§ 47. Mr. Maurice Edelmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire into the leakage of secret information from the Admiralty to a French newspaper.
§ 48. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what inquiry he has made into the recent disclosure of secret information from the Admiralty to a French newspaper.
§ The Prime MinisterI am assured that there has never been any document of the kind referred to in the French Press. Any suggestion of a leakage is therefore absurd.
§ Mr. EdelmanIn welcoming the Prime Minister's reply, may I ask him if he is aware that on 10th May "Le Monde," an otherwise reputable newspaper, published a libel, as it is now recognised to be, against the Admiralty, and still persists in that libel? Will he say what steps he has taken to obtain an explanation and an apology from "Le Monde" for this obvious libel against the Admiralty?
§ The Prime MinisterI never understood that we were obliged to take steps to obtain apologies from foreign newspapers for what they say about us. A lot of unpleasant things are said about us by foreign newspapers, especially those of a Communist or fellow-traveller character.
Mr. Emry; HughesIs the Prime Minister aware that a fortnight ago the Admiralty issued a denial about a certain public document which it was afterwards compelled to say was genuine. Is he aware that "Le Monde" has the reputation of being an anti-Communist newspaper, and, indeed, an extreme Right Wing newspaper? Is he aware that in that issue of "Le Monde" there was a statement about Britain being made untenable as a result of an attack with atomic bombs, which many people throughout the world believe to be true? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult Admiral Fechteler, so that we may be assured that he has never made any statement of this kind? If this country is liable to be destroyed by atomic bombs, we ought to have a very full explanation in the House.
§ Professor Sir Douglas SavoryIs my right hon. Friend aware that the principal editor of "Le Monde" has resigned as a protest against the article?
§ Mr. E. ShinwellIs the Prime Minister aware that the impression conveyed by the article is that Europe might be overrun in certain eventualities and that the position of this country would become untenable, and if that impression gains currency, might it not have a detrimental effect on the whole system of European defence? Is it not desirable in the interests of the build-up of European defence that the right hon. Gentleman should give a complete repudiation of what is contained in the article?
§ The Prime MinisterI have not read or attempted to read the article or a great many other forms of foreign misrepresentation which are put about. I certainly do not intend to add that to my various labours. To read all the articles endeavouring to cause harm and disconnection between the N.A.T.O. countries would indeed be a task beyond that which anybody would undertake. All I have to say is that we, the Government of this country, the Departments of this country, have nothing to do with the article and know nothing about it.
§ Mr. ShinwellWhile accepting all that the right hon. Gentleman says about our attitude towards an article of this character, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he appreciates the effect on people in France and the Continent generally if 1629 any credence is given to the statements contained in it? With very great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that he might see the article and perhaps form a judgment upon it.
§ The Prime MinisterI have not, as I said, seen the article, and I do not see any reason why I should give it priority over the many papers that I have to read. Undoubtedly a very serious situation exists, as was so feelingly brought home to us by the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Minister of Defence, in showing the great strength of the Soviet military forces in Europe and their high state of preparedness and their very great preponderance over what the United Nations and N.A.T.O. have so far been able to put in the field.
We must also remember that this country is in a particular position of prominence in the great antagonisms of the world owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues established—I do not say wrongly—on their responsibility the great Anglo-American base in East Anglia, which undoubtedly, as I have said before in the House, renders us specially liable to the counter-attentions of the other side. However, we are all facing these difficulties together. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will make a very great mistake if they attempt to divorce themselves from their great share of responsibility for building up the present situation, in many of their actions in regard to which we have given them our support.
§ Mr. ShinwellWith great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, does not his statement, which is debatable in some respects, prove conclusively that he is not aware of what is contained in the article? I beg him to peruse the article so that he can ruminate on what is conveyed, which, in my view and, I think, in the view of many hon. Members, not necessarily all on this side of the House, may prove to have disastrous consequences on the Continent and elsewhere in respect of the building up of the defence organisation.
§ The Prime MinisterI feel that the right hon. Gentleman, contrary to his general outlook, is, by his action, endeavouring to invest the document with an altogether undue amount of importance.
§ Mr. Speakerrose—
§ Mr. WyattOn a point of order. You allowed the Prime Minister to make a long, rambling and tendentious statement, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As it had nothing whatever to do with the Question originally asked, may we not be allowed to debate it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to ask his supplementary question because I thought it was an important matter. This Question started before 3.30. I cannot control what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on either side say. The length of these supplementary questions and replies has carried it much beyond the bounds of tolerance after 3.30.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order. I want to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the allegation of leakages by means of the British Secret Service to foreign newspapers and the refusal of the Prime Minister to investigate them.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member has sought to move the Adjournment of the House. He should now bring his Motion to the Chair.
§ Mr. John ProfumoMay I ask, Sir, if it is in order for an hon. Member to seek to move the Adjournment of the House and then waste the time of the House by bringing forward a Motion which he has not himself written and has not even completed?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is in order, but I am a little out of order. There is the business question, which I had for the moment forgotten.
§ Later—
§ Mr. EdelmanAs the Motion that has now been placed before you, Mr. Speaker, arises directly out of the Question that I put to the Prime Minister, may I say forthwith that I accept fully that the statement which "Le Monde" has made attributing the Fechteler report to Admiralty sources is invalid, is unjustified and is, in short, a libel? In those circumstances it seems to me that the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has equally no validity. The 1631 object of my Question was precisely to elicit from the Prime Minister an assurance that the statement in "Le Monde" was a libel so that he would have an opportunity of denying the origin of the paper attributed by "Le Monde" to the Admiralty.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the leakage to a foreign newspaper of an official document by the agency of the British Secret Service.
It is a clear rule in all these matters that "a definite matter of urgent public importance" must be an established fact. Such a Motion cannot be offered when the facts are in dispute. The course of Question and answer today shows that this condition completely rules the Motion out from the relevant Standing Order.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI appreciate fully that neither you, Sir, nor myself have had very much opportunity to consider this matter, but the facts upon which the Question was based are not in dispute at all. What is before the House and before you, and what was in the Question which my hon. Friend put upon the Order Paper, was the actual appearance in a foreign newspaper of a document described by that newspaper as an official document which reached that foreign newspaper by the agency of its dealings with the British Secret Service.
If it were sufficient to prevent inquiry that a denial of that allegation should be made by the Prime Minister, he, in making the denial, at the same time confessed that he had not even read the allegation that he was denying. I should have thought it was well within the rule to show that this matter, which is being followed with great interest all over the world at the moment, was definite, was urgent, and was of public importance.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is really arguing against my Ruling, which is perfectly clear. He based his Motion upon an allegation of a leakage, which is denied. The facts are in dispute, so the matter is not a definite matter of urgent public importance within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesThe only time that the Prime Minister answered the Question 1632 was when it was placed on the Order Paper by me. A statement was made in reply to a supplementary question. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's answer, and of the fact that I have already been successful in the Ballot for the Adjournment on 27th May, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on 27th May.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat closes the matter at this stage.