HC Deb 06 July 1960 vol 626 cc448-55
42. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will ask the United States Government not to allow the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to repeat the U2 flights which have taken place from Laken-heath, England.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor)

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 21st June.

Mr. Allaun

Is that evasion good enough, since the lives of every man, woman and child in our country may be lost in the event of another U2 incident? Will the Under-Secretary confirm or deny a statement by Mr. Hugh Dryden, deputy chief of N.A.S.A., testifying in Washington on 2nd June, that such flights had taken place from the American base at Lakenheath, Norfolk?

Mr. Taylor

I have no desire to be discourteous to the hon. Member or to The House, but I am not prepared from this Box to confirm or deny anything of that kind.

Mr. G. Brown rose

—

Mr. Allaun

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? First, I put down this Question to the Minister of Defence, who was then top of the list for answering Questions, three weeks ago. It was transferred to the Secretary of State for Air. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that if this Question were put down, he would answer it. Therefore, is the House not entitled to an answer now?

Mr. Speaker

I do not want to use up the rest of Question Time, but I am afraid that I may have to do so. The situation is extremely complicated and there is also involved in this context a Question by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). The House knows the princple—we had it in connection with Questions relating to the nationalised industries. This is the one instance where the conduct of Ministers governs the operation of the rules of the House, in the sense that a refusal to answer a Question of a given class results in Questions of that class no longer being accepted by the Table. That is the difficulty.

The House will remember that a Question asked of the Secretary of State resulted in an Answer rather like that which has just been given by the Under-Secretary. Thereafter, the Table operated on the principle that that class of Question was therefore barred. The Question of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) would have been condemned under that principle had it not been deferred, as he knows. We then took the view that, in view of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, the situation had changed from the point of view of the Table and that we could rightly allow Questions of this kind. We have done so and that is why there has been a change in the Table's practice for the moment. I say nothing about what the Answer of the Prime Minister may be, or what may be its form—I do not know—and I am not criticising anything that happens here. I am simply explaining, in answer to the point of order, what has happened.

Mr. G. Brown

The Under-Secretary said that he would not confirm or deny reports on an issue which the people of Britain are entitled to have clearly put to them by Her Majesty's Ministers. Have these aircraft taken off from Laken-heath? Did they take off without permission or did they not? We can then consider what is the right thing, but should not Ministers stand up and say what they did on those occasions?

Mr. Taylor

I was referring to a supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) which referred to evidence given before a United States Senate Committee which I did not feel was a matter for me.

Mr. G. Brown

The words the Under-Secretary used were, "I am not prepared to confirm or deny"—[Interruption.]—this must be a peculiar Tory mentality. The lives of British people are at stake and the whole policy of Britain is a stake. If Ministers want to persist in denying that, that is O.K. and I will leave it, but I want there to be no misunderstanding—the Minister is refusing to answer yes or no to the Question—[Interruption.]—I will go on when you shut up.—[HON MEMBERS: "Order"]—

Mr. Speaker

If the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wishes to make observations, he must address them to the Chair.

Mr. G. Brown

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but it helped to get a break in the conversation. May I ask the Minister whether aircraft took off from Lakenheath and, if so, did we know they were taking off?

Mr. Taylor

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the hon. Member aware that in answer to a supplementary question yesterday the Prime Minister, with some reluctance, eventually agreed to answer if such a Question were put down?

Mr. Nabarro

My hon. Friend is not the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gaitskell

Did the hon. Member's office consult the Prime Minister's office before this reply was given today? Are we to assume from that reply that when the Prime Minister answers the Question he will also give us no information, or is the hon. Gentleman merely leaving it to the Prime Minister to deal with the matter properly?

Mr. Nabarro

Say, "I am not the Prime Minister"!

Mr. Taylor

I do not think that the House needs reminding of that. I did not check whether my office had been in communication with No. 10 Downing Street, but the answer I have given seems to be perfectly clear.

Mr. G. Brown

In that case, what consultations took place in the hon. Member's private office before this Question was handed to him?

Mr. Taylor

That is another question. The right hon. Gentleman can put it down.

Mr. G. Brown

The Under-Secretary of State is sitting next to the Home Secretary who is the best stone-wailer in the business, but stone-walling has its complications. We are now playing with people's lives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—Are the Government not aware that we are playing with people's lives? Is the Minister really satisfied with giving us a reply that he has not cleared with the Prime Minister and which he has no reason to think is the Prime Minister's view, and which he has not cleared with the Leader of the House and has no reason to think is his view? With whom did he clear this answer, except with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not obvious that the Under-Secretary is in a position of some difficulty?

Mr. Nabarro

No; he is doing very well.

Mr. Shinwell

This is a very serious matter. In view of the fact that, in reply to a series of questions yesterday, the Prime Minister clearly indicated that if a Question was put on the Order Paper he would reply to it, may we ask the Minister or the Leader of the House, who is present, whether, if a Question is put on the Order Paper—perhaps a Private Notice Question, in the circumstances—the Prime Minister will reply? Or can the Leader of the House give us an indication of the procedure that will be adopted?

Mr. Taylor

None of these matters is for me to reply to.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. I am not quite certain whether it is a regular point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is—

Mr. Speaker

I do not want to hear irregular points of order, even from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell

What I meant was that I awaited your guidance. You will recognise that this is a very serious matter, in which the integrity of the Prime Minister is at stake. Yesterday he clearly indicated that if a Question were put on the Order Paper he would reply to it. The Prime Minister must have been aware that this Question was on the Order Paper today. Can you give hon. Members any guidance as to the way in which they should deal with the matter when the Prime Minister makes a clear statement of that kind?

Sir W. Wakefield

Did not my right hon. Friend say that if a Question were put to him he would answer it? That is a very different point from the one raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker

I would like to have this point of order supplemented, but by one hon. Member at at time.

Mr. Shinwell

The Prime Minister said that if a Question were put to him he would reply, but if a Question is put to him and it is transferred to the Secretary of State for Air what procedure can we adopt? How can we bring the Prime Minister into the dock on a question of this sort?

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

A number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to add to my wisdom in connection with this point of order, but if I collect all the views at once I shall have so many points to answer at once that the matter will become confused. In answer to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I have not got the text of what the Prime Minister said in my hand —and it would not make any difference if I had, in the context, because whatever he said I should have no power, as a matter of order, to compel him to answer that Question. That is not a point of order.

The other point raised by the right hon. Member related to transfer, and the practice with regard to it. I have repeatedly said that I do not propose to depart from the established tradition and precedent that the transfer of Questions is not a matter in respect of which the Chair incurs any responsibility.

Mr. G. Brown

It is probably within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, and certainly within the recollection of all those who were here yesterday, that the Prime Minister said that if a Question were put to him he would answer it. A Question has been put down for today. Is it possible to conceive that neither the Prime Minister's office nor the Under-Secretary's office got together to arrange the answer which the Prime Minister yesterday meant us to have? If the Under-Secretary says that he has nothing to say on the question whether these aircraft flew from this base, is not the simple conclusion that they did, and he did not know about it?

Mr. Speaker

It is no good even the right hon. Gentleman trying to involve the Chair in a war of words between the two Front Benches.

Mr. G. Brown

That is the only way we can get at them.

Mr. Speaker

Exactly It is an abuse of the process of the House to try to involve the Chair in a war of words. It may be very good fun, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Driberg

May I seek your permission at the appropriate moment, Mr. Speaker, when other supplementary questions and points of order have been dealt with, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is, the refusal of the Under-Secretary of State for Air to confirm or deny a statement that U2 flights have taken place from the United States Air Force base at Lakenheath? May I make a brief submission in support of that Motion, either now or when you direct me to do so?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member may indicate any reason why he thinks his Motion is within the Standing Order, but he must not make any part of the speech which he would make should I accede to his submission.

Mr. Driberg

I submit that my Motion is within the ambit of the Standing Order. This is clearly a definite matter; there is urgency because U2 flights may be started again at any minute, as has been indicated by official statements in the United States—there may be one tonight or tomorrow; and it is clearly a matter of public importance. It could hardly be of greater public importance.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member should bring me, please, his Motion in writing.

(Copy of Motion handed in.)

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance; that is, the refusal of the Under-Secretary of State for Air to confirm or deny the statement that U2 flights have taken place from the United States Air Force base at Lakenheath.

I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. Member's application. It is covered by direct precedent namely, the proposition that the refusal of a Minister to answer a Question does not found in an application under the Standing Order.

Mr. Allaun

I was about to attempt to move the Adjournment of the House for a slightly different reason which I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to consider. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to tell the House whether or not American U2 aircraft are at present taking off from this country. I do this because I submit that this makes it a matter of urgency and therefore within the scope of the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that I have to enforce the "drill" upon the hon. Member. Would he be kind enough to bring me his Motion in writing?

(Copy of Motion handed in.)

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to tell the House whether or not American U2 aircraft are at present taking off from this country.

I am afraid that I cannot accede to the hon. Member's request. I conceive that to be governed by exactly the same principle as the last application—ingenious though it may be.