HC Deb 19 January 1945 vol 407 cc503-7
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson)

It will be within the recollection of the House that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, dealing with certain questions on the subject of the Bethnal Green Shelter In- quiry, promised to come to the House and make a statement to-day. My right hon. Friend, until a few minutes ago, had fully intended to redeem that promise. Unfortunately, however, he is suffering from a severe cold, and his doctor has just told him that it is imperative that he should remain indoors for at least 48 hours. Further, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is also not available, I have been asked to take the Home Secretary's place. I have here the statement that he intended to make, and I think it would be convenient to the House if I make it as a statement from him, without attempting what would seem to be the difficult task of turning a direct form of speech into an indirect form. Here is the statement:

I would like, if I may, to associate myself with everything the Master of the Rolls said about the undesirability of cases being heard in camera. I do not wish to raise any controversy but I think that the House will expect me to state the facts and probabilities as they were present to my mind.

It is clear from the transcript of the judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls that in making his main criticism he was under the impression that before the commencement of the proceedings in the High Court—to quote the transcript—"The Ministry knew perfectly well that there was no panic." At the material time I was relying for my information as to the facts of the accident and its causes on the report made by Mr. Dunne of the Inquiry which he held shortly after the disaster. As the names and addresses of the witnesses at the Inquiry had been furnished to the solicitors to both parties to the High Court action and it was reasonable to assume that the case would develop on similar lines, I do not think that the matter can now be seen in its proper perspective without disclosing Mr. Dunne's findings. Until recently security considerations have prevented the publication of his report, but after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that circumstances have so changed since "D" Day that it can now be published without serious prejudice to the national interest. I have, therefore, arranged for publication of the report, and copies are now available in the Vote Office.

The report divides the contributory causes of the accident into two categories —psychological and physical. The Government decided in April, 1943, that public reference to the psychological cause might be an incitement to the enemy, with the resources then at his disposal, systematically to continue a form of attack which seemed likely to create a considerable disturbance to the life of the Metropolis. There was the added possibility of heavy casualties being caused until structural alterations could be made in the light of experience to many underground shelters—all this for a relatively small effort on the enemy's part. I was, however, anxious to discharge as far as possible the undertaking I gave on 10th March, 1943, before Mr. Dunne began his investigations, that the conclusions would, subject to security considerations, be published. Yet I was faced with the difficulty that the publication by themselves of the group of causes referred to by Mr. Dunne as physical causes, would disturb the balance of the report and have the effect of misleading any reader who had not had access to the full text. Accordingly, as I indicated to the House on 8th April, 1943, the Government felt bound to decide not to publish the conclusions.

The conclusions recorded in the report appear to me to establish that the Master of the Rolls was under some misapprehension in making the remark I have quoted. In deciding whether application should be made for the hearing of the High Court proceedings in camera, the position was that, so far from knowing that there was no panic, I had before me an opinion delivered by an experienced Metropolitan Magistrate, after a pains-taking Inquiry during which 80 witnesses were examined, that the effective cause of the disaster was that a number of people lost their self-control at a particularly unfortunate place and time. It is true that the court proceedings did not take place until 16 months after the accident, but when the question of applying for the action to be heard in camera came before me, London had not long before been subject to renewed raiding, and in fact the case was heard when London was experiencing flying bomb attacks on a considerable scale. I therefore felt bound to take the view that it would be contrary to the national interest to run the risk of giving publicity by means of proceedings in open court to certain aspects of the Inquiry and the general circumstances surrounding raids on London. First, undue atten- tion would be directed to the less desirable but irremediable characteristics of design of some underground premises used as shelters which had served the public well. Second, the enemy could take note of the degree of alarm that raiding had been, and was even then, apt to inspire, amongst nervous persons making their way to shelter. Lastly on this information, the enemy might perhaps have been encouraged to make further efforts of the kind which, at that time at any rate, he appeared capable of making. In certain circumstances what happens on the ground and how the people take the raids may, I suggest, afford valuable information to those planning future attacks. In view of the course of the evidence the learned Judge decided to deliver his judgment in public, having communicated this decision to me through the Attorney-General. I would like respectfully to add that I entirely agreed with this course.

The Master of the Rolls also expressed the view that the case was one in which conceivably some officials of the Ministry itself might have been subjected to criticism, although he did not suggest that the possibility materialised. Mr. Dunne's report did in fact contain passages which animadverted on Departmental administration and that of the local authority. My first intention was to publish those criticisms, omitting the passages which referred to the psychological causes of the disaster. But the whole balance of the report would thereby have been altered to the prejudice of all parties concerned and I was driven to deal with the report as a whole. In paragraphs 42–53 of the report, Mr. Dunne drew attention to the manner in which a proposal made by the Borough Council in August, 1941, for the replacement by a brick construction of the wooden hoardings surrounding the stairway had been dealt with at London Regional Headquarters. He did not suggest that the steps which might have been taken in connection with that proposal would have been adequate to prevent the accident, but I had his remarks brought at once to the notice of the officers concerned, and had conveyed to them an intimation that I concurred in his comments.

The existence of these criticisms made me regret the necessity which I was satisfied existed for non-publication of the report, and while, as I have said, I do not wish to raise any controversy, I desire to assure the House that the decisions were come to after serious consideration and on what seemed to me grounds of national security.

Sir Percy Harris

May I first express my sincere sympathy with the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary at the cause of their illness. The House will be anxious that they should soon recover. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises that there are far more important issues than the personal attitude of the Home Secretary to a public inquiry. I should also like to know whether he is able to make any statement as to the position of the Borough Council in reference to the successful claim, both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, for damages, and also the position of men serving overseas who are debarred by the Local Government Act from making a claim because of the time factor. Those are the important issues which concern people outside.

Sir J. Anderson

I am sure the House will realise that I am in a little difficulty in dealing with any supplementary question, but I happen to know that the Home Secretary has been giving consideration to the matters which the right hon. Baronet has just raised and that he had not felt that he was in a position to deal adequately with them, but I can assure the House that I will bring to my right hon. Friend's notice what has just been said and I am sure that he will, as soon as possible, and in the very near future, make a statement on those points.

Mr. Reakes

As I first placed a Question on this matter on the Order Paper, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that I was not concerned with the findings of the Bethnal Green inquiry? I was more concerned with the remarks of the Master of the Rolls, particularly when he said that the inquiry was held in camera on the flimsiest pretext, and that is the reason why I tabled the Question. It is not a question of the findings of the Report but I had hoped the Home Secretary would have given something stronger than the mild reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-day.