◆ SpookStack

mer Sani Office * 7 NOVEM ‘EL Gomme-Duncan] | h we the clear statement tha is a comprehensive system of re on forms for the purpose in the For Office in much the same way as in the Lieut.Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brix- ton): Was the hon. and gallant Member told how or on what date the forms to which he has referred were introduced? Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No, 1 was not ; I did not ask for that. I asked what the sysicm was at the moment. I agree with the bon. and gallant Member that the date is of some importance in this From that reply given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary arise ques- * tions of great importance, questions that must be answered by the Government if they will do #0, Who reported on Burgess and Maclean, and what was written about them? There are these different forms, particularly the one which is called F.2 and which deals with Branch A and the first four grades of Branch B in the Foreign Service. That one has a section which calls for reliability reports, of con- tact with forcigners reports and social behaviour reporis, and at the end a large space is left for a detailed pen picture— at is the actual wording—of the officer reported upon. sp bende nes ere The feporting on Officers of any branch of Service, including the Forcign Office, is a most distasteful job for the senior officer who has to do it. That makes it all the more important that there must be a man of moral courage to say what is correct. In the Fighting Services, the officer: reported upon has to sign the re- port himself, but as far as 1 can make ‘out from the Foreign Office forms, the officer reported upon does not have to sign. That makes it much easier for the “So we ha wep ogen Sage em RTE ation a9 boda de Spot ge a og oe oN {" qt f making the report to be aboslutely : a frank than if he had to show it to the : Ae tae - man, human nature being what it is. fsa cae o: t joes away for any excuse for moral cowardice, - 3.37 ~ Was there & report oa Burgess and Maclean? Was their behaviour, or mis- behaviour, recorded, and what was said? Was this very important item of informa- tion included: that in 1940, I under- stand, Maclean was associating with the fepresentative in London of the Tass Agency? Everybody knows that the Tass nce * “employed in connection with work, °~“ Officials appearance" 4! in ‘any Country ‘where there & BEY” | Agethy, i deen an inguiry, has 1 proved toi the centrepiece of an espionage fyae, -Was that known at the time? It seed to me that a very great deal depex, upon the answer 10 that question.._- , ‘The third issue arises from a statem made by the Leader of the Oppositi when he was Prime Minister in Mi 1948. He was explaining the proposy of the then Labour Government f, screening State employees. Very brief Not giving the whole details, the re chon. Gentleman saids_ _ iy... - - “T have said that there are certain sates that the State is not justified :j employing in connection with anyor Whose reliability is in doubl 4 az.E Experience, both in this country and els! where, has shown that membership of, ax¢ other forms of continuing association with, @5 Communist Party may involve the acceptem - by the individual of a loyalty, which In certs circumstances can be inimical to the State” 1 The right hon. Gentleman went 1 say: * The Government have... reached the om clusion that the only prudent course to ad is fo ensure that no one who is known to a member of the Communist Party, or to $ associated with it in such 2 way as to rex legitimate doubts about his or ber reliability,t employed in connection with work, the natu of which is vital 10 the security of the State."— [Orrictan Repoat, 15th March, 1948; Vol 4@ © 4703-4) - Oa That is a very prudent, very comprehes sive and very desirable state of affain which the right hon. Gentleman deserve full credit for bringing into effect. But why was the principle Iaid down by the Prime Minister of that time and aa carried out, apparently, in the case d Burgess and Maclean? Both were know to have past associations with Com munists, and while in Paris in 19% Maclean made no secret of his sympathy with the Spanish Communist Party. Is the same year, as has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), Burgess undes- went the mysterious conversion into pro- Nazism. But both were undoubtedly ceed: = security of the nature of which fs vital to the State” yt oe fee ys ese Both had access to, secret papers, is known now that Maclean was and why were they exempted from screening which was supposed to have been applied to all servants of che State, ' Qu