YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Margaret Thatcher | House of Commons Statement on the Soviet Spy, Professor Anthony Blunt | 21/11/79

Margaret Thatcher | House of Commons Statement on the Soviet Spy, Professor Anthony Blunt | 21/11/79 — Transcript

by Eugenus Rex · 2,958 words · 600 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:41the prime minister
0:48mr speaker in the early part of last
0:51week
0:52professor blunt was publicly identified
0:56i'm sorry to interrupt the prime
0:57minister but i had intended to make this
1:00statement to the house
1:02before the debate begins and i think it
1:04is important
1:06i apologize for interrupting the right
1:08honourable lady
1:09as the house knows it is the general
1:12rule
1:13that matters which would entail
1:14legislation
1:16must not be discussed on a motion for
1:18the adjournment
1:19however as i reminded the house on
1:22monday
1:23i am given discretion understanding
1:25order number 16
1:27to permit incidental reference to
1:29legislative action
1:31when enforcement of the prohibition
1:33would unduly restrict discussion
1:36i proposed today to exercise this
1:40discretion in respect to the general
1:42matter
1:43of the possible modification of the
1:46official secrets act
1:49in the prime minister's written reply to
1:51a question by the honorable member for
1:53heartlesspool
1:55reference was made to information
1:57conveyed to the palace
1:59i therefore think it was at this stage
2:02to draw the attention of the house
2:04to our well-established rule that any
2:07references to the royal family
2:10must be praised in courtesy language
2:14and must not reflect upon the conduct of
2:16the sovereign
2:17this doesn't order
2:21this does not however inhibit the full
2:24discussion
2:25of any advice which may or may not have
2:27been given to her majesty
2:28the prime minister
2:33mr speaker in the early part of last
2:36week
2:37professor blunt was publicly identified
2:40as having been a suspect soviet agent
2:44this disclosure understandably gave rise
2:47to grave concern
2:49last thursday in response to a priority
2:52written question
2:53from the honourable gentleman the member
2:55for hartlepool
2:57i thought it right to confirm that
2:59professor blunt
3:00had indeed been a soviet agent and to
3:03give the house
3:04the salient facts today mr speaker we
3:08have an opportunity to debate
3:10the whole matter it may be convenient
3:13therefore
3:14if i start by setting out the facts in
3:17greater detail
3:19professor blunt has admitted that he was
3:22recruited for russian intelligence
3:25when he was at cambridge before the war
3:28in 1940 he joined the security service
3:33to us today it seems extraordinary
3:36that a man who had made no secret of his
3:38marxist beliefs
3:40could have been accepted for secret work
3:43in any part of the public service let
3:46alone the security service
3:48but that is with the benefit of
3:50hindsight
3:52perhaps standards were relaxed because
3:54it was a time of considerable expansion
3:57and recruitment
3:58to deal with the wartime tasks of the
4:00service
4:01which were directed against hitler's
4:03germany
4:05professor blunt has said that during his
4:08period in the security service from
4:111940 to 1945
4:15he regularly passed to russian
4:17intelligence
4:18anything that came his way which would
4:21be of interest to them
4:24we do not know exactly what information
4:26he passed
4:28we do know however to what information
4:31he had
4:31access by virtue of his duties
4:35there is no doubt that british interests
4:38were seriously
4:39damaged by his activities
4:42but it is unlikely the british military
4:45operations
4:47or british lives were put at risk
4:50further the story that he jeopardized
4:53the lives of secret agents in the
4:55netherlands
4:56is without foundation he was never
4:59in a special operations executive
5:03after he left the security service in
5:061945
5:07and resumed his career as an art
5:09historian
5:10professor blunt ceased to have access to
5:13classified information
5:16he has said that from 1945 to 1951
5:20he passed no information to the russians
5:24in may 1951 an investigation which had
5:28continued for some years
5:30caught up with donald mclean it was
5:33philby who warned burgess to tell mclean
5:38that he was about to be interrogated and
5:41it was burgess
5:42who used blunt as a contact with a
5:45soviet controller
5:47to help with the arrangements for
5:48mclean's flight to russia
5:51a journey in which he was joined by
5:53burgess
5:55blunt admits that on one occasion
5:58between 1951
6:00and 1956 he assisted philby
6:03in contacting russian intelligence
6:07he has said that he has had no contact
6:09with russian intelligence
6:11since then the defection of burgess and
6:15maclean
6:16led to intense and prolonged
6:18investigations
6:20of the extent to which the security and
6:22other public services
6:24had been infiltrated by russian
6:26intelligence
6:28at an early stage in these
6:30investigations
6:31professor blunt came under inquiry
6:35this was as a result of information
6:38to the effect that burgess had been
6:40heard in 1937
6:43to say that he was working for a secret
6:45branch of the common term
6:47and that blunt was one of his sources
6:51blunt denied this nevertheless he
6:54remained under suspicion
6:56and became the subject of intensive
6:59investigation
7:01he was interviewed on 11 occasions
7:04over the following eight years
7:08he persisted in his denial and no
7:11evidence against him
7:13was obtained of course until his
7:16confession
7:17the authorities did not know the extent
7:19of his involvement with the russians
7:22or the period over which it lasted
7:26it was early in 1964
7:29that new information was received
7:32relating to an
7:33earlier period which directly implicated
7:36blunt i can't disclose the nature of
7:40that information
7:42but it was not usable as evidence on
7:44which to base a prosecution
7:48in this situation the security
7:50authorities were faced with a difficult
7:52choice
7:54they could have decided to wait in the
7:57hope that
7:58further information which could be used
8:00as a basis for prosecuting blunt
8:03would in due course be discovered
8:06but the security authorities had already
8:09pursued their inquiries
8:10for nearly 13 years without obtaining
8:14firm evidence against blunt
8:17there was no reason to expect or hope
8:20that a further weight
8:21would be likely to yield evidence of a
8:24kind which had eluded them so far
8:27alternatively they could have confronted
8:30professor blunt
8:31with the new information to see if it
8:34would break his denial
8:36but blunt had persisted in his denial at
8:4011 interviews the security authorities
8:43had no reason to suppose that he would
8:45do
8:46otherwise at a 12th
8:49if the security authorities had
8:51confronted him with the new information
8:54and he still persisted in his denial
8:58their investigation of him would have
9:00been no further forward
9:02and they might have prejudiced their own
9:05position
9:06by alerting him to information which he
9:09could then
9:10use to warn others they therefore
9:13decided
9:14to ask the attorney general through the
9:17acting director of public prosecutions
9:20to authorize them to offer blunt
9:23immunity from prosecution
9:26if he both confessed and agreed to
9:29cooperate
9:30in their further investigations
9:33i should like to pause for a moment on
9:35this question of granting immunity
9:38because i think there may remain some
9:40misunderstanding about it
9:43it is not unusual for the attorney
9:45general to be asked to authorize
9:47immunity from prosecution
9:49in return for cooperation in the pursuit
9:52of inquiries
9:54it happens from time to time in the
9:56course of criminal
9:57investigations under our constitutional
10:01arrangements
10:02the decision is taken by the attorney
10:05general
10:06in his capacity as a law officer
10:10he takes it
10:11[Music]
10:13he takes it on the basis of what in his
10:16view
10:17is best in the public interest he may
10:20consult his ministerial colleagues
10:23but he is not bound by their advice
10:26the decision is his alone
10:29in this case the then attorney general
10:32sir john hobson decided that it was in
10:36the public interest
10:37to offer an immunity from prosecution
10:41in fact to this day there is no
10:44evidence which could be used as a basis
10:47for prosecution
10:49against blunt so the offer of immunity
10:52was made
10:54professor blunt confessed and both at
10:56the time of his confession
10:58and subsequently he has cooperated in
11:01the inquiries of the security
11:03authorities
11:05he's provided information about russian
11:07intelligence activities
11:09and about his association with burgess
11:12mclean
11:13and philby after the attorney general's
11:17authority to
11:18offer immunity had been given
11:21the queen's private secretary was
11:24invited to a meeting
11:25with the permanent secretary of the home
11:28office and the director general of the
11:30security service
11:33the queen's private secretary was asked
11:35to the meeting
11:36because blunt had since 1945
11:40held an unpaid appointment in the royal
11:42household
11:43for which he'd been awarded a knighthood
11:45in the royal victorian order
11:47in 1956. at this meeting
11:51the queen's private secretary was told
11:54that professor blunt was suspected
11:56of having been an agent of russian
11:58intelligence
12:00but that provided he confessed and
12:02cooperated in the inquiries of the
12:04security authorities
12:06he would be granted immunity from
12:08prosecution
12:10the queen's private secretary asked what
12:13action the queen was advised to take
12:16if blunt confessed he was told
12:20that the queen was advised to take no
12:23action
12:25any action would of course have alerted
12:27blunt's
12:28former russian controllers and others
12:31who were already under suspicion
12:33to the fact that he had confessed and
12:36could well be providing
12:38information to our security authorities
12:42after blunt had been interviewed and had
12:44confessed
12:46as i have already described the palace
12:49duly followed the advice
12:51that had already been given
12:54i turn now mr speaker to the question of
12:57how
12:58ministers were informed
13:01relations between the security service
13:04and ministers
13:05are governed by the directive given to
13:08the director general of the security
13:10service
13:11by the then home secretary
13:14sir david maxwell fife in 1952
13:19it's reproduced in lord denning's report
13:22of september
13:231963 when discussing and endorsing the
13:28principles embodied in that directive
13:30lord denning said and i quote
13:34the head of the security service is
13:36responsible
13:37directly to the home secretary for the
13:40efficient and proper working of the
13:42service
13:43and not in the ordinary way to the prime
13:46minister
13:47the head of the security service may
13:50approach the prime minister himself
13:52on matters of supreme importance and
13:55delicacy
13:56but this is not to say that the prime
13:58minister has any direct responsibility
14:01for the security service if the director
14:04general of the security service
14:07is in any doubt as to any aspect of his
14:09duties
14:10as for instance when he gets information
14:13about a minister
14:14or a senior public servant indicating
14:17that he may be a security risk
14:19he should consult the home secretary
14:22the home secretary will then have to
14:25take responsibility
14:27for further action all of that has been
14:30quoted
14:30from lord denning mr speaker
14:35i can tell the house that in the case of
14:37blunt
14:38the director general of the security
14:41service
14:42followed scrupulously the procedures
14:45which had been laid down
14:49he had a meeting with the home secretary
14:51on the 2nd of march
14:531964. in the course of which
14:56he told the home secretary about the new
14:59information
15:00implicating blunt and he imp and he
15:04indicated
15:05that he would be discussing with the
15:06director of public prosecutions
15:09how to conduct the interview with blunt
15:12bearing in mind the security services
15:15need to obtain as much intelligence as
15:17possible
15:18about soviet penetration
15:21the home secretary drew his attention to
15:24the need to inform the queen's private
15:26secretary
15:28on the 17th of june 1964
15:31a further meeting was held between the
15:34home secretary
15:35his permanent secretary and the director
15:38general
15:39in which the director general reported
15:42that blunt had admitted spying for the
15:44russians throughout the war
15:46when he was serving in the security
15:48service
15:50the home secretary of the day now lord
15:54brooke
15:55who at first did not recall being told
15:58has been at first did not recall being
16:01told
16:02which is quite understandable
16:27the home secretary of the day now lord
16:30brooke
16:31who at first did not recall being told
16:34has been reminded of these meetings and
16:37has with
16:38characteristic integrity accepted that
16:41his memory must have been at fault
16:47there's no more honorable or devoted
17:03it is also clear that when the attorney
17:06general took his decision to authorize
17:09the offer of immunity from prosecution
17:12he knew that the home secretary had been
17:14made aware of the matter
17:17there was therefore no failure on the
17:19part of the security service
17:21to carry out their duty to inform the
17:24home secretary of these matters
17:27it was for the home secretary to decide
17:30whether the prime minister should be
17:31informed
17:33there is no record on this point
17:36and neither lord brook nor lord hume
17:39can recall discussing the matter
17:43in the light of these events i see no
17:46need to change the principles governing
17:49the relationships
17:51between the security service and
17:53ministers
17:54as set out in the denning report i think
17:57it right however
17:58that there should be a clear
18:00understanding among all those concerned
18:03about how we expect those principles to
18:05be applied
18:07i have accordingly agreed with my right
18:08honorable friends the home secretary and
18:10the attorney general that
18:12first the director general should report
18:15to the home secretary
18:17if he receives information about a
18:19present or former minister or senior
18:22public servant
18:23indicating that he may be or may have
18:26been a security
18:27risk unless circumstances are so
18:30exceptional
18:31that he judges it necessary to report
18:33direct to the prime minister
18:35second when the director general has
18:38reported to the home secretary
18:40it is the home secretary's
18:42responsibility to inform the prime
18:44minister
18:45or to make sure that the prime minister
18:47is informed
18:49thirdly if the attorney general is asked
18:52to authorize a grant of immunity from
18:55prosecution
18:56in a case involving national security
19:00he should satisfy himself that the home
19:02secretary is aware
19:04that the request has been made
19:07in cases of a special doubt or
19:09difficulty
19:10the attorney general or the home
19:12secretary or both
19:15may wish to see that the prime minister
19:17is also aware
19:18that the request has been made
19:21the attorney general and the home
19:23secretary should always be informed of
19:25the
19:25outcome of the offer of immunity
19:28it is the responsibility of the home
19:30secretary to ensure that the prime
19:33minister
19:34is informed so much mr speaker
19:38for the procedures between the security
19:40service
19:41and ministers i turn now
19:44to another matter i am advised
19:48that since 1967 successive
19:52prime ministers and home secretaries
19:55have all been informed about the
19:58position
19:58on blunt further
20:02as i indicated in my written reply the
20:05matter was
20:06also brought to the attention of
20:08successive attorney
20:09attorneys general in 1972
20:13in june 1974 and june 1979
20:18this was to inform them of the immunity
20:20that had been given
20:22any legal matters will be dealt with by
20:24my right honorable and learned friend
20:27the attorney general when he replies to
20:29the debate
20:31i have been asked mr speaker by a day's
20:34notice of my intention to reply to a
20:36written question
20:38was given to professor blunt's solicitor
20:41had there been any question of
20:43prosecuting blunt
20:44of course there would have been no
20:46advance notice
20:48and indeed no detailed reply for that
20:50matter either
20:52since there was no question of
20:54prosecution there was no question of
20:56enabling blunt to escape
20:58justice his name had already been
21:00published
21:02and it was reasonable therefore to tell
21:03his solicitor
21:05that i was going to give the facts in
21:07reply to a question
21:09in this house
21:12clearly the public services are an
21:14attractive target for soviet penetration
21:18and the security service especially so
21:21the service is very conscious of that
21:23danger indeed in the light of all that's
21:26happened it should be
21:28procedures for recruitment vetting and
21:31monitoring members of the public
21:33services
21:34who have access to classified
21:36information have been much
21:37extended and improved of course
21:41nothing can be absolutely proof against
21:43penetration
21:45in a democratic society it is always
21:48possible
21:49that a few will try to use freedom to
21:52destroy freedom
21:57we must do everything we can to prevent
22:00them
22:01may i sum up mr speaker first
22:05the procedures under which the security
22:08service
22:08is directly responsible to the home
22:11secretary
22:12was scrupulously followed
22:15after 1967 successive prime ministers
22:19and home secretaries were
22:21all informed about this case second
22:25the immunity was offered to blunt to get
22:27information on soviet penetration into
22:30the public services
22:32neither at the time nor since has there
22:35been
22:36any evidence on which he could be
22:38prosecuted
22:39i am advised that a confession obtained
22:41as a result of an inducement given
22:44would not be admissible as evidence in
22:47any prosecution
22:49third the events of this case began well
22:52over
22:5240 years ago many of the principal
22:56figures concerned
22:58some of whom i have mentioned have long
23:00since retired
23:02and some have died for obvious reasons
23:05it is therefore not
23:06possible and never will be to establish
23:09all the facts accurately these are some
23:13of the factors that will have to be
23:14taken into account
23:16in deciding whether there should be an
23:18inquiry
23:19a matter on which my honorable friends
23:21and honorable members
23:23who doubtless wish to express their
23:25views
23:26fourth we have now put beyond doubt
23:29the arrangements for reporting to and
23:32consulting the home secretary
23:34and the prime minister on security
23:36matters
23:37in practice
23:42may i go straight through it is a very
23:44carefully
23:47marshalled statement
23:50in practice my right honourable friend
23:52the home secretary and i
23:54both make a point of keeping in close
23:56touch with the director general of the
23:58security service
24:00fifth it is important not to be so
24:03obsessed
24:04with yesterday's danger that we failed
24:07to detect
24:07today's
24:12we know what happened to a very few
24:19we know what happened to a very few of
24:21that pre-war generation
24:23who had marxist leanings and who
24:26betrayed their country
24:28we find it contemptible and repugnant
24:33now is to guard against their
24:36counterparts of today
24:42finally mr speaker the security service
24:45by its very
24:46nature has to work in secrecy
24:51it cannot therefore defend itself in
24:53public
24:55that task falls to ministers
24:58the government's purpose is to do
25:00everything possible
25:02to improve the morale and effectiveness
25:04of the security service
25:06and to do nothing to undermine or weaken
25:09it
25:10in that aim i believe we shall have the
25:13support of the house
25:42you

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Margaret Thatcher | House of Commons Statement on the Soviet Spy, Professor Anthony Blunt | 21/11/79 by Eugenus Rex, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 2,958 words across 600 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.