§ 46. Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister what official communications passed between him and President Eisenhower between his meeting with the French Prime Minister on 16th October and the commencement of the bombing of Egyptian airfields; and on what date he informed President Eisenhower of his intention to start military operations against Egypt.
§ 49. Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a full account of the communications he has received from President Eisenhower since 29th October and his replies thereto.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerI have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Communications of this kind are of no value unless they remain confidential.
§ Mr. SwinglerHas the Lord Privy Seal now had time to study the evidence in The Times and Manchester Guardian earlier this week, and in The New York Times and Washington Post last week alleging collusion in military operations between the British, French and Israeli Governments, and alleging in particular that the Foreign Office deceived the American Government about the nature of the meeting on 16th October? In view of the fact that these allegations are now widely accepted by responsible people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—at any rate, according to The Times, by high officials of the State Department in Washington, does the Lord Privy Seal not think that an impartial inquiry ought to be held into the origin of the military operations?
§ Mr. ButlerThe Answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is definitely "No, Sir." The Government do not believe an inquiry should take place into a matter which is primarily the responsibility of the Government. The Questions I am asked are about confidential exchanges between Heads of Governments. The Government do not propose to publish those exchanges. They consider they would lose their value if they were so published.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsThe Lord Privy Seal will recall that on Tuesday I asked him whether he would try to make a statement 1933 about the widespread belief and comments on collusion. In view of the fact that the evidence which is being put forward in other countries as well as at home to prove there was collusion consists of the reports of what is alleged to have transpired on 16th October, does the right hon. Gentleman propose now to deal with this very important matter?
§ Mr. ButlerI have nothing to add to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 31st October when he said:
It is quite wrong to state that Israel was incited to this action by Her Majesty's Government. There was no prior agreement between us about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1573.]I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary.
§ Mr. GriffithsMay I press the right hon. Gentleman? All over the world this meeting on 16th October is alleged to have been a secret meeting at which some plans were agreed to between the two Governments. Does not the Lord Privy Seal think that in the interests of the honour of our country this matter must be dealt with urgently?
§ Mr. ButlerI think that the honour of our country is safely in the keeping of the Government. I do not propose to add to the categorical denial made by the Foreign Secretary on this matter.
§ Mr. J. HarveyWill my right hon. Friend not agree that had there been in fact any such collusion, clearly the British and French forces would have arrived in Egypt much earlier than they did?
§ Mr. GrimondWould not the Lord Privy Seal agree that in point of fact the Foreign Secretary's denial was not a categorical answer to the allegations which are now made? Surely it is essential from the Government's point of view to give a categorical and detailed denial to the very detailed charges which have appeared in such responsible newspapers?
§ Mr. ButlerIn these Questions I am asked about certain interchanges. I am not prepared to release for publication confidential exchanges between the Heads of Governments. I am determined to reaffirm the statement made on this important subject by the Foreign Secretary, to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Lord Privy Seal aware that since the statement of the Foreign Secretary much information has been published on this matter in the Press of the world? Is he further aware that this is not only a question of whether the Government incited the Israeli Government to attack Egypt? What we want to know is whether the Government, either directly or through the medium of the French Government, were informed in advance of the intentions of the Israeli Government; whether they conveyed any information on this subject to the United States; why they did not, if they received that information, immediately do their best to restrain the Israeli Government; and whether there was any arrangement between the French Government and the Israeli Government, which was communicated to Her Majesty's Government, for an intervention by Britain and France against Egypt.
§ Mr. ButlerI am in this position—that Questions end at 3.30. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to try to serve the House. There is a Question, No. 50, to the Prime Minister which I was going to answer on this point and which, I think, takes up all the questions of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best thing for me to do would be to give the Answer to Question No. 50 and not try to avoid it. The Question, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), is:
To ask the Prime Minister what prior information was received by Her Majesty's Government of the intention of the Government of Israel to enter Egyptian territory on 29th October.This is the Answer:My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 30th October:
Five days ago"—that is, before that date when he spoke—news was received that the Israel Government were taking certain measures of mobilisation. Her Majesty's Government at once instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Tel Aviv to make inquiries of the Israel Minister for Foreign Affairs and to urge restraint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1956; Vol. 214, c. 1278.]That is the action we took, and that is the information we received.
§ Mr. A. HendersonAre we to take it from the Lord Privy Seal's reply that no information with regard to the intention of the Government of Israel was received from any other source?
§ Mr. ButlerI have said here that five days before the Prime Minister spoke, news was received that the Israeli Government were taking certain measures of mobilisation. When our Ambassador saw the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs, she assured Her Majesty's Ambassador on 29th October that no further hostile move was contemplated against Jordan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am giving the facts, and I want to finish what the Israeli Minister told our Ambassador, which was reported by telegram—and I have checked that telegram myself: Israel was not seeking military adventures. She explained mobilisation on the ground that Israel had to be prepared.
§ Mr. H. FraserIn view of my right hon. Friend's statement, would it not be normal for the so-called Leader of the Opposition to withdraw?
§ Mr. Dudley WilliamsOn a point of order. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to make an insinuation about the honour of Her Majesty's Government and then, when his insinuation is shown to be false, not to be called upon to withdraw that statement?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo unparliamentary language was used and these are matters on which people are entitled to have opinions. I did not take anything said from the Front Opposition Bench—and I think that it was the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition who used the expression about the honour of the country—to refer to the personal honour of Her Majesty's Ministers.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerIs the Lord Privy Seal aware that we are asking him to clear the Government of accusations which are widely believed throughout the world? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when our Ambassador saw the Israeli Foreign Minister and asked her about Jordan, we did not also ask her for an assurance that no attack was intended on Egypt?
§ Mr. ButlerThe Answer to that was given by the Foreign Secretary in reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), on 5th November, when he said:
Her Majesty's Ambassador at Tel Aviv was instructed to make inquiries of the Israel Foreign Minister and to urge restraint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 200.]It was precisely what our Ambassador did.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that there will be an opportunity for discussing this, other than in Question Time.
§ Mr. GaitskellOn a point of order. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a further opportunity?
§ Mr. SpeakerI merely expressed a hope that there would be an opportunity for discussing this matter as a debate and not in Questions. Mr. Gaitskell—business statement.
§ Mr. PagetFurther to that point of order. Does your observation, Mr. Speaker, mean that you would accept a Motion for a special Adjournment of the House to discuss it this afternoon?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, it does not mean that.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not know. My concern is that when Questions and supplementary questions begin to merge into a debate it is not proper for Question Time. If a debate is held on the subject—and that is not in my hands at all—then those things can be said which cannot be properly said in Question Time. All that I am anxious to do is to separate the functions of Parliamentary Questions from those of debate. Mr. Gaitskell.
§ Mr. Gaitskell rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Gaitskell—business statement.
§ Mr. Gaitskell rose—
§ Mr. GaitskellHon. Members opposite can go on if they like—
§ Mr. SimmonsThe Prime Minister has withdrawn from the country.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe matter on which we are seeking information from the Government is one of the very highest importance, and I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong in those circumstances to cut Questions short. I raise no objection if you can give us an assurance that, after the statement which I understand the Lord Privy Seal is to make on the international situation generally, we can pursue the matter further.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have not read the statement myself. I do not know what is in it. We shall see how we get on, but on Question No. 50, which is the subject from which we started, I think that the discussion has had a very good run. Mr. Gaitskell.