account had been received from Australia. : are 4 Petrov let it be known that if, as soon as he said anything to the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation it was to be given publicity in this country, he would then refuse to say any more at all. This is a most important point. Since it was essential that Petrov should give his evidence before the Royal Com- mission, it was decided not to make an) further announcements bearing on his testimony. The Report of the Royal Commission is dated 22nd Avgust, 1955. It was laid before the ‘Australian ; Parliament and first became public on ' 14th September, 1955. It then became ' sible to answer questions which had | hitherto remained unanswered and that was done by the Foreign Office spokes- man in reply to questions arising out of an article in the yeep on Sunday, 18th September and the White Paper pul lished nine days after the publication of the Royal Commission's Report - Having made those first points, I should now like to deal with the specific Questions which I mentioned earlier. Since the first three all related to the official careerg of Burgess and Maclean and their pro- gress in the Foreign Service, 1 will deal with them together, I should first em- phasise, however, that the circumstances in which the ¢wo men entered the Service were very different. Maclean came into the Diplomatic Service before the war by a very severe competitive examination, in which he showed conspicuous ability. ¥ have heard it said that the Civil Service Commission Board, who interview all candidates for the Service, ought to have known of Maclean's reputation for ex- treme Left-wing opinions while be was an undergraduate. In fact, his college authorities gave him an exceptionally good report ia which fo mention was made of his Left-wing views. But even supposing that «be Board had known that ses = 1493 7 NOVEMBER 19S$ — OfficialsDisappearance 1694 he had expressed Communist opinions as - an undergraduate——-. 4... ae Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West): On a point of order. In the nomencla- ture politics, “ Left-wing” is a con- hotation for this side of the House. Can I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to ask” the Foreign Secretary to use plain English and refer to Communist affilia- tions and not Left-wing affiliations? ~~ - Mr. Macmillan: 1 said extreme Left- wing. which I think was a fair point. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds, West “--- (Mr. C. Pannell) will wait for what 1 was about to say. tr 1 was about to ask the House, whether * supposing the Board had known that he had expressed even Communist sympathies as an undergraduate, in those days would the House have felt that such a man should automatically be excluded from the public service. [Hon, Members: “No.”] Would the House not have re-... garded those leanings as one of the aberrations of youth which he might be expected to live down. It is not fair fo bring in an atmosphere of today . when judging events of the 1930's It is important to realise that until and after Maclean’s appointment in Cairo in 1948 the quality of his work was - - fot only good, but outstanding among his contemporaries. , toad Ute Be During his first fourteen years in the Service his conduct gave rise to no ad- verse comment. His behaviour in Cairo, which culminated in @ sudden application for sick leave, at the time was interpreted as the result of a prolonged period of overwork and strain. He was regarded as a valuable member of the Service and there was every reason to suppose and to hope that he might make a full recovery from what appeared to be a sort of net- yous breakdown, LER COTES. ~The Foreign Office, like, J think, any other decent employer in the circum- Stances—it should be remembered that at the time there was no suspicion of any kind as to his loyally—tried to see that a man who had served for fourteen years got the right medical treatment and had a chance of recovery. It is quite to tay that our trusting him in that position was wrong. Perhaps it was. It is very easy 10 be wise after the event. But he was given a second chance, and at the end of five months’ medical treatment ew Ba oe