§ 46. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an official historian of the Suez war.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HughesIs the Prime Minister aware that there is renewed interest in Suez as a result of the mean and cowardly attack by the Foreign Office spokesman on Mr. Randolph Churchill on the ground that his history is inaccurate? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a general opinion in this country that Mr. Randolph Churchill, along with Lord Hailsham, is one of the most thoughtful members of the Conservative Party, and 205 does not he think that an objective account of Suez would give the public the information which they are anxious to have?
§ The Prime MinisterI always do my best to try to anticipate what are likely to be the supplementary questions upon which are based the apparently rather simple Questions that the hon. Gentleman puts down. He asks whether I would appoint an official historian. In the first place, of course, the military operations, strategy and tactics have been dealt with by the dispatches of the officer in command, General Keightley—published, I think, in 1957. In the second place, I would have thought that, with the hon. Gentleman's temperament and general political position, he would always have preferred a freelance to an official approach.
§ Mr. StracheyWhile fully understanding the Prime Minister's reluctance to appoint an official historian, may I ask whether he would agree that all the said historian would be likely to discover would be that the Government adopted in these matters a wrong policy, and mounted a wrong military operation directed on the wrong objectives, which they then failed to take?
§ The Prime MinisterAll this matter was discussed after the publication of General Keightley's dispatches and, I think. remains on the record of the House. Those dispatches are there to be read.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has twice referred to General Keightley's dispatches, but the House has never had an opportunity, due to the failure of both Front Benches, to debate those dispatches—[Interruption.] That is only a preface to the point of order. In view of the importance of the subject, and the fact that the Prime Minister has already twice referred to them, would you be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, on the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess, to give the House and opportunity to debate these dispatches?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no application for that, as far as I know.
§ 47. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the damage to this country's military reputation caused by allegations of the unpreparedness of the 206 Armed Forces made against members of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Suez War, and of which notice has officially been taken, if he will now propose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of that war.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HughesWhile thanking the Prime Minister for that Answer, may I ask if he is aware that there is an impression in the country that he is regarded as one of the very guilty men of the Suez affair—[Interruption.]—and that if such a Select Committee were appointed, it would give him an opportunity of clearing his reputation?
§ The Prime MinisterMatters were discussed, as I say, after General Keightley's dispatches were published, and, of course, I am sorry if the Opposition Front Bench did not ask for further opportunities for debate.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhile understanding the Prime Minister's reluctance to have an inquiry into matters in which he was so very closely involved himself, may I ask him how it was that the Foreign Office spokesman said that there were inaccuracies in Mr. Churchill's articles, since most of us regard them as a very clear statement of what we already knew to be the case?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that these articles are serialised extracts from a biography of Sir Anthony Eden. The intention of the Government spokesman was not to criticise the author, but to make it plain that, as this was a biography written without consultation with its subject and without access to official records, it could not be expected to give an authentic or fully accurate account. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Office spokesman said that there were inaccuracies in Mr. Churchill's statement? I am asking the Prime Minister what those inaccuracies were.
§ The Prime MinisterI would not be prepared to go beyond what I have just said. [Interruption.] If I were to do 207 that, I would be making just that detailed comment on the book that the spokesman refused to do.
§ Dame Florence HorsbrughIf it is the case, as the Opposition have said they consider it to be, that my right hon. Friend was so closely attached to the scheme of the Suez expedition, does he realise that this is one of the reasons why he is so popular now in the country?
§ Mr. BevanWould not it be a good idea for the Prime Minister to consolidate his popularity by having an inquiry now? Is he aware that there was some reluctance to press for an inquiry at the time because of the illness of one of the principals concerned? As that seems not now to be the case, ought not there to be a very full Select Committee inquiry into one of the most extraordinary incidents of the last 100 years?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. All these matters were fully discussed at the time in the House of Commons. I recognise that there were divisions of opinion in the House, and outside it, and when the time comes I am willing to put my record, with that of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—to the test of the popular vote.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs there any reason whatever why that time should not be now?
§ The Prime MinisterWe fully discussed all these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I say, when the time comes, be it soon—[Interruption.]—or a little more delayed, I am sure that the country will reach its own judgment.
§ Mr. BevanIn view of the fact that Foreign Office spokesmen have now seen fit to state that certain published statements are inaccurate, there is now a great deal of confusion in the public mind as to what the real facts are. Therefore, would not it be desirable to clear them up by having this inquiry? Why is the Prime Minister so coy about it? Is he afraid of what might be revealed about himself?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, and I shall welcome, when the time comes—[Interruption.]—it may be sooner than hon. Members think—the opportunity to put these matters to the inquest of the nation.
§ Mr. GowerIs not it a fact that neither an official history nor an inquiry would appear to be needed in relation to one aspect of this matter—the unfortunate behaviour of Her Majesty's Opposition at that time of national difficulty and emergency?
§ Mr. ShinwellLeaving aside this proposed inquiry by a Select Committee, does not the Prime Minister feel that, in view of the somewhat serious allegations made by Mr. Randolph Churchill about matters that were not debated in this House at the time of the Suez crisis, nor have been since, it is desirable that the Government should make a considered reply?
§ The Prime MinisterSo far as I have been able to see, all the matters raised in this book, or in these articles, were, in fact, discussed fully in the House.
§ Mr. GrimondCan the Prime Minister say in what circumstances he will consider that the time has come to make some further inquiry into these matters, and to publish the findings?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman always asks a fair question, and I will try to answer it as best I can. I think that it is asked more seriously, perhaps, than have been some other questions. I said that I recognise that there are serious divisions of opinion in the whole matter both inside and outside the House. I do not think that these will be removed by Select Committees or White Papers. They must be left to the judgment of history and of the electorate.
§ Mr. W. YatesIs the Prime Minister aware that the majority of people in this country are far more interested in the future policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Middle East and the Far East as contained in the Gracious Speech? Is this not the aspect about which they are much more interested, rather than what happened at Suez?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree. There is a very large number of difficult problems confronting us—we debated some of them the other day—in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East. I agree that we would do best, perhaps, to concentrate upon those. Nevertheless, I can only repeat that I am slightly surprised that the particular incident of certain publications should have stimulated the 209 Leader of the Opposition to do what he has not thought fit to do in the last two years.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Randolph Churchill alleges quite specifically that there was collusion between both the French and Israeli Governments and also between the British Government and the French Government, which has hitherto been denied by Sir Anthony Eden? Does not he appreciate that this matter cannot be cleared up except after a full inquiry by a Select Committee? Will he, therefore, please reconsider his decision so that the facts can be laid bare?
§ The Prime MinisterThere was no statement made which was not made at the time and debated at the time and rebutted at the time.