Blunt and the Establishment
Jo Grimond
The debate in the House of Commons last week on Blunt was almost wholly misdirected by the Opposition front bench. There may be doubts about the efficiency and responsibility of the intelligence service, but these are not the main doubts in the minds of the people. The public is not asking questions about MI5 or M16 — they are questioning the decisions of politicians, the Palace and the senior establishment. Was their treatment of Blunt justified?
It is not only the Labour left but a large majority in the country which is convinced that indeed there is one law for the Establishment and one for everyone else — confirmed by the deferential press conference and the lunch at The Times. The best speeches came from the back benches and, among these, one which asked some pertinent questions came from Alan Clark, the Conservative Member for Plymouth.
Mr Clark pointed out that there was no reason why we should not be told what information Blunt gave before 1945. He also pointed out that Blunt, apparently, was an important spy and a tough one. He resisted interrogation on II occasions. He was a virulent supporter of one of the most appalling regimes from which men have ever suffered. It is indeed difficult to believe on this hypothesis, and on the evidence we have, that his pardon was justified or will do much to boost the morale of the secret service. The alternative is that he was an important spy, but, if so, it is equally difficult to believe that he would have supplied much useful information after he betrayed the Russians.
In either case it was incomprehensible that he should have had his office at the Palace renewed when he could have been quietly retired. Incomprehensible too was his treatment at The Times, That newspaper had already carried an admirable piece by Bernard Levin about the intimations of death which he detected exuding from some letters to that paper praising Mr Blunt. (I am sure that if Mr Levin ever enters The Times building he will in future do so with his handkerchief clamped firmly to his nose). Such things are incomprehensible except on the assumption that there is one law for the Establishment and one for others. It seems to most people that Blunt was pardoned not only because he himself was a member of the Establishment but, above all, in order to protect the Palace and higher reaches of the public service. No evidence was produced in the debate which convincingly contradicted that. Does this matter? Does it matter that one old man should be let off? It might not matter were it not that thousands of much less contemptible criminals are not let off. Let us show mercy by all means, but start with more deserving cases. I don't even admire those who save their own skins by betraying their fellow spies. It seems a curious quirk of conscience. Very few of those who turn King's evidence are given lunch at The Times or indeed two days' notice if their case is to be mentioned in Parliament.
The importance of this distinction between the Establishment and others is that we are always being told by the Establishment that we must assert the rule of law. The rule of law must be a general rule, applied impartially to all. The general rule must also govern our behaviour towards criminals, even apart from the sentences imposed on them. Example is also important. How can you expect to stop vandalism when the leading vandals in our cities are important people in government departments, local authorities, universities and insurance companies? How can you denouce lawlessness in the face of cover-ups and the obsequious treatment of those who spy for such regimes as the Russians and then turn double traitors?
Some years ago I made the suggestion that the Establishment might set an example, or at least practice what they preach, over incomes policy. My rather trite remarks were met with howls of abuse. So I am not surprised that the Establishment is still deeply convinced that it should not be subject to the same rules as other men. I only say that it is a dangerous delusion, not only for the country but also for the Conservative Government.
Mrs Thatcher, given the limits imposed by British hypocrisy, behaved with sense and courage. But however unjust the imputation may be, her Government is in danger of being branded as the instrument of that established bureaucracy she came in to curb. Seventeen per cent interest rates and other monetary curbs do not worry top public servants with their cars, their indexed pensions and the certainty that even the professed socialists among them with their belief in equality, will be found well paid posts in addition to their pensions when they retire. The monetary policies of the Government make money for bankers and such like. It is small businesses, individual enterprise and hard work which the Government's policies are attacking. It is not around Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, Westminster or the Bank of England that there is any suffering: it is in the industrial North, Scotland and Wales. lf the Tories really want to prove that they are now the party for the common people, they must not be seen as the protectors of the Top People. If, as is widely hinted, there are more highly placed ex-spies, the sooner the Government tells us about them the better.
It is fashionable to treat such cases as that of Blunt either with world weariness, cynicism, murmurs about charm, knowledge of art, etc, or with a light laugh. I do not myself think that we can shrug off these events so easily. I certainly do not think that the massacres in concentration camps which the Blunts of this world condone are a laughing matter. All that Mrs Sidney Webb said having been told that cattle trucks loaded with starving people were being sent to Siberia was, 'Very bad stage management. Ridiculous to let you see them. The English are always so sentimental. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs'. What an omelette.
Previous page
