PORT SAID (CASUALTIES) (Hansard, 20 December 1956)

§ 61. MR. WIGG
To ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement on the revised estimate of civilian casualties in the Port Said area.

§ The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head)
I will, with permission, Sir, answer Question No. 61.
In view of the conflicting estimates of the nature and extent of damage and casualties in Port Said, Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable that there should be an immediate independent inquiry. They were fortunate in securing for this task the services of Sir Edwin Herbert, the President of the Law Society.
Sir Edwin visited the Middle East from 8th to 15th December, spending four days in Port Said. His Report, which is now in the concluding stage of preparation, will be issued as a Command Paper, and it is hoped that it will be available in the Vote Office on Friday, 21st December.
I am placing in the Library copies of photographs and maps used by Sir Edwin Herbert in the course of his inquiry.

§ Mr. Wigg
What was the date upon which the right hon. Gentleman decided to have this independent inquiry? Was it before or after the Paymaster-General made his statement to the House? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it very regrettable that the White Paper is to be available to the House only when it is no longer possible to discuss it, in view of the fact that the American Consul has stated that the figures of 100 killed 1464 and 540 wounded are grotesquely wrong and that the number killed is at least 2,000?

§ Mr. Head
When the Paymaster-General returned, he had had only a limited amount of time at his disposal, and he himself felt that a further inquiry should be made if we were to go further in making an accurate estimate.
Concerning the availability of the Report, Sir Edwin Herbert was as quick as he could be. He returned on the 15th and had to draft his Report, and we have had the printers up all night getting it printed. There is no queston of our being able to get it out earlier. There was no delay because of any fear of the House. As it is an 11,000-word Report, it is a remarkable achievement on the part of the printers that it will be available tomorrow.
As far as the various assessments of casualties are concerned, the hon. Member would do much better to await the Report, because by quoting individual statements he is doing no good to impartiality and is only encouraging those who listen to very exaggerated versions.

§ Mr. Wigg
Why did not the Paymaster-General tell the House on 5th December that he was doubtful about the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] Perhaps hon. Members will let me finish. Why did not the Paymaster-General tell the House on 5th December that he was so doubtful about the figures that it was necessary to have an impartial inquiry? Why have we had to wait until the House is about to depart for the Christmas Recess to discover the truth? We hope that the Report will give all the facts.

§ Mr. Head
My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General was at pains to explain the limitations within which he made his own inquiry at Port Said. He explained that it was impossible for him at that time to make a complete investigation. He reported to the House upon his inquiry, and he offered to go out again himself to inquire further, and suggested, alternatively, that somebody outside the Government should carry out an impartial inquiry. The Government, in my opinion quite rightly, thought that an impartial inquiry should be made. That was why the President of the Law Society went out.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is trifling with the House now, in view of the very dogmatic assertion he originally made about the truth always being on our side? There was continual evasion by the Paymaster-General of my repeated requests to him that we should be told whether the Government would make further inquiries.
Is it not trifling with the House now to tell us that an 11,000-word Report is to come out tomorrow, despite the printing difficulties? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear himself now with the House by giving us the figures which are in the report. The whole problem has arisen because the Government have hedged so much on the figures. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell us the figures we could judge whether they are significantly different from those we have been given already, and which he was so dogmatic about. It would be quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman to do that.

§ Mr. Head
The right hon. Gentleman talks of my "dogmatic assertion," but I have only given the House—and no Minister could do more, in the circumstances—the estimate of the casualties given to me by the Commander-in-Chief. He was concluding an operation at the time. There was nothing "phoney" or "cooked up" about those figures. There is nobody who can give an absolutely accurate estimate of these casualties. It is impossible to have disinterment, for that is not allowed by the law in Egypt. There can be only an estimate. It would be absolutely wrong to quote the Herbert Report out of context. When right hon. and hon. Members read the Report they will appreciate the problem that confronted Sir Edwin Herbert in getting accurate figures. I can, however, say that the Report entirely discountenances suggesting the sort of figures which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

§ Mr. Brown
I am sorry to press this, but if the right hon. Gentleman can quote the Report out of context to discountenance a suggestion of 2,000 casualties he ought to be able to tell us, equally out of context and with no worse harm, whether the Report discountenances the suggestion that there were 100 or 200 casualties. We can read the Report afterwards, which is easier. So many things have been said that it is impossible not 1466 to have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman is hedging. Would he not tell us whether the estimate in the Report is 500 or 1,500, or whatever the figure is?

§ Mr. Head
I have not been hedging on this. The story of this estimate is perfectly clear. I have said that the Commander-in-Chief gave me an estimate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite started quoting astronomical figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not blaming them, but I am saying that they did, and I say categorically that those are very high figures.

§ Mr. Wigg
rose—

§ Mr. Head
The hon. Gentleman might let me finish. He has had a good go.
The astronomical figures are wrong. Sir Edwin Herbert went out and has written a very long and reasoned Report on the problem of making an estimate and of arriving at the figures. It is absolutely wrong for anybody in this House to take bits out of the Report and to give them in advance of the full Report. I am not ashamed of refusing to do so, or of anything I have said upon this matter. If hon. Members want to debate the Report when we return, I shall be only too delighted. They may debate it as much as they like when they have seen the Report. Sir Edwin Herbert arrived back on 15th December and wrote his Report. We have not yet got in my office the last words of the printed Report. I am not holding it up. We are making it available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux
Will my right hon. Friend also do his best to make public the extraordinary risks which members of our Armed Forces ran to ensure that nobody, or as few as possible, not only of the civilians but also of the Egyptian forces, should be hurt, as, for instance, when our aircraft destroyed Egyptian aircraft on the ground, and flew at a dangerously low altitude to avoid injury to Egyptian personnel; and as, for instance, when two Royal Marine officers were killed by being shot in the back by people in civilian clothes when they visited suspected houses because they were loath to take preliminary precautions which might have saved their lives but which would have been dangerous to the Egyptians?

§ Mr. Head
There is in Sir Edwin Herbert's Report quite a long section which deals with the operation itself and the precautions which were specially taken to avoid unnecessary casualties.

§ Mr. Bellenger
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, could he tell the House whether the Commander-in-Chief will write a despatch, as is usual after military operations? If so, will the House and the country have the opportunity some time of hearing what the Commander-in-Chief has to say about the operation?

§ Mr. Head
The Commander-in-Chief, in accordance with custom after all operations, will make a written report about the operations. As to what is done about publication, I should not like to answer that question without notice. It does not arise upon this Question. But I would say this, that if ever there was an operation which reflected credit on our troops it was this one.

§ Mr. Healey
Does the Minister of Defence recall informing the House on 5th December that, to quote his own words, he had true knowledge"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1244.] on 26th October of Israeli intentions to attack Egypt? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can he tell the House whether, on receiving this true knowledge of Israeli intentions to attack Egypt, he asked the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—to warn Israel against such an attack and consult the American Government—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This seems to refer to the previous Question, which we have passed. This Question deals with a further statement on the revised estimate of civilian casualties in the Port Said area.

§ Mr. Healey
You have heard, Mr. Speaker, the prothesis of my question, but not its apothesis.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member will now produce the apothesis.

§ Mr. Healey
Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister and advise him to warn Israel against such an attack and to consult the United States and French Governments to consider action in order to ensure that there would be no casualties at all?

§ Mr. Head
That question does not in any way arise out of this Question.

§ Mr. P. Williams
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the important thing is that there has been an independent inquiry, that it has been conducted quickly and that the Report is to be laid before the House urgently. That being so, would it not be more suitable if hon. Members opposite were to hold up their mischief until they have read the Report?

§ Mr. Wigg
If the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends are now converted to the idea of an inquiry, why do they not go a step further and either appoint a Select Committee, as in the case of the Jameson Raid, or a Royal Commission to inquire into the origin of this business? It would clear the name of the Prime Minister, assuming that was possible, and would also establish beyond any doubt the inception and origin and the conduct of this operation, and we should know, as far as that is humanly possible—

Hon. Members
Speech.

§ Mr. Speaker
I ask the House to remain quiet while the hon. Member finishes a question which has already been somewhat prolonged.

§ Mr. Wigg
I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Now that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have become converted to the principle of independent inquiries will they not go a step further and appoint a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the origin and the conduct of this operation, so that we shall establish beyond any shadow of a doubt what the casualties are, whether the Prime Minister has been telling the truth or not—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Sir L. Joynson-Hicks
rose—

§ Major Legge-Bourke
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the House not to let this matter grow into an irregular debate. It is really time that we were moving on to the next business. Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks.

§ Sir L. Joynson-Hicks
Will my right hon. Friend convey to Sir Edwin Herbert our very great appreciation—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I called the hon. Member on a point of order. That certainly is not one.

§ Major Legge-Bourke
On a point of order. I rise to a point of order to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the observation of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who suggested that the Prime Minister had not been telling the truth. Has it not long been a tradition of the House that an imputation of that kind against a Member, whether he be a right hon. Gentleman or an ordinary back-bencher, is an imputation of motive which is out of order? I would ask you, Sir, to rule the hon. Member for Dudley out of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I heard the hon. Member for Dudley say that he thought an inquiry would establish whether the Prime Minister was telling the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or not."] That is capable of merely saying whether the account of the facts given by the Prime Minister was correct. Anyone can make a misstatement without meaning to do so, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Dudley went as far as to suggest that the Prime Minister was not telling the truth, otherwise I should have checked him.

§ Mr. Wigg
I should like to make it quite plain, Sir, that I did not, for a single second, rule out the possibility that the Prime Minister was telling the truth. All I asked—and I questioned the Prime Minister on this before his very regrettable illness—was whether he would appoint a Select Committee or a Royal Commission.

§ Mr. Speaker
We have had that. Will somebody say whether there is to be a Select Committee or not?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Speaker
If there is no answer, we must pass on. Mr. Sandys.

§ The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am afraid that I have got rather wrong in time myself. Mr. Gaitskell. Business question.