Admiral Sir Dudley North (Dismissal)

HC Deb 30 June 1954 vol 529 cc1330-3

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

10. Mr. Stokes

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships were under the command of Admiral Sir Dudley North on 9th September, 1940.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

On a point of order. I do not want to block the right hon. Gentleman's Question on policy grounds, but I want to deal with a matter from the procedural point of view. Is there any limit to the number of Questions which can be put down week-by-week relating to the past and, sometimes, the distant past? Ought these Questions not to deal with current administration, or are we all entitled to put down Questions about past disputes; in which case I might have one or two about my family connections almost 100 years ago?

Mr. Speaker

Each Question is treated on its merits. This run of Questions started with a request to the First Lord for an inquiry, and that is a matter in the present.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas

The answer to the Question is: Nine destroyers and a number of smaller ships. In addition, in an emergency, as Flag Officer Commanding, North Atlantic, the senior officer at Gibraltar, Admiral North could have called on the services of Her Majesty's Ship "Renown" should he have considered this necessary.

Mr. Stokes

May I take it from that answer that it would be recognised that Admiral North would be in close and continual contact with Admiral Somerville?

Mr. Thomas

Yes. Admiral North was the senior commanding officer there.

Mr. Stokes

Is that really so? Was not Force H an independent force with a great deal of interference from the Minister of Defence at the time?

Mr. Thomas

I would point out that Admiral North in his own evidence admits he had power over "Renown" and he admits that in an emergency he would not have hesitated to order her to sea if desirable. When Admiral Somerville wished to put back "Renown" to two hours steaming he went to Admiral North for approval, which was given by him.

Mr. Callaghan

Is it not a fact that Admiral North had only nine ancient destroyers under his command and he was ashore while Admiral Sir James Somerville had a powerful battleship and other powerful units with him? Does the First Lord really mean that Admiral North was the superior officer?

Mr. Thomas

He was the superior officer, as he himself says in two quotations that I read to the House.

11. Mr. Stokes

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what messages were received by the Admiralty from Admiral North between 0008 hours on 11th September, 1940, and the passage of the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar; and at what times.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas

Two, Sir. One, timed 0617, reported that H.M.S. "Hotspur" had sighted six ships moving West at high speed and that she had been directed to take no action. This signal was received in Admiralty at 0740. The other, timed 0711, and repeated to Flag Officer, Force H, reported Admiral North's intention to keep in touch with these ships by air and to report their probable destination. It reached Admiralty at 0742.

Mr. Stokes

Does the First Lord really mean that the signal sent at 0215 by Admiral North to "Hotspur" was never sent to the Admiralty, and that instructions for the "Renown" to be at one hour's steam at 0617 on that day were also not known to the Admiralty? Further, is it not a fact that Admirals North and Somerville were in continuous consultation long before this, and that the Admiralty should have known all about it two days before but, owing to the incompetence of the people here, they ignored the signals?

Mr. Thomas

The Admiralty has never disputed that the signals were mishandled at the Admiralty, and the officer in charge was relieved of his post. The case against Admiral North was that he did not take any steps to bring his ships to the necessary state of readiness to carry out any instructions which might be sent to him. It was for that reason that he was considered to be no longer fit to remain at his post.

Mr. Stokes

Does the First Lord really say that there was no instruction to "Renown" at 0617 to be at one hour's steam? Does he really say that is so? If so, he should look at his instructions again.

Mr. Thomas

My information is that Admiral Somerville got a signal from "Hotspur" on his own and put "Renown" at one hour's steam.

Mr. Stokes rose

—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Oh!

Mr. Stokes

I want to go on. I could not care less about the noble Lord. What I want to know is this: Does the First Lord really suggest that Admirals North and Somerville were divorced from one another? Has he not read the accounts given by staff officers of what really happened that night—that they were in continuous consultation ever since the morning of 9th September, and knew exactly what was going on, and knew what one another was doing? Does the First Lord deny that?

Mr. Thomas

I have no wish to deny that both Admiral North and Admiral Somerville were in constant touch with each other, but, as I said at the beginning of this long series of questions, Admiral North did not pass on the signal that he received from the Naval Attaché just after midnight until 8 o'clock the following morning.

Mr. Stokes

That is not true, it is a lie.

Hon. Members

Order, Order.

Mr. Thomas

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts of this case are not in dispute, that they never have been in dispute, and that I have answered accurately every question he has put.

Mr. Stokes

Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Thomas

I shall be delighted to deal with it.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Stokes

I withdraw that it is a lie; but it is completely untrue.