Conditions of Freedom Uneasy Alliance G. F . Checking the Liberals

Fifty Thousand Abortions The 'Wealth' Tax

Gerald Byrne F. A. E. Pirani R. A. Walker Aleck Bourne, FRCS Elliott and

Prof. J. G. Bullocke, A. I. Aldous

Estate Agents Bill P. M. Leigh CONDITIONS OF FREEDOM

SIR,—As a crime reporter accredited to Scotland Yard for more than thirty years 1 wish to stress an aspect of the case of Mr. Brendan Mulholland and Mr. Reginald Foster that has, as yet, had little or no pub- licity.

These men were prepared to go to prison to pro- tect their source of information and it is asked why should they be treated differently from anyone else. May I say that anyone protecting a source—news- paperman or no—should be protected if the infor- mation he has to give is in the interests of the coun- try or of justice.

Sooh after the war a high Scotland Yard officer tapped me on the shoulder in a West End club on a Saturda), night. He told me that a secret Yard inquiry into contracts, ordered by the Lord Chancellor fol- lowing a complaint from an industrialist, had ended,

and that the decision taken was to protect the Gov- ernment of the day and all those concerned in the racket, by quietly dropping the whole thing. That

case was the Sidney Stanley case involving the Board of Trade and very many others. 'It's politics,' my source said, 'and we at the Yard are having to do what we are told. It is quite scandalous but I can say nothing publicly.' He added that he thought the greatest publicity should be given to the covering-up of the scandal,

asked for no reward, and knew that I would be put

against a, wall and shot rather than disclose his name. I broke the story in the now-suppressed Empire News and followed it up the next day with a front- page splash in the then Daily Graphic, now the Daily Sketch. Five days later Mr. Attlee conceded

the Lynskey Tribunal which got rid of a junior min- ister at the Board of Trade and only scratched the surface of the contracts scandal.

Justice was done in the end, however, when over a period most of those concerned in high places were quietly pushed out, Justice was done because a high official talked to a newspaperman he could trust, under the seal of secrecy. All that mattered was that the story was true and, had it not been, there was ample protection for all concerned in the libel laws. (Just as there is in the case of Mr. Galbraith, men- tioned by Mr. Lipton, where the innuendo is quite clear.) But there would have been no inquiry if the Yard man hadn't talked, and again and again, scandal in high places is covered up because no one will talk and the journalist cannot get confirmation sufficient to break it—confirmation that is in the hands of the Government of the day, or of a Ministry or of the Yard.

Way back in the early 1930s, the then Secretary of Scotland Yard, a civil servant, at 2 a.m. removed the charge sheet containing his friend's name, a Privy Council lawyer, from Tottenham Court Road police station and took it to Scotland Yard so that the charge sheet could not be produced to the Marl- borough Street magistrate later that morning. And the prosecutor in the case was a policeman. A 'source'

leaked the information which merited page one lead in the Daily Herald. There were questions in the

House of Commons and finally justice was done 'by Summons' after a statement from the Attorney- General in the House, which apologised for the action of the Secretary of the Yard.

There was the case of the war-time Banqueting Order limiting the number of guests at dinner to 100,

carried on long after the war and dropped after a splash story showing the then Prime Minister and half his Cabinet as acceptors of invitations to a Divi- sional Party Dinner for 600, in flagrant breach of the Order. An official was later fined, but the 'source' was preserved, and the Order was lifted.

There was the case where Ministry of Food wheat that cost lives to get here from America-10,000 tons of it in all—was missing from the Pool of London and two quite innocent dupes of the receivers—who

wanted it to feed their cattle—were on the most serious charges at the Old Bailey with the receivers protected from having their names revealed. A lawyer was the 'source' in that case but extensive

publicity through a friendly MP and parliamentary questions revealed that the receivers were headed by the Solicitor-General of the day and included some MPs of all parties and other influential men. They were all proceeded against 'by Summons,' found guilty and fined. The stooges at the Old Bailey were then bound over.

There was yet another 'source' (of mine, 1 hasten to add) in the now-famous Marrinan phone-tapping case that led to a Birkett Inquiry and a White Paper on phone-tapping as practised by Scotland Yard and government departments. I could fill columns with similar stories but must consider your space.

1 think I have said enough to show that it is vitally necessary in a democracy for sources of information

to be protected so that sources of information will remain available. Let the fight be on the information and ensure that the information is always there by protecting the source, as have Mulholland and Foster.

The law as it is now militates against the public interest. It should be changed to protect all sources, with the possible exception, where the concealment of the source would be contrary to the Official Secrets Act in relation to a prosecution for espionage involv- ing the security of the State.

GERALD BYRNE 30 Trinity Court, Gray's Inn Road, WC1