HC Deb 02 June 1954 vol 528 cc1283-7

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

74. Mr. STOKES: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in view of the statements made in the Official Naval History of the War about the dismissal of Admiral Sir Dudley North from the command of the North Atlantic station in 1940 and the publicity recently given to it, he will now grant the demand for a court martial or public inquiry made in 1940 by Admiral Sir Dudley North, but then refused by the Admiralty.

At the end of Questions:

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, perhaps I might answer this Question.

No, Sir. Admiral Sir Dudley North was relieved because he no longer had the confidence of the Admiralty. He was, of course, given an opportunity to explain his conduct and the main facts were not in dispute. No court-martial or board of inquiry could then (or could now) have affected the loss of confidence. The Admiralty has a right to relieve an officer in such circumstances without further formality, and did so. It will not be overlooked that the Official History brings out the fact that there was evidence that confidence in Admiral North had, earlier, been shaken. In time of war, above all, it is essential that the Admiralty should have unfettered discretion to employ or to refuse to employ officers of any rank in accordance with the degree of confidence which they have in them.

Mr. Stokes

When the First Lord says that Admiral Sir Dudley North was given an opportunity to explain, does he mean the rather short-tempered exchange of letters which took place between the Admiral and the Admiralty? Is that what he means?

Mr. Thomas

Admiral North was asked to explain, and was entitled to explain at any length he liked.

Mr. Stokes

That answer is entirely inadequate, in my opinion, from what I have seen. What does the First Lord say to the fact that last May no fewer than five full Admirals of the Fleet made representations to him in this matter, asking for an inquiry? Will he tell the House why he refused the inquiry?

Mr. Thomas

It is perfectly true that five Admirals of the Fleet came to see me last year. Their primary object was to ask for an inquiry, hoping that this might avoid unwelcome publicity for the Navy and discussion in Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I told them I could not yield on the issue of lack of confidence in Admiral North and that I was prepared to face the publicity.

Mr. Callaghan

Having regard to the fact that the lack of confidence in Admiral North was the result of the expression of his views about the treatment of the French Fleet at Oran, and the fact that his views on that subject were shared by many other people, does the First Lord think it is fair to bring that into account at this stage? Would not the First Lord agree that the signals that passed between Admiral Somerville and Admiral North were lacking in clarity? In order to enable us to make up our minds, would the First Lord consider at least publishing the instructions that were sent out when Force H was set up?

Mr. Thomas

I will certainly go into that latter question. So far as bringing in the question of Oran is concerned, I think I am fair to do so, as that was one of the reasons taken into consideration by my predecessor the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time and by the First Lord of the Admiralty since then. As for bringing about increasing lack of confidence in Admiral North, I think I am justified on this occasion in mentioning that fact.

Mr. Callaghan

Admiral Sir James Somerville, who commanded Force H at the time, made representations about the War Cabinet's instructions on the treatment of the French Fleet at Oran. He did exactly the same thing as Admiral North did when the French Fleet passed Gibraltar. Why single out Admiral North when Admiral Somerville, who is no longer with us and whose name is, in my view, very rightly unsullied, did the same thing? Does not the First Lord see that there is a differentiation in the treatment of these two men?

Mr. Thomas

The Admiralty may well have thought the same about Admiral Somerville at that time. At a later date Admiral North caused further lack of confidence at the Admiralty and Admiral Somerville did not. As far as the signal goes, I do not want to say anything further which would be grievous to Admiral North, who I know naturally takes these things very much to heart. The signals from the Admiralty and from the Naval Attaché in Madrid reached Admiral North just after midnight on 10th September.* I am sorry to say that Admiral North took no action, knowing the French were on the move and not knowing whether they were going to occupy French ports or North African ports. He took no activity for bringing on at short notice the steaming of his ships, nor did he pass that signal to Admiral Somerville until 8 o'clock that morning.

Mr. Stokes

This is quite preposterous.

Sir R. Acland

On a point of order. No doubt your permission was asked that this Question should be answered out of turn, Mr. Speaker. Could the House know why, after 14 years, it is so important to have all this personal muck-raking brought out in public today? Could we not have waited a few weeks more until the Admiralty came to the top of the list for Questions?

Mr. Speaker

In allowing the Question to be asked after time I thought it was, on the whole, in the interests of hon. Members that the Question should be asked. In justice to the House, I could not permit it to develop into a debate on events on which everyone's memory must by now be a little cloudy. There is always the risk of doing an injustice to someone in the matter. Might I ask that hon. Members who have an interest in the matter should try to arrange another occasion when the matter could be dealt with? I could not allow a debate on the matter.

Mr. Stokes

I do not wish to continue the debate, but the First Lord's answer is quite preposterous. Is he not aware that the signals passed were not a bit as he described them, not a bit? I have seen them. This is not a thing that I can deal with at Question time, but can the First Lord explain why the present Prime Minister in his own history of the war today says that the *See reply to Question 47, c. 1954, Vol. 528. mistake occurred because of the duty officer at the Admiralty and for the mistake he received in due course the expression of their Lordships displeasure. That is all he got, while Admiral North got the sack. Does the First Lord consider that justice?

Mr. Thomas

The officer who made the mistake at the Admiralty was relieved of his post.

Mr. Speaker

We shall have to leave it there.

Mr. Stokes

I beg to give notice that I am coming back to this matter very often.