HC Deb 20 November 1956 vol 560 cc1540-3
35. Mr. Hale

asked the Secretary of State for War when his Department first received information of the intended Israeli attack upon Egypt; and what action was taken thereupon.

Mr. John Hare

My Department received no advance information of the Israeli attack, and the second part of the Question does not therefore apply.

Mr. Hale

Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), who told us that news of a planned Egyptian attack was received in September, and of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, apparently, on 16th October, was discussing the matter with the French Government, when the decision was made to send contingents of French aircraft to drop napalm bombs upon Arab men, women and children; and was any notice taken of the possibility of blinding and burning women and children, and igniting British installations?

Mr. Hare

All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman is merely repeating worthless gossip.

Mr. Stokes

Always having regard to whether newspaper reports are correct or not, has the attention of the Secretary of State for War been drawn to the statements in Washington that the State Department has now said that it has evidence of British, French and Israeli collusion and co-operation before the Israeli action in Egypt?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Minister cannot be asked about statements made in Washington unless they were made to Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) did not state that they were so made.

Mr. Stokes

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that I tried to put down a Private Notice Question on this subject and you disallowed it. This is a matter of very great importance to the nation. These statements have been made, and I want to know from the Government whether they have paid any attention to those statements and whether they have any statement to make?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member's Private Notice Question was disallowed for precisely that reason. The Government are not responsible for any statement made by people in other countries unless the statement is a message from another Government to Her Majesty's Government. Then they can be asked about it. That is the rule about Questions. I did not make it, but I am bound to keep to it. That is why I had to disallow the right hon. Gentleman's Private Notice Question, and it is also the reason why, if it is not in order as a Private Notice Question, it is not in order as a supplementary question.

Mr. Stokes

Of course, I accept that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but am I to understand from that that only after a very tedious and delayed process are the British people, who are the only people who really matter in this connection so far as we are concerned, to be allowed to know—at the very end, when everybody else has discussed the matter?

Mr. Speaker

There are other methods of discussing the matter apart from Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This seems to be a very important Ruling indeed. Where a State Department or a Foreign Office abroad makes a statement, surely it has always been in order to ask the Government whether they have seen it and whether it is true? I am sure that I have seen that sort of Question asked on a large number of occasions.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member is mistaken, I think. It is not an important or new Ruling; it is a very old one. It has been adhered to in the House for a very long time. No doubt, with the assistance of the learned Clerks, an hon. Member can sometimes frame a Question so that it has some connection with Her Majesty's Ministers, but merely to ask whether a report of some statement made abroad is correct or not is not a proper subject for a Parliamentary Question. If the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), as I advised him, had consulted about the form of the Question, it might be possible for him to get an answer. That I cannot say, but in the form in which he has asked it, I could not pass it.

Mr. Stokes

While naturally accepting your verdict, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether in the process of coming to your decision you also bore in mind the statement in the Press that French pilots manning French aeroplanes took part on the Israeli side against Egyptians? Surely that also shows collusion?

Mr. Speaker

That is nothing to do with me. I did not take that into account because I did not hear it until the right hon. Gentleman uttered it. It would have nothing to do with the rules of order.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the War Office now employs public relations officers, and as these public relations officers and other officers make statements to the Press on the events of the day, surely these public relations officers make the Minister responsible for their statements? Are we not, therefore, entitled to probe the question whether these statements are accurate or not? Are we not entitled to ask the Minister, when we see a two-column front page statement in the Manchester Guardian this morning, whether it is correct or not?

Mr. Speaker

That is another question. The statement about which the right hon. Member for Ipswich was asking was, as he said, made by someone in America and not by a public relations officer at the War Office.

Mr. Wigg

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Government have a responsibility here if these French aircraft, as it is alleged, flew from a British airfield and were supplied with British petrol?

Mr. Speaker

That is certainly not a point of order. There is nothing in this Question about French aircraft. I have never heard of them before in this connection.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Surely the question is when the War Office received information of the intended Israeli attack upon Egypt. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) asked his question as a supplementary to that Question. What he did was to ask whether, in view of what had been published in America, the War Office could give further information by way of amplifying its reply to the original Question. Surely that is in order?

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has said, the Question asked when the Secretary of State's Department first received information. The Minister answered that Question. There was then an attempt to tack on to that—I do not say it in any critical spirit—a question whether something said in America was true or not. That is why I had to intervene. I did not make the rule.