Minister of Defence (Speech at Canada Club)

HC Deb 02 July 1952 vol 503 cc429-43

Mr. Shinwell

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain matters were excluded from the report by the Minister of Defence and the Minister of State to Parliament and what steps he will take to lay the full facts before Parliament.

The Prime Minister

I will give the House the full facts at once. Last night Lord Alexander, speaking impromptu at what he took to be a private gathering of the Canada Club—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—hon. Members would like to hear the answer before interrupting, would they not?—according to the reports which I have received and with which Lord Alexander agrees, said that there were weaknesses in Korea one of which he did not like to mention in the House of Lords. When guests shouted out, "Why not?" he answered: Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention as a matter of secrecy. I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands. I think that if the Chinese attempt a full-scale offensive they will penetrate the front to a depth of some miles in some places. But I believe owing to the efficiency of the Eighth Army and their fire-power they will be able to bring the offensive to a halt. The word "secrecy" which Lord Alexander used on the spur of the moment was no doubt unfortunately chosen. What he intended to imply was that his remarks might be liable to be misconstrued if said in a public speech and not that they affected military security, which in my opinion they did not.

When preparing his statement for the House of Lords, Lord Alexander took the special precaution of referring the principal points in what he proposed to say to General Omar Bradley. The General replied that he would prefer that no public reference should be made as to the strength of the reserves but that he did not dissent from the statement as an expression of opinion. He thought that in its original form it might be misconstrued as implying a serious inadequacy of reserves. In making this point he said that naturally any commander would be happier to have larger reserves and to this extent the proposed statement was unexceptionable. In its original form it might be interpreted as implying that there were virtually no reserves, which was too bleak a picture.

In consequence of this interchange, Lord Alexander omitted from his public speech in the House of Lords any reference to the reserves. But speaking as he thought to a private gathering, off the record—[Interruption.)—I am saying what he thought, not what happened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All right. I will say what he said. Speaking, as he thought, to a private gathering, off the record, he made the reference in the form I have read out to the House, namely, I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands. This statement seems to me perfectly harmless, and if it had been made in the House of Lords as part of Lord Alexander's official statement, it would not, I believe, have attracted undue attention. The circumstances of the occasion, the setting of the remark and the use of the word "secrecy," have invested the incident with an air of mystery and significance which can only be removed by a full statement such as I have made.

I may add that the mobile reserves of the Eighth Army in Korea have been substantially increased by the availability of the considerable forces which were used on Koje Island for the restoration of order in the prisoners-of-war camps there and, as Lord Alexander said in the House of Lords and repeated in other words at the dinner, which I have read: I believe that a full-scale offensive by the enemy under present conditions can be held and that he will suffer terrific casualties. He may outmatch us in numbers of men, as he does considerably, but we are superior in firepower and mobility. Finally, Sir, let me make my compliments to the Press of the United Kingdom which, on a mere request, on a simple request, that the matter should be considered off the record, without exception abstained from publication.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether he is aware that the Press were present at this gathering and, therefore, it could not be regarded as a private function? Moreover, is he aware that before the Press were asked to regard the statement made by Lord Alexander as confidential, it had been cir- culated even to the Tass Agency, as reported in the "Evening Standard" of this afternoon? Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Alexander, when asked "Why not?" by voices at the function, said: Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention as a matter of secrecy. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Alexander was instructed by the Government not to mention this statement in his report to Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "How many more questions?"] All right; I will content myself with those two and will ask some more afterwards.

The Prime Minister

What was the first question?

Mr. Shinwell

That, no doubt, gives the right hon. Gentleman a little time to work out a reply. The first question I asked—I repeat it—was whether he was aware that the Press were present at this function—[An HON. MEMBER: "Including Tass."]—and that Lord Alexander must have known they were present, and that this was known to the chairman of the function, the High Commissioner for Canada. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?

The Prime Minister

Lord Alexander was not definitely aware that the Press were present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members want me to answer the question, I will do so. [Interruption.] Do not show so much bias when the object is to reach the truth. Lord Alexander was not aware that the Press were present, but in Canada, where he has made a great many of these speeches to clubs all over Canada, often the Press have been present and he has said, "This part is off the record" and that has always been respected, as it has been respected by the British Press on this occasion.

Mr. Shinwell

Will the Prime Minister be good enough to reply to the question I put—whether he is aware that this was circulated, even to the Tass agency? Further, will he be good enough to say whether he regards it as satisfactory that a Minister can make a statement at what is, after all, a public function, with all sorts of people present, including the Press, which he has not made available to both Houses of Parliament?

The Prime Minister

The Minister may easily make an impromptu statement which upon consideration he would have phrased differently. As to the facts of this matter having been circulated to the Tass Agency, that seems to have lost some of its significance, as I have already circulated it to the House of Commons.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Alexander, who did, apparently, quite honestly and conscientiously regard this matter as secret and confidential—as, indeed, he said—conveyed this information to the Prime Minister; and what did the Prime Minister instruct him to do?

The Prime Minister

I was not consulted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should I be? I have never been consulted on details of every statement which is made—

Mr. Shinwell

This was a secret statement.

The Prime Minister

—but if he had asked me, I should have said, "Make it in the House of Lords. It can do no possible harm. It is true and thoroughly guarded by your other remarks." That is what I should have said.

Mr. Shinwell

I repeat the question, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give a straight answer.

The Prime Minister

I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman on a perfectly fair and square level and giving full and clear answers. That he should suggest that I vary my answers between what is straight and what is not straight is worthy of his own mind and worthy only of his own mind.

Mr. Shinwell

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we recognise that the reason he is losing his temper is that he is in a position of great difficulty from which he cannot extricate himself? Is he aware that he has accused hon. and right hon. Members on this side of lack of tact and that now, when he is asked about one of his Ministers "dropping a brick," he loses his temper? Whether the right hon. Gentleman regards it as impudent or not, he has got to give a straight and truthful answer to the House.

The Prime Minister rose—

Mr. Shinwell

Wait a minute.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

I think the heat outside is affecting this discussion, and I will ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to keep any unnecessary heat out of their questions.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We really must conduct this matter in an orderly fashion. An answer has been given to a Private Notice Question. The business before the House is on that footing.

Mr. Shinwell

All that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—apparently I have to repeat it—is whether, in view of the fact, and it is a fact, that Lord Alexander regarded this statement as being of a private and confidential character—

The Prime Minister

Secret.

Mr. Shinwell

—and, indeed, secret, it was not desirable that he should consult the Prime Minister before making it to a public function.

The Prime Minister

I did not lose my temper at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was only trying to do justice to the needlessly offensive character of the right hon. Gentleman's remark. I think it is a rather serious thing to suggest that another Member is not making a straight and truthful answer, because the alternative conclusion would be that he was making a crooked and false answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Very well. I am delighted to find that that opinion is so readily accepted on the other side, because if I valued their opinion I might withdraw.

I am making a very full and clear answer on the whole of this matter. Naturally, I was not consulted, nor should I have been, on what, in my opinion, was such a harmless matter as the statement: I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands. If that statement had been made in any other context, it would not have attracted the slightest serious attention. That is the position. It is the context in which it was accidentally put that has caused an air of mystery and alarm. It is another mare's nest which has been exploited by the other side. They are, of course, entitled to make what party capital they can out of it.

Mr. Attlee

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise the seriousness of the position in which two Ministers are sent out, come back and make a report to Parliament, and then, on the same evening, one of those Ministers gets up at a meeting and says, "Here is something I would not tell Parliament but I will tell 500 individuals here"? Does not that show great inexperience as to what the proper relations of a Minister are to Parliament?

The Prime Minister

I have already said that I think it would have been better if the statement had been made in another place. That would have been better, but there is no harm in the statement and no injury has been done to public security by the statement. I fully admit that the word "secrecy" was an unfortunate term to have applied in this particular instance and on this particular occasion.

Mr. Attlee

The right hon. Gentleman does not quite realise the point. The point is not whether it was secret or whether it was a matter of very great importance; but here we have a Minister who, after he and his colleague have reported to Parliament, goes out and says, "There are things I have been told I had better not say and while I will not report them to Parliament—to whom I am bound to report—I am prepared to tell them to a private gathering."

The Prime Minister

I think that is all dealt with in the full—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, hon. Members say "No" and they can say it again—I think that was all dealt with in the very full, frank and careful report I have given to the House. I have said that I thought it would have been much better if this particular statement had been included in the speech which Lord Alexander delivered in another place. It would have been better; but it would have been perfectly harmless whether it was delivered at the dinner under what were thought to be off-the-record conditions—[Interruption]—what he thought to be off-the-record conditions; I am not blaming other people—or in the House of Lords. I cannot see that, if the remark itself is not of any importance or significance, the fact that it was, so to speak, framed by an impromptu introduction of the word "secrecy" in any way alters the merits of the case.

Mr. Attlee

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Minister owes some apology to Parliament when he goes out of his way to tell a private gathering that there are things he is prepared to tell them but which he has been forbidden to tell to Parliament?

The Prime Minister

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "forbidden to say to Parliament"?

Mr. Attlee

That is what Lord Alexander said.

The Prime Minister

He never used the word "forbidden."

Mr. Attlee

I am only going on Press reports. Lord Alexander said there was one weakness he did not like to mention in the House of Lords"— and presumably also he would not like it mentioned in the speech made by the Minister to the House of Commons. We have to remember that Lord Alexander was informing the House of Lords while the other Minister was informing this House as to what was the exact position of our troops in Korea. The Minister then said there was a matter he did not like to mention in the House of Lords. When asked why, he said: Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention. The Prime Minister says it is not a matter of secrecy; he says it is quite harmless but the fact is that by someone or other—we do not know by whom—he was asked to withhold this information from Members of both Houses. That may or may not have been right and there may have been sound reasons for it. What is not right is that a Minister who is responsible to Parliament should get up and say, "I was asked not to mention it to Parliament, but I am prepared to mention it outside to other people."

The Prime Minister

I do not at all deny that there is some substance in that statement, but what happened was that the view which was entertained by General Omar Bradley was not that the matter was secret in the sense of affect- ing security, but that if it were stated in a very prominent public manner it might be misconstrued by the general public. [Interruption.] Hon. Members had better try to get the point. That is the point. Lord Alexander thought when he was speaking to the gathering—he was wrong in that matter—that he could say "This is off the record" and it would be off the record, as had often been his experience in Canada.

The result of that, of course, was undoubtedly unfortunate and I have said it was unfortunate. I have no doubt that Lord Alexander regrets that on the spur of the moment he was led to put in these words, "I did not say this in the House of Lords"—I am not quoting exactly—"because it is of a secret character." But that does not alter the fact that what he said was perfectly harmless and could have been said in the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right—it could have been said in the House of Lords and would have done no harm of any kind to the security and safety of the troops which, after all, is the important matter.

Mr. Attlee rose—

Sir H. Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is not a certain "raffle" fixed for 3.30 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must really leave the matter to me. We have spent a long time over this and I should be glad if the House could come to a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Attlee.

Commander Donaldson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All the questions in relation to this topic have been put from the Opposition. May I be allowed to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker

I have it firmly in mind that it is customary to call the Leader of the Opposition when he rises to ask a Question. Mr. Attlee.

Mr. Attlee

Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining this matter to the House, had expressed some regret on behalf of the Ministers and the Government that they had, whether by inadvertence or not, treated both Houses of Parliament with disrespect in this matter?

The Prime Minister

I do not admit for a moment that there was any intentional disrespect of any kind intended to either House. On that I can give every assurance. But I did express regret when I used the words, "unfortunately chosen." It was no doubt unfortunate. That certainly is an expression of regret—"unfortunately chosen." That clearly is an essential part of the full statement which I made to the House upon this subject.

Commander Donaldson

I am grateful to be called, Sir, and I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the dinner held last night was indeed and in fact a private dinner to which some members of the Press had been invited, that my noble Friend was not aware that the Press had been invited and that he asked the High Commissioner for Canada to ask the Press to use normal restraint in a matter of this kind?

I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is not aware that Lord Alexander has recently returned from his period as Governor-General of Canada, where such things are understood by the people and are understood by the Press? I ask him whether he is aware that these are the circumstances which supported my noble Friend in making the statement, and that he had no desire whatever to show disrespect to either House?

Mr. Carmichael

On a point of order. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. and gallant Member to desist from his question and not embarrass the Government any more?

Mr. Speaker

It would not be in order for me to do that.

The Prime Minister rose—

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) had certainly not finished his question.

Mr. Speaker

Both those points of order refer in contrary senses to the length of the question that was being asked by the hon. and gallant Member. There is no point of order in either of them.

The Prime Minister

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me to answer so much of his question as I can remember. As I understand it, Lord Alexander was not aware that the Press were present—[Interruption.] Do try to apply the ordinary processes of reasoning—but when he learned that they were present he expressed the hope that they would be governed by the usual restraint, and they certainly were. Lord Alexander was right in expressing this hope, and the Press were right in giving effect to it. The only people who are wrong are those who are seeking to make a party ramp out of it.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the withholding from Parliament by Ministers of information subsequently disclosed by the Minister of Defence at a public dinner, and said by him to be secret.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the withholding from Parliament by Ministers of information subsequently disclosed by the Minister of Defence at a public dinner, and said by him to be secret.

I am like the rest of the House in having heard the answer for the first time. I have allowed this discussion by way of supplementary questions to proceed in order to seek enlightenment, and as I understand the matter from the last question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, it really seems to me to boil down to a question, as he put it, of an expression of regret for some discourtesy shown to the House. If that be so, I would point out first of all to this House that it is the other House to which the Minister of Defence belongs, and in which he made his speech. That is relevant from the point of view of any question of Privilege; it is for the other House to deal with.

It seems to me that I should be wrong to allow the Adjournment of the House to be moved under the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. The words have been said and an explanation of them has been given, and there is nothing that the House could do, it seems to me, by interrupting the Orders of the Day today, to change the situation. It seems to me that the proper course for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who criticise in this matter is to put down a Motion of censure if, on further reflection, they see fit to do so. It does not appear to me to be a case which comes within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency.

Mr. Attlee

May I submit to you, Sir, that the statements made in the other place and in this House were to all intents and purposes identical, and therefore there was a withholding of information not only from another place but from this House? This House, therefore, was given an incomplete view of the situation in Korea, and that, I submit to you, is a matter of urgency that requires to be corrected.

Mr. Bowles

May I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is urgent because the noble Lord may go to another dinner tonight and disclose more? Secondly, may I, with great respect, suggest to you that I doubt very much whether hon. and right hon. Members of this House have the Light to put down a Motion of censure on a Member of another place? I should have thought that that really would have been a breach of Privilege so far as the other House is concerned.

Mr. Speaker

It would, of course, be a Motion of censure on the Government referring to the conduct of one of its Ministers.

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that my difficulty is that, though a statement was made in this House by the Minister of State on his experiences in Korea, it was not the Minister of State who made the speech at the Canada Club. I have to prevent the rule from being wrongfully used, and I would ask the House to accept that this is not a sufficiently urgent matter. The rule is really intended for the interruption of the Orders of the Day and the business assigned for the day when a discussion on some emergency of this character can usefully be held.

I ask the House to consider what has been said today, and if they think fit to pursue this matter further, remembering that apparently it is agreed that there is no question of security involved, or I might have taken a different view of the matter. [Interruption.] I think that is the general view—to put down a Motion of censure dealing with the matter.

I think that would be the regular way of dealing with it.

Mr. Attlee

May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the real matter of urgency is that, so far as we know, none of these Ministers seems to understand the proper relationship of the Government to the House? They may all be running round making speeches.

The Prime Minister

On that point, might I suggest the appropriateness of a Motion of censure to cover these general charges?

Mr. Speaker

It appears to me, and I hope the House will agree, that this really resolves itself more into a question of the propriety of the conduct of the Minister than of any real injury to the public service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh] That is my view. I hope the House will follow, either on a Supply Day or by a Motion of censure, the course which I have suggested.

Mr. Driberg

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will consider giving your Ruling, if not today then tomorrow, on the constitutional propriety of the practice of Her Majesty's Ministers in submitting the text of their speeches for approval and censorship by senior military officers of a foreign Power, even a friendly foreign power, before delivering them to Parliament?

The Prime Minister

Further to that point of order, and on a point of order with regard to the statement made. I submit that that statement of the hon. Gentleman is absolutely misleading and that there was no question of submitting the text of the statement to be made here for the approval of a foreign Power, but only of getting friendly advice as to what would be helpful to common operations by officers who bear the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker

That is a separate point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman

Reverting to your original Ruling Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, with respect, that the point about the urgency of such a debate as my right hon. Friend wants to have, and which might indeed change the situation, is this—that in view of the matter which my right hon. Friend has raised, neither of these Ministers is any longer fit to hold their offices, and particularly the Minister of Defence, in view of his disclosure of information which he refused to the House. If that view is correct, it is obviously an urgent matter, and it is obviously a matter on which an immediate debate could, if the vote went a certain way, change the situation.

Mr. Gower

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Silverman

May I have an answer?

Mr. Gower

—if a Minister who has not been reared in the contentious atmosphere of this honourable House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are making very slow progress. We must get on.

Mr. Gower

If such a Minister should, in the atmosphere of a social meeting, a friendly meeting—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. In reply to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I think his point is that he thinks the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment, or sought to move it, considers that these Ministers are not fit for their posts and that that is an urgent matter. Well, I think every Opposition in the history of this House has held the view that Ministers, or some of them, on the Government Front Bench have not been fit for their posts; and I do not think that such a widely and constantly held opinion can be treated as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Gower

Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

I hope the House will listen.

Mr. Gower

Very briefly, if such a Minister ventures an expression of opinion beyond what he may have said either in another place or in this House, and if right hon. and hon. Members are critical of that, are not they being unduly sensitive?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Shinwell

Surely there is some urgency in so far as a point has now been established, namely, that the Minister of Defence, after having made a certain statement in another place on behalf of the Government, amended his statement at a public function on the same day—[Horn. MEMBERS: "A private function."]—amended his statement at a function on the same day, and that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister himself, what the Minister of Defence did was "unfortunate." Surely the urgency lies in this, that it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion—

The Prime Minister

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understood I was listening to a point of order.

Mr. Shinwell

I was coming to the point that surely the House should be afforded an opportunity at the very earliest moment of expressing an opinion which at any rate might have the effect of preventing other Ministers from conducting themselves—

The Prime Minister

Like you.

Mr. Shinwell

—in this unfortunate manner? I submit that that is a legitimate point of order and a legitimate ground of urgency.

Mr. Speaker

In answer to that point of order, I must say that, if any Ministers have not been sufficiently impressed already with the difficulties that may arise from an unhappy choice of words, I do not think that any further discussion today would do that. But I do not in any way seek to say that, if the House thinks that this is a proper matter for discussion, as showing some lack of competence or courtesy, or what you will, on the part of the Minister, it should not put down a Motion for a debate. That could be done. I am only concerned, in the interests of the whole House, to try to administer Standing Order No. 9 fairly and correctly.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

As you have given—

Mr. J. Hudson

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think there are several points of order, and the one I am first disposed to listen to is that of the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Crookshank

I was going to ask whether, as you, Sir, have given your Ruling twice on this definitive question raised from the Front Bench opposite, it is not the ordinary practice of the House that your Ruling should at once be accepted, and that, you having given a decision and certain advice, it is up to hon. and right hon. Members opposite to consider the advice you have given with the best grace they can, and that we should get on with further business at once?

Mr. Speaker

That is the usual practice; but I would point out that when an hon. Member gets up on a point of order I do not know what he is going to say until he has said it. That is the difficulty. I cannot check an hon. Member who rises before I know what he is going to say, and by that time he has said it.

Mr. Crookshank

Is it not a long-established practice that when Motions are attempted to be moved under this Standing Order, no point of order can possibly arise after Mr. Speaker has given his Ruling?

Mr. J. Hudson

As regards the question of urgency, I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order that the House has not considered at all. I shall submit it with great respect. It is time that it should be considered. The point is this, that all this difficulty has arisen at what has been called a public dinner. Is it not a matter of great urgency that Ministers should cease trying to make important and dangerous declarations, requiring keen judgment and care, on such occasions, and is it not necessary that these statements should be made in other places, particularly when there is an opportunity to make them in Parliament? A public dinner should never be allowed to be a place where such statements may be made. I put that point seriously.

Mr. Speaker

That certainly is a novel point, but it is not a point of order.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

The Chancellor of the Exchequer.