HC Deb 09 May 1956 vol 552 cc1220-3
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the subject raised by Question No.9.

It would not be in the public interest to disclose the circumstances in which Commander Crabb is presumed to have met his death.

While it is the practice for Ministers to accept responsibility I think it necessary, in the special circumstances of this case, to make it clear that what was done was done without the authority or the knowledge of Her Majesty's Ministers. Appropriate disciplinary steps are being taken.

Mr. Dugdale

Is the Prime Minister aware that that is one of the most extraordinary statements made by a Prime Minister in the House of Commons and that, whatever he may say to the contrary, it is a complete evasion of Ministerial responsibility? May I ask him one or two questions? Whether he will answer them or not appears doubtful. First, why was Commander Crabb diving in the close vicinity of the Soviet cruiser which was here on a friendly visit? Secondly, why, and under whose authority, was a police officer sent to the hotel at which Commander Crabb was staying, and why did he order the leaves to be torn from the register showing the names both of Commander Crabb and of the man with whom he stayed? Further, what was the name of that other man and why did the police officer threaten the hotel keeper with action under the Official Secrets Act if he did not allow that to be done?

The Prime Minister

I thought it right to make the statement which I have made to the House, and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that a great deal of information has already been published in the Press about this matter? Does he not think, on reflection, in view of the amount of speculation which undoubtedly will continue in the absence of any information from the Government℄[An HON. MEMBER: "It will increase."]—and, as my right hon. Friend has said, will increase, that it really would be wiser, and in the general interest, if a full explanation were given?

The Prime Minister

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given the fullest consideration to this matter. I can also assure him that there are certain issues which are the responsibility of the Prime Minister himself. Having given this all reflection and having given all the information at our disposal, I thought it my duty, as I have said, to give the House the Answer that I have given; and I must tell the House that I cannot vary the Answer I have given.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that that answer is totally unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that, while all of us would wish to protect public security, the suspicion must inevitably arise that his refusal to make a statement on this subject is not so much in the interest of public security as to hide a very grave blunder which has occurred?

The Prime Minister

The House and the country must draw their conclusions from what I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "They will."]—of course—and also from what I have declined to say. Naturally, any right hon. Gentleman will understand that I have weighed all these considerations; and they weighed heavily in the Answer I have given. But I repeat—and as right hon. Gentlemen, with their experience, know—there are some decisions which only a Prime Minister can take, and I am convinced, after the most careful reflection, that the decision I have taken was the right and the only one.

Mr. Gaitskell

Are we really to take it that in the absence of any further statement from the Prime Minister, and in the light of what he has just said about the public drawing their own conclusions, officers were engaged, or an officer of Her Majesty's Forces was engaged, on the business of espionage during the Russian visit?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so with respect, is perfectly entitled to put any wording he likes upon what I have said. My words stand as they were, without any gloss that anyone could put on them.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman has just told the House that he proposes to take disciplinary action. Those were his words. Will he be good enough to say against whom he is taking disciplinary action, and for what reason he is taking this disciplinary action?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. What I have said in my statement was that disciplinary steps are being taken. That is so.

Mr. Shinwell

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to enlighten hon. Members on this matter? Against whom is he taking disciplinary steps? Is it against an individual, or individuals, who gave instructions to Commander Crabb? Against whom is the action being taken and for what reason is he taking action? Is it because they defied authority, or is it because they acted without consulting Her Majesty's Ministers? What is the reason for the action?

The Prime Minister

I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given.

Mr. Dugdale

In view of the Government's most unsatisfactory Answer, 1 beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give a satisfactory explanation to the country about the events connected with the disappearance of Commander Crabb.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give a satisfactory explanation to the country about the events connected with the disappearance of Commander Crabb.

This application is covered by authority. When a Minister refuses to answer a Question on the grounds of public interest, it has been ruled in the past—and I adhere to it myself—that that is a matter which cannot be raised under the Standing Order. Therefore, I must decline to admit the right hon. Member's application.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir, the Question was tabled for answer by the First Lord of the Admiralty. It really was a matter for him because a naval establishment had been used. The Prime Minister's reply makes that quite clear. It would, therefore, appear to be an abuse of the rules of the House that the Minister who, clearly has a responsibility in this matter passes it to the Prime Minister, not, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the country, but of the political interests of the Government.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no point in that at all. The Prime Minister is quite entitled to answer the Question.