Page 34
(THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT)
CONFIDENTIAL
C.P.(55) 161
19th October, 1955
CABINET
COPY NO. 31
DISAPPEARANCE OF TWO FOREIGN OFFICE
OFFICIALS, BURGESS AND MACLEAN
Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
I have been considering how to deal with this debate and have prepared the outline of an opening speech. There are certain questions which have been pushed hard especially by the Press, which will have to be answered. It will not be very easy to make a wholly confincing defence of what has happened in the past. At the same time I think it should be possible to show some of the inherent difficulties in a situation where the principles of security and freedom appear to be in conflict.
2. There has already been a demand for an enquiry of some kind. There is a question on the paper suggesting an enquiry by a select committee of the House of Commons. Others have proposed an enquiry of the Lynskey kind. Mr. Herbert Morrison wants an enquiry into the system which makes it impossible for Foreign Secretaries not to be overworked. This may be from friendly motives or may be to suggest a defence for Mr. Bevin and himself. I do not think the last of these enquiries would be valuable and the first two would be dangerous. Nothing could be worse than a lot of muckraking and innuendo. It would be like one of the immense divorce cases which there used to be when I was young, going on for days and days, every detail reported in the Press.
3. Nevertheless, I think we must make some suggestion. I therefore propose that we should have an enquiry, not into the past but into the future. I have discussed with the Lord Chancellor who would be willing to help both with the terms of reference and the composition. The former would be on the general line of "the problem of security, within the framework of the existing law in relation to employees of the state, whether administrative or industrial, having access to classified material". I would point out in debate that most of the criticisms would imply giving to the executive
(i) power to hold persons for interrogation, even
without legal grounds for arrest, and without fear of interference by the courts on Habeas Corpus or proceedings for false imprisonment;
(ii)
Page 34
power to stop a person (and his relatives) from
leaving the country who had access to secret information and who was under suspilage:34 of 321
-1-
#
१०