HC Deb 09 December 1954 vol 535 cc1109-16
45. Mr. Wigg

asked the Prime Minister whether he will institute proceedings under the Official Secrets Acts in view of the fact that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, on leaving the Army, signed declaration C of Appendix XXX to Queen's Regulations in which he declared that he had not then in his possession or control any sketch, plan, article, note or document, made or acquired by him in the course of his military duties save such as he had been authorised to retain by his superior officer, and yet had retained unsorted and uncatalogued documents of this class.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill)

No, Sir. Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has not left the Army, so the Question is ill-informed as well as ill-natured.

Mr. Wigg

Before I ask my supplementary question, may I raise a point of order, of which I gave you prior notice, Mr. Speaker? When I framed my Question and submitted it to the Table, I was informed that it could not be based upon the assumption that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery was still serving. I understand that many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have attempted to get Questions placed on the Order Paper regarding either the sayings or the goings-on of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, but that invariably these Questions have been refused on the ground that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has, in fact, left the Army. Would you, therefore, Sir, on that point make it clear that the form which my Question takes was based, not upon my absence of knowledge, but upon the rules of order of this House?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member raises a question which is hardly one for me, except in so far as the admissibility of the Question on What is said by the noble Lord is concerned. It seems that, as a Field Marshal, he is still in the Service, but Ministers have already disclaimed responsibility for what he says as a servant of N.A.T.O. I must take it from Ministers. It is not a matter for me, but one of general law and military discipline.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. Before asking my supplementary question, may I take it that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery is either in the Army or out of the Army according to the convenience of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister

Field marshals are always in the Army, and I am surprised that an Army schoolmaster did not know that.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. When I submitted my Question to the Table, I was specifically informed that the fact that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery held the rank of field marshal had nothing whatever to do with it. My Question had to be altered in order to be based on the view of the Table that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery had left the Army. Can we have your Ruling on that point, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

I think there is a little confusion here. The Clerks at the Table and I have to go on what Ministers say as to their responsibility. It is not a matter which I or the Table can judge. Ministers have said that anything that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has said as a servant of N.A.T.O. is not a matter for which Ministers are responsible. The Clerks at the Table are entitled—indeed it is their duty—to assume that the fact is so. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman.

Sir T. Moore

Further to that point of order. Is it not the fact that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery is a serving soldier who has been seconded to N.A.T.O for a certain period?

Mr. Wigg

May I now put my supplementary question? Is the Prime Minister aware that, as he is a soldier of such long service, it does not matter very much whether Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has left the Army or not? If the Field Marshal has left the Army, is he not liable to proceedings under the Official Secrets Act, and, if he is still in the Army, should he not be proceeded against by court-martial under Sections 40 and 41 of the Army Act?

The Prime Minister

I was answering the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. H. Morrison

May I ask the Prime Minister why, when an hon. Member puts down on the Order Paper a legitimate Question not couched in abusive terms, the Prime Minister in his original answer—before he has been knocked about by supplementary questions, if he was going to be knocked about by supplementary questions—gives such a discourteous answer? Has he got into such a state of sensitiveness about Field Marshal Lord Montgomery that he can never keep his head about this matter?

The Prime Minister

I am bound to say that I thought it was rather unworthy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am going to say why when I have an opportunity—to put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons a suggestion that an officer of this distinction should be considered for prosecution, and to spread that all about the world where his name is known, and when he has a large and important international duty to discharge. Therefore, I thought it perfectly right to make a retort which, I am glad to see, has struck home.

Mr. Shinwell

Leaving aside for the moment any question of disrespect to Field Marshal Montgomery, because I am quite sure none is intended—certainly so far as many of us are concerned, we have the highest regard for the Field Marshal, more particularly when he is making desperate efforts to support the Prime Minister—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is customary, apart from the Official Secrets Act, which I do not invoke at the present moment, for officers in the Army, of whatever rank, to retain secret documents without the permission of the Prime Minister, and whether the Prime Minister has not a record of those secret documents?

The Prime Minister

All extremely secret messages, of which there were a great number, which were sent to commanders at the front, were, by order, destroyed immediately they had been orally imparted.

Mr. Ross

That explains the telegram.

The Prime Minister

At the same time, I thought it right to pursue every channel which might yield information on a point about which I have been anxious, and, consequently, I asked whether, among private papers or diaries, there was any record. I was not aware when I began my inquiries that this strict order for destroying all documents at the moment in the headquarters at the front had prevailed, but it seems to me that it is very obvious why orders of that kind had to be destroyed.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this matter has not gone a little further than the question whether there is a telegram in the possession either of the Prime Minister or of the Field Marshal? Does not the question now emerge whether it is desirable that Army officers, or officers of any of the Services, of whatever rank, and whether on the active list or not, should retain documents of a secret character? Can we be assured that the Prime Minister will take immediate steps to see that such documents, if retained by Service officers, should immediately be sent back in order to be placed in the Cabinet file?

The Prime Minister

Now that we are nine years from the war, I see no need to alter the procedure which has hitherto obtained.

Mr. M. Lindsay

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole nation will agree with him that this Question on the Order Paper is beneath contempt?

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply—

Mr. Shinwell

Further to that point of order. In the interest of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, without exception, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper, in accordance with Parliamentary tradition, for any hon. Member to describe a Question placed on the Order Paper with the consent of the Table as being "beneath contempt"?

Mr. Speaker

It is strong language. I cannot say that it is un-Parliamentary because I do not think that there is any allegation against the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that he behaved in an improper way.

Mr. Shinwell

Surely, with very great respect, Sir, is it not an imputation against the hon. Member concerned to describe a Question on the Order Paper as being beneath contempt, and is it in accordance with Parliamentary tradition?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that I understood the right hon. Gentleman. Was he referring to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I would say at once that it is out of order, in supplementary questions, to make allegations against other hon. Members, but this matter has engendered so much cross-fire on both sides that I do not think the House should trouble with it more. In the meantime, notice has been given that the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Wigg

Further to my right hon. Friend's point of order. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have not the least objection to any names that I may be called by hon. Members opposite. The point at issue here is of fundamental importance. It concerns whether this country is getting value for the money spent on defence. That is what we are after, and we shall continually seek to establish that fact, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has used a non-existent telegram in order to draw a red herring across the trail.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that there is anything in that point of order for me.

Mr. Driberg

I wonder if you would be good enough, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, to clarify a little further the statement you made in reply to the original submission by my hon. Friend, of which he said that he had given you previous notice? I gather from you, Sir, that by implication you have confirmed that my hon. Friend had been given information by the Table which has today turned out to be inaccurate, and that you then added that that information was conveyed to you or your office, or the Table Office, by the Minister concerned. You said that the Chair had to take information from Ministers about their responsibility. If I may say so with great respect, Mr. Speaker, is not the House in a very extraordinary position if that arises, and if then the Minister concerned—in this case the Prime Minister—can avoid answering the Question on the Paper by saying that it is based on an inaccuracy, that inaccuracy having emanated in the first instance from his own office?

Mr. Speaker

I must answer this point at once because there is a misapprehension. When I spoke of the Clerks of the Table being informed by Ministers, I did not refer to any specific question by the Table to the Minister, because there was no such communication between the Table and any Minister in this case. What the Clerks at the Table and I had in mind was an answer given on 8th December by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden, which hon. Members will find, in c. 943 of HANSARD of that day. Questions were addressed to the Foreign Secretary by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about something that the Field Marshal had said. The Foreign Secretary stated: Field Marshal Montgomery is, of course, not a servant of Her Majesty's Government. He is a servant of N.A.T.O. He is perfectly entitled to express his opinions, as are other people in a world which is still free, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 943.] It is what Ministers say openly in this House and not privately that guides me and the Clerks at the Table. It is on that point that the Clerks at the Table have sometimes refused Questions, because they were directed to the Field Marshal's responsibility to N.A.T.O. and not to the Minister. That is all.

Mr. Driberg

Would it not seem to you also, Sir, that there is some conflict between what the Prime Minister said, what my hon. Friend was informed, and what the Foreign Secretary said on that occasion?

Mr. Speaker

I think not.

Mr. Woodburn

Further to that point of order. There are some other important Questions addressed to the Prime Minister. A lot of time has already been taken up with points of order which have nothing to do with the Question.

Mr. Speaker

I do sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree. It is very unfortunate—

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot really spend more time on this matter.

Mr. Wigg

As the Prime Minister has not replied to my supplementary question, I take it that, if I wish, I shall be in order in placing another Question on the Order Paper, based upon the Prime Minister's reply today, that the Field Marshal is liable to the Army Act?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member had better frame his Question, and I shall certainly look at it.

Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Speaker

Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Silverman

Yes, Sir. In view of the contradictory answers given on this point at different times by the responsible Minister, I should like it to be made quite clear, if possible, that Field Marshal Montgomery is, in fact, in the service of Her Majesty and that, therefore, however distinguished he may be, Questions about him are properly asked, and will no longer be refused at the Table.

Mr. Speaker

It is not for me to pronounce generally on the status of the noble Lord, the Field Marshal. I must be guided on the subject of Ministerial responsibility by what is said in this House by Ministers. That is all I can say.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Is it not high time that this House buried this latest piece of wiggery, jiggery, and pokery?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. As Question No. 46 is the next to be answered, and as the Prime Minister is here and there are other telegrams in which we are interested, could the right hon. Gentleman, with the permission of the House, answer No. 46?

Mr. Speaker

I could not, under the Standing Order, permit such a course. I have not previously been asked for leave to be given to answer it.