◆ SpookStack

ete date te et ie mT OE pe cee t ' ! a \ ne ver ome ny ‘ Ne 1543 Former (Mr. Crossman} 0) 22 tet our codes, because of documents being Jeft about, or because of careless talk; and it should be that way. for we get Binestenths of ns a about the other side by reading their newspapers, by doing poe which can be done in ublic, or by using techniques for getting inside which are not known to them. This means that the Foreign Office, tike every other part of the Civil Service, must have strict rules about carelessness and cannol go on saying, “We are too talented and sensitive to work under security rules.” As a matter of fact, it is & great relief to have security rules. Those of us who had the secret for ten weeks before D-day thanked God for security. There it was, a corset to keep us safe. If we put the documents back in the safe, we were safe, If we ielephoned on the correct Tine, we could not be court-martialled. It is untrue fo say that this type of security, if sensibly enforced, is demoral- ising. If there is not too much of it, and every regulation makes sense, the Foreiga Office should not think it infra dig. to like an ordinary officer in the Army or an aircraft worker, who is subject to this sort of thing. I hope that what the Foreign Secretary means is that the Forcign Office did learn this lesson in 1951 and has already accepted the need fo observe security regulations, ~ © As for security against the spy. I think that this issue is relatively unimportant. The number of people to whom this sort of thing will be applied in our country is small. Our great danger is that of gettin; $0 panicky about the relatively smal problem of searching out spies in the ‘oreign Office that we shall neglect the Dig problem of setting up a security organisation against leaks... ga ce". wu: The final point is this. The real prob- Jem of the Foreign Office is not security at all, but whether the reforms which were introduced ten years ago were soundly based and have produced the right results. 1 may be told that they were introduced ten years ago and that it is much too early for another inquiry. 1 should have thought that the period of ten years was just about right and that it was, therefore. just about time to Jook at the effect. As the Foreign Secretary reminded us, this was, after all. a Coalition reform. Again, we are Jooking at the matter as a Council of State and not as parties. What diJ the nce . antgn Office = “7 NOVEMBER 1955 Officials *thisap pear ‘reform do? 11 cut the Foreign Office, from the rest of the Civil ‘Service made it autonomous, and, at the say time, sadly undermined the speciali, services inside the Forciga -¢ I was very struck by three excell? ‘articles in the Manchester Guardian & week—three thoughtful articles—on 6 subject. My tentative conclusion is tt we got the worst of both worlds. ¥ certainly Jost the diminution of t Specialised services; and we probat Bainod nothing, instead. The autonor &ranted to il only increased the arrogas of the Foreign Office and the jealousy, the rest of the Civil Service. That the result of giving the Foreign Office th Privileged position’ = -77 I should like to see the Foreign Offi rt of the Civil Service along with ever ly else, but encouragement to fost: the specialist services, which it requin. just as every other Department requin them. I do not see that the case f cutting it off has been proved in any wa nor, if I may say so to some of my ha Friends below the Gangway, do I belies that the so-called democratisation of f Foreign Office has had any of the effed” which Ernest Bevin hoped for.~.:' - +” Let us be candid. If we take 100 boy from lesser grammar schools, we do mo take 100 people who are less snobbid than those from larger grammar schook What we have done generally—I am gla we have done it—is to take the best fron the secondary and smafler gramma schools in rather larger quantities and « reduce the high proportion of the ok public school. But if anybody thinks the that * Gemocratisation, that is not th ease. It very often ha, $ that & person who comes up from below and enters th Foreign Office. witb its august position in order to obtain the protective colour ing required, becomes more Forcigt Office than the rest. Indeed, in my litth experience of going’ round ‘émbassies, { have found that, on the whole, the mat from the smaller grammar school is eve: more Foreign Office than those who cam from the kind of schoo) from which come. Therefore, do not Set us talk to ouch about the effect of democratisatic. oo the Foreign Office. ¥ do not thin! there has been any democratisatior and if there had been, am not sure tha it would have the effect we desired, - wera