◆ SpookStack

TY ple thnonte macteaial op ‘ “Pye i ote cant te it hee aietoaee te eae Ca “4Sis “Former Ge Office (Mr, Morrison] -77- 77 - way. If we were to take it as conclusive that because a man was a Communist “of a Fascist in his university life, he must, therefore, be permanently held under sus- ficicn, as likely to betray secrets of State, think that we should be degenerating into McCarthyism, because that was exactly what McCarthyism was—a_prob- ing back and the assumption that if there had been such a relationship the man must be held to be guilty. - > --- - The dates of ali these incidents are revealed in the White Paper, and five Governments in al! were involved—the pre-war Conservative Government, the Coalition Government, two Labour Gov- “"9 NOVEMBER igs” “oni Niss , will think that anybody ta the hight’ reaches of the Foreign Office who wer responsible ia this matter would for ot moment have sought to protect any ¢ their colleagues from a charge c espionage. am quite sure that the would not, and that wi be an unju: suspicion, 0° 9 fr tgN oe ee, At a later date, as outlined Ja th White Paper, Maclean became the prin cipal suspect, and as a consequence som top-secret papers were withheld from him at was a decision which, no doubi occasioned some difficulty because i might arouse suspicion, On the otha ‘band, if the papers had continued to & supplied to him, it would have faid th: ernments and the present Government. authorities open to great criticism in du Therefore. we are all in it. Five Gov- course if trouble arose. In all thes ernments have been concerned with these matiers we have to remember ths two men, and J feel that we must all dilemma of the security authorities. Apan do our best to help the House, but we from the small security branch of th: must have due regard to security in the Foreign Office, the wider security authort rocess. I will tell the House what I ties, of course, were responsible to th: know about this matter during the short Prime Minister and not to the depart: period that J held office as Secretary of mental Ministers, which is quite right. State for Foreign Affair. -; -- -- | The evidence against these men at the So far as I can recall, I never met , material times right up to their departure Mr, Burgess. I met Mr. Maclean only ; was insuMficieat 4o warrant decisive action once, and that was at a social gathering. | on charges of espionage. If they had which bears out the point that his office "been arrested and ultimately found in- as Head of the American Department was nocent, that would have brought discredit not of the kind which would bring him into frequent contact with the Secretary of State. 1 will teli what T know. As I say, five Governments were involved, as well as a number of Ministers at the Foreign Office. Unfortunately, two of the Ministers who were at the Foreign Office during part of the time—Mr. Bevin and Mr. McNeil—have died. Nothing J shall say should be taken as criticism of them —ihey are not here to answer for them- selves—but I may have to refer to matters which occurred during heir period of ol we camrcnne men wae both on the Foreign Office and the Security Service, and charges of goodness kaows what would have been made. The evidence was insufficient. It could not justify arrest, and further evidence was needed in order to justify effective action. There was another reason why precipi- tate action could not very well be taken. That was that one of the most valuable things to do in counter-espionage is no only to find out the mao or the men whe are responsible for espionage but to find out their contacts and the channel: through which they act and from whom I will tell the story of my own part in! they receive their orders. Therefore, pre this matter. In the middle of April, 1951, -cipitate action might destroy the wide 1 was verbally informed, in general terms, “operation gf unravelling the network o of leakages that | had occurred. it that ¢spionage against our country... >. time, it was still not known who were . Cold mw ch te the informants, although suspicion rity. Daines + Gould Pek eee narrowed down to a quite limited number (35 explain why the ports were 00 of people. To the best of my recollection ( sterted in case Maclean went: and ithe names were not mentioned to me. secondly, could my right hon. Frient The Security Service arranged to! explain why Maclean's passpori was oc investigate, and it sought and obtained withdrawn? May I draw my right hor full Foreign Office co-operation. I hope’ Friend's attention to the fact that pas: that po one bere or outside the House] ports have been withheld from Britis nes 2