HC Deb 12 July 1960 vol 626 cc1180-3
Mr. Gaitskell (by Private Notice)

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Note received by Her Majesty's Government from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow was handed a Note on the evening of 11th July stating that on 1st July an American RB-47 aircraft on an intelligence mission violated Soviet air space in the Barents Sea near the Kola Peninsula and was shot down over Soviet territorial waters.

The Note said that according to captured members of the crew the aircraft had left a British base on 1st July with orders to return there on the conclusion of their mission. The Note ended by protesting to Her Majesty's Government against the use of its territory on this occasion.

The Note, which was of some length, was given to the Press by the Soviet Government yesterday evening. It is now being studied, and a reply will, of course, be sent in due course. Meanwhile, I hope that I will be allowed to make no further statement on the reply until we have been able to formulate it and send it off.

Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask whether the Prime Minister will make a further statement on the whole situation as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister

I would be willing, either just immediately after we send the reply, to elucidate it if a Private Notice Question were put down, or, as I would prefer, to let our reply be delivered—we usually follow that custom—before we publish it, and then to answer questions about it, or make a further statement.

I have just heard, as I was coming into the House, that it is expected that the American reply will be delivered tonight. Although I do not now, of course, want to go into the details, I understand from what I have heard that the American reply will be a protest against the shooting down of this aeroplane over the high-seas.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sure that the Prime Minister will realise that there is very considerable public concern about this incident. While I quite appreciate that he has not had time to consider the Soviet Note, and cannot give a full reply at the moment, may I ask him whether he will make a statement on this at the earliest possible moment?

Meanwhile, can he answer one or two questions arising out of this? First, is he aware that according to information that has been put into my hands, the American Government, through a White House statement, have now declared that the plane was at no time over Soviet territory, or over Soviet territorial waters, or over Soviet air space? Does that correspond with his own information?

Secondly, as regards this particular flight—or flights of this kind that, apparently take place—were Her Majesty's Government consulted? Is he aware that this morning, at 10.12, a statement appeared on the tape that a Ministry of Defence spokesman had this morning reiterated that the flight was a perfectly legal one for scientific purposes, and that both the object and the route were known to the Ministry?

The statement went on to say that it was, in fact, virtually impossible—and this bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said just now—for any clandestine mission to be made by a foreign aircraft from a British base, since the flight plan must be made known, and all necessary steps taken to insure the aircraft's security.

Does the Prime Minister also know that at 10.29 a.m. this 10.12 a.m. message was cancelled? Can we have a little clarification on this issue? Is it really endangering security for the Prime Minister to tell us whether we know of these things or whether we do not?

The Prime Minister

With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I regret this incident. I think that it is better to leave it to Ministers or to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which part?"] The last part. I regret the incident. I regret the mistake by this official—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I refer to a statement alleged to have been made to a correspondent who rang up one of these officers who then denied that he made any statement of this kind. As we have all, I think, suffered from this, I have a little sympathy with the officer concerned, although I think that he would have done much better to say "No comment", which is always the safest thing to say.

With regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I, too, was given a report, not of the American Note but a statement made in Washington, on what was likely to be the contents of the American Note. I would prefer to make my statement on the Note when I see the full account of the Note rather than the statement. It says. it is perfectly true, that this aeroplane did not fly either over the land of Soviet territory or over territorial waters, whatever might be their definition, but was shot down outside. They, I imagine, will protest, as they did in a former case in the Baltic Sea, some years ago. This information corresponds precisely with what we believe to be the case, but I would prefer to formulate my Note when I see the text of the full American Note.

Mr. Gaitskell

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question on consultation about these flights?

The Prime Minister

I think that that is covered by what I have already said.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Grimond

Cannot the Prime Minister tell us whether we are told about these flights before they take place, or whether we are not told?

Hon. Members

Answer.

The Prime Minister

We have a broad general agreement about these matters, but I would prefer to give any answer to that question when I make my general statement. I do not wish now to get confused between what are the joint interests of Britain and America protesting against an action of the Russian Government which we believe to be absolutely illegitimate. It seems to me that that is our first step. After that, I am prepared to answer further questions as to the precise arrangements for any of these legitimate undertakings that are undertaken by the British Air Force or by the American Air Force, either separately or together.

Mr. Wigg

Would the Prime Minister be kind enough, between now and the time when he makes the statement, to look at the reply of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and tell the House whether that statement stands or does not stand; and, if it does stand, the occasions on which either the Americans or ourselves stand in breach of it?

The Prime Minister

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to that matter. I cannot carry the detail of all these things in my mind. I suggest that the time to make a more general statement is when I make a more elaborate statement arising out of the incident, and when we have disposed of the Russian Note and I have made our answer.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

As the Prime Minister is evidently aware of the statement made by the official this morning, will he tell the House whether that statement, subsequently withdrawn, correctly represents the facts?

The Prime Minister

What the official was concerned with was that statements were attributed to him that he did not, in fact, make.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

But is the statement attributed to him correct?

The Prime Minister

The question of whether it was correct or not does not arise if he did not make it. "No comment" is my reply.

Mr. Chetwynd

Why should there be this secrecy and confusion over what are, presumably, scientific flights to investigate the weather?

Hon. Members

Answer.