◆ SpookStack

Yt eee toe. wear, “fe i ee RR gr ot REE E a ry FR . oa * ~ ‘ 1583 rome Men Offices T'NOVEMBER 1955” Officitt:—Disappearance 1586. or which might have created suspicion, After Burgess was recalled to London and was on -the way out, as has been made clear by preceeding speakers, he made a telephone call to the United States and talked to some unknown person. That is known because he left # friend of his to Here was a man in that very short Period since his return to this country with & view to having some disciplinary action taken against him making a Jong tele, phone call to the United States to some- dy or other and apparently nobody was concerned about what he was doing o¢ what his intentions were. 77. i . vices—and I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan)—that within a few days of the disappearance the British Sccurity Services bad all the facts of the tip-off ee Heer epee ee Tdon to take up the time of the House, but Jet me now come to the Situation that existed in the middle of April, 1951, when, according to the White Paper, the field of suspicion had been narrowed {0 two of three persons. The Government cannot even make up their minds whether it was two or three. Why is there this “or”? Either the field had been narrowed down to three pei ns, oF it had wot. Let us have a litle more Precision. Let us at last depart from the verbal gymnastics in which, whoever it is who draws up these documents, is 80 pro-* ficient. Had the field of suspicion been narrowed by mid-April to three persons? That is a simple question which ¥ ho; can be answered. Why play around with “two or three"? ie ec ewed Lee 1 said that but for the fact that Burgess and Maclean disappeared, the Security Services might stil) have not had any firm evidence against them. The reason for that is very simple and is tacitly admitted by the White Paper. It is that even by, April, 1951, and possibly since, there was “, ~~ no legally admissible evidence t a 'grosccution Nader the Otic Seco Roce That is from paragraph 10. hes Are we to allow the security of the country to hang in the balance until Segally admissible evidence to support a prosecution wader the Official Secrets Acts 4s available? It is quite obvious that the uD2 wih be 1 will say for the British Security Ser. - " stil] do not know whether one of the Foreign Office Security Service and the Foreign Secretary himself could have had powers and sufficient information oa which to act which would have enabled” the Foreign Secretary, without any Prose- | cution under the Official Secrets Acts, to take steps to ensure that the security of - the country was no: endangered in future, If we are to rely on prosecutions undes. * the Official Secrets Acts, then goodness knows in what difficulties and imbroglios ~ we shall find ourselves? yo.) sy geet ~ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil) :'Is the bon, and gallant Member suggesting that these two men should have been arrested, with- out a charge being levelled against them, under the Official Secrets Acts? <j: ty Licut.Colonel Lipton: No. Al iam | Suggesting is that these two men, for Teasons quite apart from the Official Secrets Acts, proved themselves unfitted . to be in the Foreign Office. Why, there- | fore, do we have to wait for the sccumu-. Jation of sufficient evidence under the Official Secrets Acts to get rid of some drunks, homosexuals, or people tempera mentally unfitted by reason of their characters to occupy any position in Government Department?” eae a That is the point ¥ am trying to } and surely it is not a point which is diffi- cult to comprehend even by the most’ ignorant members of the general popu- lation who must not be told too much by the Foreign Office about what is going on. It is said that the field had been narrowed down to two or three persons. Let us assume that what the White Pa means is that the suspicions had been’ natrowed down to three persons.- We. enna geese seen on three was Burgess. told than + ae “ The Joint Under-Secr: of State for- Foreign AGiairs (Mr, R. H. Torton}: The: bon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Licut.Colone! Lipton) should remember what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.’ He said that no suspicion rested upon. Burgess at the time of his disappearance. Clearly, the hon. and gallant Member did not listen to my right hon. Friend's speech. + Lievt.-Colone! Lipton: I did bear him‘ say that, but I hope that the Under-. Secretary will also recall that 1 referred fo that point earlier when I sugeested that’ had he not disappeared, Burgess would eu We have not yet been’