HC Deb 24 June 1952 vol 502 cc2037-50
Mr. Sydney Silverman

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make to the House concerning the attack by 500 aeroplanes under United Nations command upon power stations upon the Korean—Manchurian frontier serving the needs of Manchuria.

The Prime Minister

As the House is aware, it is the policy of the United Nations Command to limit hostilities to Korea. While there has not been much ground fighting in the past few months, air operations by United Nations forces have continued with the entirely legitimate object of decreasing the enemy war potential in Korea. Attacks such as those now reported do not appear to us to involve any extension of the operations hitherto pursued or to go beyond the discretionary authority vested in the United Nations Supreme Commander. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, there has been no change of policy.

Mr. Silverman

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman three short supplementary questions arising out of that statement? First, is he not aware that every point in dispute in the armistice negotiations has already been agreed on, except one, and on that point the Foreign Secretary told the House last week that he had every hope that agreement would be reached? Secondly, does he think that so extensive an operation as this in this place, affecting as it does places outside Korea, is likely to lead or could lead to an extension of hostilities which all sensible people in the world are doing their best to avoid? Thirdly, will he say whether the Minister of Defence, on his recent visit to the United Nations Command, was told about this forthcoming operation and whether he expressed any opinion about it?

The Prime Minister

I can only say that I am aware of what has been said by the Foreign Secretary in the House. As to the second question, that really is not a matter on which I have any means of giving an outside judgment at this moment. On the third question, I will talk to Lord Alexander when he comes home and find out, but we have not had any notification of any change in the policy which hitherto has been pursued, nor have we made any ourselves. I cannot feel that any serious departure in principle has been made or, if it had been made, that we should not have been consulted upon it.

Mr. C. R. Attlee

Has the Prime Minister considered that this is one of the matters on which there should have been consultations with others who are concerned in the actual fighting in Korea and that hitherto, although there has been bombing of purely military targets, and on the bridges over the Yalu River, this represents destruction of very important establishments which affect the whole of Manchuria, and that that kind of policy is largely one that should not be embarked upon without full consultation, especially in view of the fact that the discussions for an armistice are now taking place?

The Prime Minister

As I have said, there is no change in policy so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he told the House not long ago that his Government were following the policy laid down by the previous Government? The policy laid down by the previous Government was to let the fighting in Korea die away as much as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This was the policy stated by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in order to facilitate negotiations and these negotiations have been facilitated up to this point and now are deeply prejudiced. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a spokesman of the Pentagon stated: We now realise that the best chance of breaking the deadlock at Panmunjom is to hit the enemy with all the force at our command. He described the raid, which is reported to have wiped out five large hydro-electric plants along the Yalu River servicing North Korea and parts of Manchuria, as part of a "get-tough" policy in the military as well as in the political field. As this is not only military action but political as well, will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to what he said in the House in April last year when, in reply to my right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he said: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is general agreement on this side of the House with what he calls the traditional view that the constitutional and civil authorities should control the actions of military commanders?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1951; Vol. 486; c. 1028–29.] As this action has a declared political intention, is it not, therefore, a complete departure from the traditional policy of the Government, and ought not the Government to consider seriously the conseqences to world peace of irresponsible action of this sort?

The Prime Minister

The United Nations have delegated to the United States the duty and the burden of appointing the Supreme Commander in Korea. Discussions on various points have taken place from time to time between the Governments. In the time of the late Administration, these discussions authorised bombing, in certain circumstances, beyond the line of the Yalu River. There also have been occasions when this area of North Korea has been bombed by the United States forces, for example, in July, 1951, after the armistice negotiations had begun.

These power stations contribute, of course, to the Communist war effort in Korea. Among other things, they supply power to aerodromes in Manchuria from which Communist aircraft operate in Korea. Therefore, it seems that the matters are those which primarily fall within the purview of the Supreme Commander of the United Nations. Of course, when these matters occur, careful consideration is given to them by all the Governments who are concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Afterwards."]—and who are responsible in the matter.

I am advised that there is no obligation on the United Nations Command to consult us, as regards operations conducted within Korea, but it does not at all follow that we cannot discuss our affairs in an intimate and friendly manner with the United States or with other nations. I really do not think there should be any belief in the House that any change or alteration has taken place in the broad limits of policy pursued by this Government and the one which preceded it.

Mr. Attlee

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of differences in policy pursued by the Government. This is an action taken which, in the opinion of many of us, runs contrary to the general line which has been pursued. While there is no obligation laid down for consultation there has, in fact, in my experience, been consultation on every point at which there was a political consideration impinging on the military. Surely this is one of those occasions when there should have been a full consultation.

The Prime Minister

No consultation with Her Majesty's Government has taken place, but we naturally will inform ourselves upon the whole matter.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker

While we all recognise that the arrangements made for the command in Korea were imposed by the circumstances of the attack in June, 1950, and while we all feel that the nations owe a great debt of gratitude to the United States for what they have done, is it not now becoming clear—this is just one more event which makes it clear—that we need new military and political arrangements for the conduct of operations in Korea?

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that all past experience shows that the best way of dealing with flagrant aggression is to hit the aggressors hard? Will he not also agree that such a policy is much more likely to lead to the conclusion of a quick armistice?

The Prime Minister

My hon. and gallant Friend does not carry me wholly with him in his general statement. We are in an extremely difficult and delicate position certainly, in that the whole of this Korean war is being carried forward during armistice negotiations, through which we have suffered serious disadvantage. We are in great difficulty. We also must remember that operations have been entrusted by the United Nations to a Supreme Commander of the United States. I am not going to be drawn into saying anything which will in any way be taken as a reflection upon the Commander or will embarrass him in the action which he may think it necessary to take. We naturally reserve all our rights, as a friendly ally, for making representations which may be thought desirable.

Mr. E. Shinwell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can recall the suggestions, which were made two or three weeks ago during the armistice negotiations when it was thought that prospects were not too rosy for a successful conclusion of those negotiations, that he might take measures to bring about a conference of the United Nations organisation, or at any rate of those nations associated with it who are participating in the Korean struggle? He then thought it would be unwise. Would it not be wise in these very dangerous circumstances, when there is a prospect of this affair merging into a full-scale offensive, or a full-scale war, to suggest to the United Nations and the other nations concerned that a conference might be convened now to reconsider the whole position?

The Prime Minister

This is a grave and far-reaching question, which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Harold Davies

It is the wish of the British people.

Mr. Shinwell

The Prime Minister has suggested that this is a far-reaching question which might be addressed to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As that right hon. Gentleman is not present, and if the Prime Minister cannot give an answer at this stage, will he address himself to the subject and furnish an answer to the House at a very early stage?

The Prime Minister

The facts are not known at all with any definiteness. The facts are no doubt disputed and conflicting. It would be a great pity for us to commit ourselves to statements of a far-reaching character while we are only informed as we are at the present moment.

Mr. Attlee

This is a very serious matter. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the air attack on power plants of the Yalu River which took place yesterday, during the period of the negotiations for an armistice.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) has moved the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the air attack on the power plants of the Yalu River which took place in Korea yesterday during the period of negotiations for an armistice.

There is no doubt about its importance, but my difficulty with this Motion is that it seems to me that an authority other than Her Majesty's Government is responsible for the decision that has been made. The Prime Minister has said that there has been no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and it is clear from what I have heard of the facts that this action was taken under the United Nations Command—as I read the Press, which is all the information I have—entirely by United States Forces.

Mr. Attlee

May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have our responsibilities as members of the United Nations and as taking part in these operations in Korea? Therefore, this House is entitled to take into account any action here which would have its repercussions on the position of our troops. Although one cannot say that it strictly comes under a particular Minister, I think the point has not been considered before that we are participating with the United Nations under our obligations under the Charter, and therefore a responsibility does lie on our Government in this respect.

The Prime Minister

May I submit also to you upon that point, Mr. Speaker, that an Adjournment is not customarily given when the facts are in dispute or before they are available?

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House will keep order. I want to hear this matter discussed.

Mr. Bevan

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agreement which he gave to the statement of my right hon. Friend who was then the Secretary of State for War included these words: He was told that operations"— this is, the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea— should not be undertaken which extended the conflict beyond Korean territory, and that it was the intention of the United Nations to localise hostilities in Korea, and therefore that it was not their intention to become involved in general hostilities with China. And he was told that the powers of the Commander of the United Nations forces to conduct operations"——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on a point of order at the moment.

Mr. Bevan

—"on behalf of the United Nations were limited to Korea and were to be executed within the framework of declared United Nations Policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1027.] Is it not also a fact that the spokesman of the United Nations in the meantime has taken pride in the fact that, as a consequence of the destruction of these stations, thousands of square miles of territory inside Manchuria—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the point of order?"] If you want to go to war, why not say so? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Really, this is becoming quite disorderly.

The Prime Minister rose——

Mr. Speaker

Does the Prime Minister rise to a point of order?

Mr. Bevan

I am on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Well, it is getting very long.

The Prime Minister

Could I ask you, Sir—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) speaking to a point of order?

Mr. Bevan

Yes.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member will forgive me if I find it difficult to relate what he was saying to a point of order. Will he tell the House his point?

Mr. Bevan

With respect, I am calling your attention to a statement made by a Minister to the House of Commons indicating the scope of our responsibility in Korea, which is the issue. Is it not a fact that the lives and welfare of British subjects are put in jeopardy in Korea by the extension of the war in this case, and have we, therefore, not got a direct responsibility for looking after their lives?

The Prime Minister

On a point of order in connection with the Motion for the Adjournment. May I submit respectfully to you, Sir, that there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to avoid a debate upon this matter. Indeed, we think it might be not only useful but necessary. It certainly should be. I can give the House every guarantee that full opportunity will be offered for debating this matter.

Could I submit to you, however, that as there certainly will be a debate on this matter in the near future, when we shall have the advantage of having the Minister of Defence and the Minister of State back in this country, and shall have ascertained the facts which we do not know now and which are in doubt or in dispute, that this is not an occasion for using the special machinery of the Adjournment of the House which is reserved for exceptional occasions?

Brigadier Clarke

May I refer to the previous question put to the Prime Minister? A number of hon. Members on this side of the House were jumping to their feet, trying to catch your eye in order to ask a Question, and only one hon. Member on this side compared with 15 or 20 on that side were allowed to put a Question. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker

I beg the House to take this matter calmly. I can quite see the importance of it. I have already drawn the attention of the House to the Rule which filled my mind with doubt, namely, that a Motion of this kind to be in order must be the responsibility of a Minister or Government. Erskine May has numerous examples where the executive act complained of was done by an authority not His Majesty's Government, when the Motion has been in the past refused. There is also this difficulty about this particular Motion, namely, that from what I hear the facts are still in dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Attlee.

Mr. Attlee rose——

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must be the judge of whether I give way or not.

Mr. Attlee

I understand that a statement has been made from the American Defence Department. Surely that is a sufficient basis——

Mr. Speaker

I should not have thought that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for statements made by the Americans. What I suggest in the Ruling I have come to and given—I hope it is right—is, following precedent, that as the facts are not clear, I shall not allow this Motion at this moment, without prejudice to it being raised later when the facts become clearer.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention respectfully to two points with regard to your Ruling? One is on the question whether the facts are in dispute or not. With regard to that, the Prime Minister——

Mr. Speaker

The facts are not clear.

Mr. Silverman

Yes, Sir, but with regard to that the Prime Minister was good enough to give a very full answer to the Question which I put down, with your leave, by Private Notice. That answer contains a number of facts of which the Prime Minister was good enough to place the House in possession. I submit that those facts are known, those facts are clear, and those facts are sufficient to found such a Motion as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has proposed.

With regard to the other point about the responsibilities, it is not the case that the House is dealing with a situation which did not exist when the learned editor of Erskine May wrote his book, namely, a situation in which there is an international authority operating with the consent and support of the Government of the United Kingdom, and which would lose its authority to act if that consent and authority of the United Kingdom were to be withdrawn? If it were to be ruled that nothing done by the United Nations Command in those circumstances could result in a debate in this House, we should be parting with the right to criticise the Government or to ask the Government questions about matters with which our own nation had been involved.

This particular matter—the bombing of these power stations—happens to be the very event which brought China into these hostilities. Therefore, since the question of peace or war and our involvement in peace or war may depend upon the continuance or the cessation of these operations, how can it be said that it is a matter for which the Government have no responsibility at all?

Mr. Speaker

I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I am not by any means saying that the action of the United Nations Command cannot be raised in debate in the House—I have never said such a thing. I am only saying that this particular form of the interruption of business for the purposes of a debate on the Adjournment is hedged around with certain rules which it is my duty to apply as fairly as I can.

Although it is true that even the present edition of Erskine May did not contemplate a situation such as that which confronts us today, I have to try to apply the principles of the past to the facts of the present. I have come to the decision which I have, and I have given it the best consideration I can. I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. You have been kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to say, in the course of your remarks, that you are prepared to give further consideration to this very important matter. Is it not a fact that this House has conscripted young men and sent them from their homes to Korea, and that questions are asked normally every week about what happens to those young men in Korea? Can it conceivably be said that we should wash our hands of what may happen to those young men as a consequence of what is happening?

The Prime Minister

Further to the point of order. Am I right in assuming, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling was given not in regard to debates on these subjects in the House, but as to the use of the particular procedure of the Adjournment? Is it not a fact that the Opposition have many Supply Days at their disposal, including one tomorrow, which would enable the subject to be discussed?

Mr. Speaker

I wish to make it perfectly clear—I hope I have done so—that I am not in any way canvassing the right of the House to debate these matters. I am only dealing with the particular problem with which I have been suddenly confronted: namely, the application of this Standing Order, which permits of the interruption of the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Manuel

Surely it is important enough.

Mr. Speaker

I have never disputed its importance.

Mr. Crossman

May I make one more respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order? I gather that the doubt is whether the facts are clear. Clearly, sufficient facts cannot all be clear, but surely sufficient facts are clear to justify the Motion—the fact that the raid took place, the fact that our Government were not consulted, and the fact that the Americans have officially announced that this means a change of political policy. I ask very respectfully how, in view of those three indisputable facts, one can doubt whether the facts are clear.

The second submission that I wish to make is on Ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Defence has been sent to Korea, with the good will of the whole House, to investigate a problem which was profoundly disturbing. Whether he has been consulted by the Americans or not, clearly he is the Minister responsible. I cannot see how, on that view, the Motion is not urgently necessary and does not fulfil the requirements, both as regards the facts which are clear and as regards Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Edward Davies

Before you give your answer, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that you would not object to debate on matters of the United Nations with which this country and many other countries obviously are concerned. Surely the Ruling you are now making is not to say that, whatever the circumstances in the United Nations and its affairs, we have not the right as a House to move the Adjournment under some circumstances of an extremely urgent nature and different from these which may arise. Surely you are not ruling that in those circumstances, which, I agree, are hypothetical, we should not have the right to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. J. Hudson

On that point——

Mr. Speaker

Order. On this matter, I think I have already covered in my Ruling the points that have been made. I am not disputing the importance of this matter; the House must realise that. As to Ministerial responsibility, I heard the Prime Minister's answer say that there was no change of policy on the part of the Government. As to the statement that was made in America about it, that is a statement of American attitude and not of Her Majesty's Government. As to the sufficiency of the facts, what I have said is that the facts are not clear and that that is a ground for refusing the Motion.

I am not saying that the facts as stated in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who said that the facts stated by the Prime Minister were clear in themselves, were not clear, but that they were not sufficient. The Prime Minister said that everything was not known about it, and I think it would be best to postpone this matter without prejudice to its being raised upon the Adjournment again if further facts become known and become clear. I hope that the House will accept this.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Somebody has to decide these matters and take responsibility for them.

Mr. Bevan

I am not proposing——

Viscount Cranborne

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members opposite to go on questioning your decision in this way?

Mr. Bevan

May I, then, respectfully, through you, Sir, ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity of maintaining the utmost amount of support in this country for United Nations actions, we should have as early a debate as possible before there is further disquietude over what has happened in Korea? [HON. MFMBERS: "What about tomorrow?"] Would it not be the Prime Minister's duty in these circumstances to have the debate as early as possible to clear up all these matters?

The Prime Minister

The matters of business are in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but it is perfectly clear that nothing could prevent the Opposition from asking, through the usual channels, for a debate on this matter tomorrow. We would have no objection to the debate, although I would rather it were delayed until next week. My arguments on procedure have been devoted solely to the technical point, in which, I gather, we are sustained by Erskine May, in regard to the use of the Adjournment for a matter about which the facts are in dispute and for which an early opportunity for discussion is inevitable.

Mr. Hale

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a purely ancillary problem? In view of the declaration of the Prime Minister impliedly disclaiming responsibility for British troops in Korea, I would have sought, had that position been accepted, to move the Adjournment of the House to call the attention of the House to the declaration that British troops were serving in a war in respect of which we were not entitled to ask a question about their lives or their future.

Whether that be right or wrong, it is clear that under Standing Order No. 9 I should have had to do that forthwith. May I, therefore, seek your indulgence, as you have said that this question can stand over—I do not challenge that for a moment—to preserve my rights to take that course, notwithstanding that I have not done it forthwith, in the event of that situation arising?

Mr. Speaker

I certainly note what the hon. Member says. He will be damnified by no action of mine if these hypothetical circumstances do transpire.