HC Deb 04 February 1957 vol 564 cc201-10

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for coming to the House at this late hour to answer this debate on the Adjournment. Perhaps he will permit me to congratulate him on his new office. He is the seventh Minister of Defence since 1951, and I hope very much that he will break new ground. We know that he is going to cut the bill, and if he gives us some defence some of us will feel happy. It will be quite a novel experience since 1951. I sincerely hope, for his sake and the country's sake, that he will have good health and will meet with success.

There are, of course, a number of skeletons in his cupboard. I intend to talk about one of them tonight. The right hon. Gentleman may have looked up the exchanges which took place in the House over Questions on damage and casualties in Port Said. I am convinced, personally, that the directives which were issued by the Government to the Commander-in-Chief were directed clearly to the point of safeguarding the lives of civilians and doing his best to prevent damage to civilian property. I am quite sure about that, and I am quite sure also that the Commander-in-Chief did his best to meet that directive. I am also equally sure that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Minister of Defence was telling the House the truth on 14th November and again on 21st November—that he believed there were only 100 killed and 540 wounded.

But here I get into some difficulty, because if the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) was telling the truth, and I accept without question that he was, how comes it that in the Report on Damage and Casualties in Port Said by Sir Edwin Herbert we have this statement by an officer serving in the Army? Sir Edwin Herbert says, Major Williams told me that on the instructions of Brigadier Evans he went out to Gamil about the 9th November. Major Williams estimated from his personal observa- tion that 170 had been killed in the Gamil fighting and buried. If Major Williams knew on 9th November that 170 had been killed, how comes it that the Minister of Defence was coming to the House of Commons on 14th and again on 21st November and asserting that there were only 100 killed?

Again, let me say that I am not in a back-handed way challenging the integrity of the Minister of Defence. What I think this underlines is the sloppiness with which control of this operation was handled, for clearly the Government, engaged in a police operation, ardently concerned as a maximum interest of national policy to minimise civilian casualties and damage, should have set up machinery which would efficiently operate to check civilian casualties as they occurred, so that when the operations came to an end the Government could be absolutely certain beyond any shadow of doubt what the casualties were and what the damage amounted to. It is my submission that that was not done, and I cannot understand why it was not.

What happened was that on 5th December the then Paymaster-General came to the House and answered a Question. Here again, I must point out as a matter of some significance that the Paymaster-General was back in England on 26th November, having been in Port Said on, I think. 24th November. He did not come to the House and make a statement—oh, no. It was my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who first of all put down a Question to ask when the Paymaster-General would reply to Questions.

I followed that up by putting a Question myself asking him to make a statement. Even then he did not respond. It was not until 5th December that the Paymaster-General came to the House of Commons. If hon. Members look at what he said then, they will note that on three separate occasions he asserted that further inquiries were going on. He expressed himself as convinced that the estimate of 540 wounded was about right, but he was a little doubtful about the 100 killed. He thought that it might be 300: it might rise to 1,000, but anything above that that would surprise him. On three separate occasions on that day the Paymaster-General said that further inquiries were being made.

I recall—perhaps even you recall, Mr. Speaker—that on that day I asked him whether, if he could not give the House an accurate estimate of the number of casualties, he would be good enough to say whether Mr. Nehru's figure of 3,000 killed and wounded was a likely figure. I well remember the storm of derision from the benches opposite that one should dare for a moment to think that Mr. Nehru might be right. Of course, in the event, when we look at Sir Edwin Herbert's Report, we find that the total tots up to 2,850, without including the French wounded, so Mr. Nehru was not very far out.

Then the story moves on. We had to wait until 20th December before we could be told the truth—and then the House was rising the next day. The rumour went round that Sir Edwin Herbert had gone out to Egypt. We were not told that Sir Edwin Herbert was undertaking this so-called impartial inquiry. It is asserted in the Report that he was asked to go out to Egypt on the afternoon of Friday, 7th December. Sir Edwin must have had a very busy afternoon. According to him, he was asked to go during the afternoon. He was briefed by Sir Walter Monckton and, so that he could go out with the hallmark of respectability as President of the Law Society, I understand that he got permission from the Council of the Law Society which met during the afternoon. That was a fortuitous circumstance, on which I congratulate the Government and Sir Edwin Herbert.

Then Sir Edwin Herbert went out to Port Said. He was out of the country for a week, and actually in Port Said for 72 hours, or three times as long as the Minister of Defence. After being there, taking evidence and seeing as many people as he could, he came back and confirmed Mr. Nehru's figures. Now here I have a complaint. It was obvious that outside this country, in the American Press and the Press of the Continent, all sorts of rumours were going round about figures.

I did my best to get as accurate information as I could, and I had the good fortune to meet the Rev. Russell Stephenson, Chairman of the American Emergency Committee for Relief of Middle Eastern Refugees, who went to Cairo with the support of the American Government. He went from Cairo to Port Said at the instance of the American Ambassador and there joined Senator Douglas. He saw the American Consul, Mr. Anthony Quomo, who asserted that the number killed was between 1,000 and 2,000.

Let me hasten to add that Mr. Anthony Quomo's figures take into account a considerable number of Egyptian subjects who, after the attack had started, tried to get away across Lake Manzala to Damietta. But it strikes me as significant that the Minister of Defence and the Paymaster-General, who knew of the statement made by Mr. Quomo—and I took the precaution of getting a statement signed by the Rev. Russell Stephenson, and speak with his authority in quoting Mr. Quomo—did not ask Sir Edwin Herbert to consult the American Consul. After all, when he got there, he consulted the Italian Consul and the Greek Consul. Why did he not consult the American Consul, who was on the spot and who had been authoritatively quoted on the extent of the casualties?

It is worthy of note that the Italian Consul said in his evidence: The British seemed to be interested to say only about 100 dead". I do not know what "the British" means there, or from whom the Italian Consul got his information, but the impression seems to have fixed in his mind that the British military authorities had said it was 100 killed and were hanging on to it at all costs. It may well be so, and account for the fact that the Minister of Defence, in all good faith, came to the House as late as 21st December and was making a statement.

In my submission, it is a major British interest at this time to establish the facts, even though it is late in the day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must have received this document, which is being circulated through the post—

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me a minute? For several years I have heard the hon. Member masquerading here as "the hon. and gallant Member". To-night, is he trying to help Britain, or is he—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and gallant Member has no right to suggest that another hon. Member is masquerading.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Brigadier Clarke

The hon. Member seems to have joined the Swedish Army or the Norwegian Army.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Wigg

On that point, I have never masqueraded, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. If I had to be proud of any rank where the hon. Gentleman is a brigadier, I should be quite content as a private. I have never used my rank in this House from the day I left the Army. Therefore, it is quite false for him to have made that statement.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ignore him."]—But let me make this point again. It is a major British interest to establish the facts.

I think it is a major British asset that there is a considerable body of opinion in this country, perhaps a majority, which wishes to establish the facts. It is a simple issue. The oil in the Middle East is essential to the welfare of Britain and Western Europe. We can get it in one of two ways, by force or by good will. Force having failed, whether we like it or not, we are obliged to fall back on good will.

On 21st December, I waited behind to read Sir Edward Herbert's Report, and I put down two Questions on the Order Paper. I asked the Government to set up an impartial inquiry with a membership and terms of reference approved by this House. In the second point I dealt with the question of Mr. Antony Quomo. The more I delve into this operation the more convinced I am that there should be a thorough inquiry into the whole thing from the beginning to the end. To establish the truth about the casualties in the Middle East is an essential factor.

As I say, I accept the good faith of the Government, and I accept the good faith of the Commander-in-Chief.

Brigadier Clarke

Then sit down.

Mr. Wigg

I believe that, by and large, the figure of 3,000 is right. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government have nothing to fear. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty of time to reply. I must remind the House of what the Minister of Defence said on 20th December, when we pressed him about the nature of the Herbert Report. He said: If hon. Members want to debate the Report when we return, I shall be only too delighted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 1470.] An Adjournment debate of only half-an-hour was not what the Minister of Defence had in mind. I should have thought, in justice to the men who undertook this operation, in justice to the national honour, that the Government would find time to have an exhaustive debate on the Herbert Report. I will limit myself so that the right hon. Gentleman may have the fullest possible opportunity to reply.

11.53 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the good wishes he expressed at the beginning of his speech, and I will attempt as best I can to answer the various points he has raised, of which he was good enough to give me notice shortly before the debate. I am glad the hon. Member does not question the good faith of my predecessor, or of Sir Walter Monckton, or, I am sure, the good faith of the Commander-in-Chief, all of whom at different times gave to this House the best information they had available at each stage.

I propose to remind the House of various statements made by the Government. On 14th November, my predecessor told the House that it was estimated that Egyptian casualties, civilian and military, in Port Said amounted to 100 killed and 540 wounded. These were the estimates given by the Commander-in-Chief. On 21st November, my predecessor repeated this same estimate, which was still the best we had. In fact, the figures of 100 killed and 540 wounded were again confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief as late as 23rd November—it may be possible that some of these misunderstandings arose through some of the estimates being made for civilian and military casualties together, and that in some cases the estimates which reached headquarters applied to civilians or military separately; but I advance that only tentatively as a personal thought on the matter.

The hon. Member asked how it is possible to reconcile the statement of Major Williams, that he estimated on 9th November that in Gamil alone 170 had been killed, with the estimate of only 100 given on 21st November. All I can say is that Major Williams' estimate, if as I assume—although I do not know on this point—it reached headquarters, was only one of many pieces of no doubt conflicting evidence which had to be taken into account by the Commander-in-Chief in arriving at his own overall figure.

In view of varying conflicting rumours, as the House knows, Sir Walter Monckton paid a visit on behalf of the Government to Port Said on 24th and 25th November. He reported his conclusions to the House on 5th December. He said that he had formed the opinion that the number killed might well exceed the figure of 100 previously given and that if it turned out to be 300 he would not be surprised, but that if as some alleged—it turned out to be 1,000 or more, he said that he would be greatly surprised.

The hon. Member asked what was meant by the statement by Sir Walter Monckton on 5th December, the statement to which I have referred, in which he said that inquiries were continuing with a view to arriving at as accurate a figure as possible. There is really no mystery about this. The inquiries referred to, I can assure the hon. Member, were quite distinct from the Herbert investigation which was subsequently set up. When my predecessor received Sir Walter Monckton's Report, which showed that the original figure of 100 killed was probably too low, he instructed the Commander-in-Chief to make further and more detailed inquiries. Those were the inquiries which Sir Walter Monckton had in mind in his statement of 5th December.

On his return from Port Said, Sir Walter Monckton made it clear to the Cabinet that his visit had been too short to make it possible for him to carry out a thorough investigation. Consequently, the Government decided that a full and impartial inquiry should be instituted at once. An attempt was made—I mention this in order to show the intention of the Government to ensure as fully impartial an inquiry as possible—to obtain some outstanding foreign personality, such as the President of the Red Cross in some other country, to conduct this inquiry. Although several soundings were made, it was not unfortunately possible in the time available to find a suitable person of this kind who could undertake the task. Consequently, the Government decided to invite an eminent British lawyer to undertake this inquiry.

In turning to Sir Edwin Herbert, President of the Law Society, the Government considered that they had chosen someone whose capabilities, independence and impartiality were above question. Sir Edwin Herbert arrived in the Middle East on 9th December and returned to this country on 15th December. He completed his report on 19th December, and it was presented to Parliament as a White Paper on 21st December.

The hon. Member asked why Sir Edwin Herbert did not seek evidence from the American Consul, Mr. Anthony Quomo. Since his inquiry was completely independent, it was of course left entirely to him to decide what evidence he should take. Sir Edwin, in fact, interviewed the consuls of the larger communities in Port Said, the consuls of those countries whose nationals were more likely to have suffered casualties, namely the Greeks, the Italians and the British. The American community in Port Said is very small indeed; in fact, I am advised that it is composed of less than 50 people. There are, of course, many other foreign consuls who were not interviewed, and, so far as I know, it was never suggested to Sir Edwin Herbert that there was any particular reason why he should have interviewed the American Consul.

As the House knows, Sir Edwin Herbert, in his report, concluded that a reasonable estimate of the Egyptian killed, both civilian and military, was about 650 in Port Said; and this does not conflict with Sir Walter Monckton's earlier opinion that the number of dead might be as high as 300 but was unlikely to be as high as a thousand. I must most strongly repudiate any allegation that Sir Edwin Herbert acted in anything but an independent and impartial capacity. Any such suggestion would be an altogether unworthy reflection upon a most distinguished lawyer, who accepted this task at very short notice, at considerable inconvenience to himself and solely out of a sense of public duty.

It has been asked why there was no statement about Sir Edwin Herbert's inquiry until it had been completed. The answer is that it was thought that the avoidance of a public announcement would make it easier for him to conduct his investigation in a calm atmosphere and would reduce the risk that unfriendly persons might fabricate false evidence in advance of his arrival.

It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley and others that there should now be some form of fresh inquiry. The Government does not agree with this proposal for two reasons. First, we believe that no inquiry could be more painstaking or thorough than that undertaken by Sir Edwin Herbert, and secondly, we believe that it is now too late. The more time that elapses, the more difficult it becomes to obtain worth-while informa- tion and to establish the true facts. Any inquiry instituted now would be far less reliable in its results than Sir Edwin Herbert's, made within a few weeks of the operation and before the troops concerned in it had been dispersed.

I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government throughout gave the best possible information available to it, and did everything to ascertain the true facts and make them public. However many inquiries one might hold, it would be impossible really to be certain in a matter of this kind. But we sincerely believe that Sir Edwin Herbert's independent and impartial report gives the best account which is obtainable and that the institution of further inquiries at this stage would throw more confusion than light on this problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve o'clock.