HC Deb 09 February 1954 vol 523 cc1002-6
46. Mr. George Craddock

asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that in future no signal or other communication conveying Government policy to a foreign power is sent from a Department without the previous assent of the Minister being expressly signified.

The Prime Minister

Such a rigid rule would not be practicable. The principles governing Ministerial responsibility and its exercise are well known.

Mr. Craddock

Does the Prime Minister think that there is the remotest possibility that anything vital concerning Government policy could leave this country and go to a foreign power unless it had the sanction of the Minister concerned?

The Prime Minister

It would not be possible to have such a rigid rule as that. The Minister, of course, is supposed to know the general course of policy pursued by his Department in any particular direction, and he naturally would have cause to complain if he had not been informed of the course of action if it departed from the general course that he was pursuing. We cannot say that nothing is to be done that a Minister does not see. He is responsible, however, for anything that goes on and making sure that nothing goes on which he does not like.

Mr. Strachey

Would the Prime Minister agree that the particular telegram, to which, I think, my hon. Friend is referring, was not a communication to a foreign power but was a telegram fromone part of the War Office to another; a telegram for which, of course, I take the fullest responsibility. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Certainly. I have done it at all times. But it was a telegram proposing from one part of the War Office to another that they would recommend to the Government, in certain eventualities, a particular course of action on which they could not possibly decide, nor could I have decided on it. It could only have been decided by the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister

I think that the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given is in accord with the general practice. It might be perhaps as well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that we are discussing this against the background that, in choosing the Belgian instead of the British rifle, we had committed an act of shameful betrayal of our soldiers and in consequence it was necessary to show that the matter was very carefully considered from many angles beforehand.

Mr. H. Morrison

May I put one or two questions to the Prime Minister? Will he recall that there are confidential communications between Ministers here and powers abroad on the part of both this Government and their predecessors? Is it not important that when they take place, especially on matters of delicacy, they should take place on a basis of frankness, without the fear of political use of those documents later on? Would it not be reasonable, while I do not perhaps go quite as far as my hon. Friend, that if divulgences are to be made, the Minister concerned in the former Government should be informed so that he may have the fairness of refreshing his mind in readiness for the discussion that is taking place?

May I put it to the Prime Minister that if Ministers in this or any other Government, when having interchanges with foreign powers, must think about possibilities of future debate in the House when they think that the interchanges are confidential, it may lead to a highly inconvenient situation and lack of frankness?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said explains the general rule and practice in these matters, but there are exceptions which have been made, for which many precedents can be shown, over a number of years. One, I think, occurred in regard to the bombing beyond the Yalu, when it was necessary for the House to be informed of what had taken place in the past in order to put what was happening now in its right and proper setting. But I entirely agree that these examinations of past records of former Governments should be entirely exceptional and only used when there are special circumstances.

Mr. Morrison

Would it not have been reasonable in both cases that the former Minister concerned should at least have been informed that this proposed action was to be taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the precedent set must be open to be followed by following Governments, just as I should have a right to quote anything in these circumstances, of this nature or this type of communication, that may have transpired in the War Cabinet? I am on a serious point of upholding what are proper standards of fairness in these matters as between Ministers and ex-Ministers.

The Prime Minister

In view of the violent language which has been used and the very serious charges made against Her Majesty's Government, I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quite justified in what he did. But I am sure it would have been entirely in accordance with his own wishes, had the time and circumstances permitted, to have informed the right hon. Gentleman concerned beforehand, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the best practice that should be followed in the future.

Mr. Shinwell

On the general, and not this specific, point, is the Prime Minister aware that I was in communication with the Ministry of Defence before the debate on the rifle took place, asking about certain documents for which I was responsible as Minister of Defence in the late Government, and in particular about a confidential telegram despatched by the Ministry of Defence to the British Joint Services Mission in Washington, and that on the instructions of the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Defence I was refused access to that document?

Mr. Morrison

That is wrong.

The Prime Minister

Every case has to be judged on its merits. If the right hon. Gentleman will furnish me with the details, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell

These are they.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman has given neither dates, time, circumstances, nor anything. If he will send me a memorandum on the point, I will look into it. Certainly, I think an ex-Minister is entitled as a general rule to have access to records of his own action, unless anything has occurred which makes that particular topic of special significance.

Mr. Morrison

Is it not a firm rule that a former Minister has a right of access, not only to Departmental com- munications, records and telegrams—all of them—during the period that he was a Minister, but to Cabinet records, whereas the succeeding Government of another colour, or, possibly of any colour—at any rate, of another colour—has no right to the Cabinet records, although, of course, Foreign Office telegrams can be used, as they were on one of the occasions mentioned, to that effect? Is it not obviously wrong that my right hon. Friend should have been denied access to documents which were in the Department during his period of office as a Minister? Would not the Prime Minister say so right away?

The Prime Minister

I should certainly have been rather distressed if I had not been given access to some of the documents for which I had been responsible. I have said that I will look into this. But there is a general custom, and custom morethan law, that the Cabinet documents of one Government are not considered by those who are the Ministers in another Government; they are left as their own internal affairs.

Mr. Morrison

Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister

I have not seen any case that requires a new precedent to be set in that respect.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I call the attention of the House to the hour.