§ 5 and 11. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) what was the purpose of the recent official visit to the United Kingdom of Admiral Karl Adolph Zenker; and if he will make a statement;
(2) why, in view of the speech made by Admiral Karl Adolph Zenker in 1956, describing war criminals Doenitz and Raeder as individuals whom all German naval officers should strive to emulate, which resulted in his dismissal from the German Defence Ministry, he was allowed to make an official visit to British naval establishments.
§ Mr. C. Ian Orr-EwingAdmiral of the Fleet Sir Caspar John, our First Sea Lord, was a guest of the Federal German Navy last year and we invited Admiral Zenker to make a return four-day visit to this country.
§ Mr. AllaunBefore inviting the admiral here, was the Minister informed of his 1956 speech, which led even Dr. Adenauer's Government to remove him? Was Zenker a fit person to make such a visit here? If Goering or Doenitz were alive today and had been reappointed to their former posts, as similar men have been, would they also have been welcome in this country?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe last part of that supplementary question is out of order as being hypothetical.
§ Mr. AllaunMay I revert to the first two parts?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe first part. I was ruling only about the second part.
§ Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the Minister desires to answer the part of the supplementary question which was in order. If he does not wish to do so, we can go on.
§ Mr. Orr-EwingI was about to make the point that it is the policy of the Ministry of Defence, and of the Service Departments also, to invite all chiefs of naval staff of friendly and allied nations to this country. We shall continue with that policy.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportAre not some of the facts given in these Questions totally incorrect? Is it desirable that the Order Paper should be used for the purpose of disseminating Communist propaganda against our N.A.T.O. allies?
§ Mr. Orr-EwingSome of the statements in the Questions are totally incorrect.
§ Mr. AllaunIs the Minister aware that I carefully checked those facts and that they are correct? Secondly, is he aware that there are many hon. Members, and many people outside this House, who are not anti-German but who are increasingly anxious about the number of people who planned Hitler's war invasions and commanded his brutal occupations and have received increasingly important positions both in N.A.T.O. and in the West German naval forces?
§ Mr. Orr-EwingIncreasing numbers of hon. Members are fully aware of where the hon. Member's affiliations lie.
§ Mr. AllaunOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did that not sound to you rather like McCarthyism, which is opposed to the traditions of this House? Is it right that a Minister should make smearing remarks of this kind because he does not like the opinions which are expressed?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe first part of what the hon. Member raises could not, I think, give rise to a question of order for me. If it does, I have not followed it. As to the second part, I have some difficulty in ruling. The reference was to affiliations without specifying what they were.
§ Mr. PagetFurther to that point of order. Surely and very plainly the Minister's remark was an aspersion upon my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). It was an aspersion by implication. By "affiliations" it was quite clear what was meant. In my submission, the word ought not to have been used and ought to be withdrawn.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not entirely sure about that because I am not sure whether it is—whatever the word is—depreciatory of an hon. Member in any sense to suggest that he belongs to a particular political party, or has affiliations with it, because it represents a minority view. As this is Question Time, I should be obliged if the Minister would withdraw the aspersion because any imputation in Question Time is out of order.
§ Mr. Orr-EwingIf the cap does not fit I shall be very happy to withdraw it.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order—
§ Sir J. DuncanOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerI am willing to receive a point of order, but I cannot hear more than one at a time. I think I saw the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) first.
§ Mr. RankinIs it not in accordance with the custom of this House that when any imputation is withdrawn it is withdrawn without any qualification, and did not the Minister qualify his withdrawal?
§ Mr. SpeakerActually I did not hear the terms the Minister used because I was asking something.
§ Mr. Orr-EwingI said, if the cap did not fit I should be happy to withdraw it. If it is your desire, Mr. Speaker, that I should withdraw it, I withdraw it.
§ Sir J. DuncanAs points of order have been raised in connection with the Questions, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you should call the attention of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) to the fact that he has responsibility for the statements in the Questions? You will recollect that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has denied the accuracy of the statements in the Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is true that an hon. Member tabling a Question bears personal responsibility for the facts stated in it. I do not rule about the accuracy or not of the facts.