HC Deb 26 February 1951 vol 484 cc1751-60
The Prime Minister

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement.

I wish to make a short statement on the question of the appointment of a Supreme Commander Atlantic. As I promised when the matter was raised in the House on 22nd February, I have again looked into this matter of the command organisation of the North Atlantic Ocean. The House will appreciate that this matter forms only one part of the general plans which are taking shape within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under the direction of the Standing Group, which comprises representatives of the United States, United Kingdom and France.

One of the most important features of these plans in relation to the North Atlantic ocean is an agreement on the system of command which will obtain in war. Preliminary arrangements must, however, necessarily be made in peacetime in order to ensure quick and easy transition to war if the need arises.

The area which will be under the Supreme Commander is the North Atlantic ocean, excluding the Mediterranean and British European coastal waters. This ocean will include an eastern and a western area. The eastern area, which for us will be the most vital and crucial, will be under the command of a British admiral, in association with the Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force. This British admiral will be the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet—an appointment at present held by Admiral Sir Philip Vian. In his capacity of Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Atlantic, he would, in time of war, exercise command not only over British Forces, but also over Forces of the United States Navy and those of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers. Conversely, the American admiral commanding the Western Atlantic would, likewise, control British and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Forces.

As the House will no doubt realise, the whole problem, embracing both command and areas in the North Atlantic ocean, has for some time past been fully discussed in all its details, not only by the British and American Chiefs of Staff, but also by the representatives of the other Powers interested in the Atlantic, namely, France, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Portugal and Iceland. In the light of the experience of the last war it has been agreed on both sides of the Atlantic that it is of the utmost importance that an overall Supreme Commander for the North Atlantic ocean should be appointed in order that the naval and Air Forces specifically assigned to him, not only from this country and from the United States, but from the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers, should be used to the best advantage throughout the whole of these waters.

The outstanding lesson of the Battle of the Atlantic in the late war was that the Atlantic is one battlefield in which the mobile threat represented by the submarine must be matched by an equally flexible system of defence. Too often during the last war, we had to wait until serious losses bad been incurred, or great opportunities missed while discussion went on in Washington and London about the re-disposition of naval or Air Forces. Thus all our experience at that time proved that there is a need for a single command in the Atlantic which can allocate and re-allocate Forces to meet the shifting threat as it develops. One of the principal duties of the Supreme Commander will be to move Forces to the area where the danger is greatest and to make representations, when the need arises, for the particular requirements of the Atlantic in a global war.

In considering the nationality of a Supreme Commander His Majesty's Government and their Service advisers have had a number of factors to take into account. There is the question of the relative sizes of the various naval and Air Forces that the other Atlantic Powers will contribute to the defence of the area. In this connection we have to remember that these Forces are represented not only by the active Forces, but also by potential reserve Forces. We have also to recognise that while the defence of the sea approaches to these islands, and, indeed, of the whole of the Eastern Atlantic, is quite literally a matter of life and death to us, our American Allies are also concerned with the defence of the Western Atlantic.

The House should not forget, moreover, that despite our great naval traditions, the defence of the North Atlantic ocean cannot possibly, in a future war, be undertaken by this country alone. The defence of this great sea area, like the defence of the whole western world, can only be successfully maintained by all the North Atlantic Powers acting in close concert.

Taking these factors into consideration, the Chiefs of Staff submitted recommendations to His Majesty's Government on the command system in the North Atlantic ocean—and I refer now not only to the Supreme Commander, but to the area commanders serving under him—which would best meet the overall needs of Atlantic defence. The arrangements which were recommended will ensure not only that responsibility for the home defence of these islands, including British coastal waters, will remain firmly in British hands, but that a British admiral will be responsible, under the overall command of the American Supreme Commander, for the command of the Eastern Atlantic. The Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, has been designated as Commander-in-Chief, Home Station, and will be in sole command of all naval operations in British home waters. The present Commander-in-Chief is Admiral Sir Arthur Power.

His Majesty's Government are satisfied, that, in time of war, the proposed arrangements, not only for command, but also for the division of responsibility, will ensure both the defence of these islands and the fullest participation of all the North Atlantic Powers over the whole of the North Atlantic ocean.

In peace, there is no question of our placing any of our naval or air forces in the Atlantic under the command of the proposed Supreme Commander. If, however, these Forces are to be fully ready for their war-time role, they will necessarily have to undergo a measure of combined training in time of peace. For this purpose, the Supreme Commander will assume command for the period of exercises needed to carry out this combined training. He will be served both in peace and war by a fully integrated staff, in which we will be represented at all levels. The Deputy Supreme Commander will be British.

For these reasons, I am entirely satisfied that the Government were right in giving their approval to the proposed appointment of an American admiral as Supreme Commander.

Mr. Churchill

The very complicated statement which has just been read to us will, as I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, require study and consideration, and it may well be that we shall find it necessary to raise the matter in debate, in which case it would be a subject for further discussion through the usual channels. I do not propose to embark on any comment upon it today except, if I may be allowed, to congratulate the Prime Minister on how much more he knows about the subject today than he did the last time it was raised.

Mr. Wyatt

Could my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to give us information about the supreme commands in other oceans, and as to whether or not any of the proposed supreme commands in other oceans will be allotted to British commanders?

The Prime Minister

Those will be announced in due course. Undoubtedly, consideration will be given, as one must always in these matters, not only to the individual appointed but to the various claims of nationalities.

Captain Ryder

It seems to me that the Admiralty will, in fact, lose operational control over the Home Fleet. Could the Prime Minister say whether I am right or wrong?

The Prime Minister

I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong. I read an interesting letter which I think he wrote on the question of convoys, and so on. They will be under the operational control of the Fleet and of our own British admiral. It is the general co-ordination which is taken by the Supreme Commander. The operational control, in home waters and in the Eastern Atlantic, as I pointed out, will be under a British admiral.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Having regard to the very wide experience which the Germans have had of submarine warfare, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Germans, in view of the fact that we are re-arming them, are equally entitled to a say? Will he consider the claims of a German admiral now under lock and key?

Mr. Boothby

Can the Prime Minister say whether the appointment of a Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean has yet been decided?

The Prime Minister

It has not yet been decided; it is still under consideration.

Mr. Eden

Could I ask for some clarification on the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), which is important? As I understood the statement of the Prime Minister, the complete control of the movement of all the Forces under the Supreme Commander will rest with the Supreme Commander; that being so, how can it be true to say that we have complete operational control over our own Fleet?

The Prime Minister

First of all, the general control of Forces will, naturally, be decided by the Chiefs of Staff of whatever the organisation is at the time of war. At the moment it is by the representatives on the Standing Group. Then there is the admiral who is in command of the Atlantic area. His main business is to carry out the main strategic decisions. The actual operations are under the admirals in command of the particular areas—the Western Atlantic and the Eastern Atlantic. As I said, the coastal areas are under a separate control. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that while the overall strategic command is under the admiral of the Atlantic Command, the actual operational control will be under the commander of the particular part of the Atlantic.

Mr. Churchill

But the Admiral of the Atlantic can transfer Forces from one of these area commands to another?

The Prime Minister

Yes, I think that is quite essential. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the last war there were very heavy submarine attacks in the Caribbean, and that forces were transferred from our commands here to assist. Then the situation changed and we did not at that time, I think, get back our forces in time because of the rather elaborate machinery. The whole purpose of this is to facilitate the switching of forces where necessary. It will be recalled that the Forces with which we are dealing are not an exclusive British Fleet in the Eastern Atlantic and an exclusive American Fleet in the Western Atlantic2; they are composite forces drawn from all the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers.

Mr. Churchill

In the late war all these matters were regulated by discussions between Governments after careful consideration by the combined Chiefs of Staff. I am not aware that any very great difficulty occurred, except the difficulty inherent in the disposition of Forces which were not equal to the many needs and demands made upon them. But now the right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright—and I had not intended to develop this now—intends to support a policy which would give an American Supreme Commander the power to transfer powerful Forces from this coast to the other side of the Atlantic, or make other dispositions of that character. Nothing like that ever existed in the late war and never could have been accepted, I think, in view of the fact that our life depends upon the maintenance of the sea approaches whereas, though the United States may suffer a great deal, her life is unaffected by them.

The Prime Minister

This will take place under the general direction of the Standing Group which is, in effect, the equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, But it is proposed to give power to a Supreme Commander. As I am advised, the experience is that in these matters a Supreme Commander needs to, and always does consult, but it has been put up to us by all our advisers that there is need for this essential power, in wartime, of being able to transfer Forces.

Mr. Churchill

rose—

The Prime Minister

Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to carry on a rather technical debate of this kind by question and answer, because, obviously, the right hon. Gentleman differs from the advice which I have received.

Mr. Churchill

But this Standing Group has now apparently replaced the combined Chiefs of Staff, who were in such close and intimate relation and enabled these matters to be transacted. Is not that so?

The Prime Minister

No, the Standing Group are in intimate touch with the combined Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. Churchill

There are no combined Chiefs of Staff. [Interruption.] Be quiet, hold your tongue. Go and talk to the Italians. It is all you are fit to do. [Interruption.] Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was a great disaster when the combined Chiefs of Staff organisation was terminated?

The Prime Minister

I quite agree, The right hon. Gentleman knows that that was not due to our action. We are trying to build this up. I really do not think that by question and answer it is very useful to try to pull to pieces—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman does not like it."]—an organisation which we are trying to set up, and which can only be set up, in close consultation with our Allies. If it has to be discussed, it is better discussed where one can make a reasoned debate and reply, rather than by question and answer which must, to some extent, be based on insufficient material.

Commander Maitland

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the duties of the Supreme Commander in regard to the allocation and disposal of our merchant fleet?

The Prime Minister

That is really another matter altogether. The allocation of our merchant fleet is, of course, under the Government of this country.

Mr. Mellish

On a point of order. In view of the difficulties of the situation, and the fact that the whole House knows that this matter is still under consideration, can an appeal not be made by you, Sir, that this discussion be brought to a close?

An Hon. Member

Trying to gag.

Mr. Speaker

I did not hear.

Mr. Mellish

Can you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of this kind, appeal to the House not to continue the debate?

Mr. Speaker

That is my business. We are bound to have a certain number of questions on this, but I hope they will not be too prolonged.

Mr. Harrison

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the manner in which this question was raised last week has caused more anti-American feeling in this country than anything the Communists have done for the last three years?

Commander Noble

Could the Prime Minister say whether the British Chiefs of Staff put forward the proposal he has just told us about, before or after the decision had actually been made?

The Prime Minister

I really do not understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. What does he mean? Is he suggesting that this was imposed upon us? This was a matter fully discussed by the Chiefs of Staff, by our technical advisers, on both sides, and this was the proposal put up to us. I resent the kind of suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Paton

Would it be consistent with any scheme of integrated defence for every country to claim the right to do what it likes with its own?

Mr. Henry Strauss

Did His Majesty's Government ever put forward the name of a British Admiral for this post: and, if so, on what date?

The Prime Minister

The matter was considered first as one of general principle—

Air Commodore Harvey

Answer the question.

The Prime Minister

That was decided first of all, before any question of personalities. I should like to appeal to the House—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer:"] I am answering.

Mr. Braine

The country wants an answer.

The Prime Minister

I quite agree that the country wants an answer. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite heard my reply. The question was first of all discussed from the point of view of arriving at certain general principles with regard to the commands, and the question of names came up afterwards. If I might, I would ask everybody in the House to realise that we do not, I imagine, want to create rifts between allies, but I must say that some of the questions from all parts of the House seem to be directed to trying to make the greatest amount of trouble and the greatest divisions.

Mr. Wyatt

Is it not a fact that there will be more American ships than British ships under the command of the Supreme Commander Atlantic; and is it not therefore deplorable to make political capital out of this appointment, particularly as we may be expecting ourselves to get the command in the Mediterranean?

Sir Ian Fraser

To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, which, I think would be hurtful, can the right hon. Gentleman make clear one sentence in the statement which he read out, in which he attributed some pareof the responsibility for the choice of Supreme Commander to the British Chiefs of Staff? Were they called in to advise as to the disposition to be made under the Supreme Commander, or were they called in to advise who should be the Supreme Commander?

Mr. Attlee

The Government take full responsibility for their actions and I am never willing to shelter myself behind my official advisers, but I think it right to say that in this matter I have throughout acted on the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staff.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I think it would be better if, before asking all these supplementary questions, hon. Members read the statement. Then we might know more about it than hon. Members obviously do now.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to give notice that at a convenient opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Colonel Ropner

On a point of order. Is it not a fact, Sir, that the discussion before the House is on a statement and not following a Question; and in that case does the fact that an hon. Member has given notice that he desires to raise this matter on the Adjournment necessarily terminate discussion?

Mr. Speaker

I think it does, as a matter of fact. We have had a great many supplementary questions, and this arises originally out of a Question. The statement was made today in response to that Question. I think we had much better read the statement, then we shall know much more about it.

Mr. Churchill

It is surely not within the power of any hon. or right hon. Member to terminate a series of supplementary questions, which you were accepting, Sir, merely by uttering the words, "I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment"? That is surely not within the power of any hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker

It always has been the case and it stops all further questions. That has been the rule for I do not know how long.

Major Guy Lloyd

Is it not a fact that this was not in reply to a Question, but was a statement, about which we wish further elaboration from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker

It was a Question last Thursday which started the whole matter. Anyhow, I have accepted the notice given, so that is the end of that as far as I am concerned.