HC Deb 08 March 1961 vol 636 cc445-7
16. Mr. Bence

asked the Secretary of State for War what was the nature of the initiative tests carried out in Cyprus which involved an officer and other ranks of the Black Watch; and what steps he is taking to protect the men involved in these tests.

17. Mr. Wade

asked the Secretary of State for War on whose instructions six British soldiers were sent from Cyprus on an initiative course with the object of travelling through Lebanon, Syria and Jordan; what consideration was given to the possible diplomatic repercussions; and why, and on whose instructions, these soldiers were told to discontinue their journey on reaching Lebanon.

Mr. Profumo

An officer and five other ranks of the Black Watch went out on adventure training taking them through various Middle East countries. There was nothing secret about the journey and they all had valid passports and visas. In existing circumstances in that part of the world, however, this is not enough; and permission would certainly not have been given for the journey had there not been a misunderstanding between Headquarters, Near East Land Forces and the officer's unit. The Lebanon was the first country visited and when the officer went to our Embassy in Beirut the implications of the situation were explained to him, and the party did not continue their journey.

On the information available to me, I do not think that any blame can be attached to the young officer concerned. It looks as if he obtained clearance from higher authority, but I am still pursuing my inquiries. I am sure that we must take the greatest care in seeing that no offence is caused by this sort of exercise, but I do profoundly believe in the importance of adventure training.

Mr. Bence

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement that the officer and men are not to blame, and I recognise that some authority at higher level was responsible for this stupid enterprise in the present situation in the Middle East. Would it not be far better to use the ingenuity of the Scots, for which they have tremendous capacity, in the War Office and the Foreign Office to find out why one Department of State does not know what the other is doing?

Mr. Profumo

That is a rather involved and twisted question, but I will try to give it a straight answer. I do not think that the War Office and the Foreign Office, by and large, do not know. What happened here was that there was a misunderstanding and, had the military attachés concerned been asked in advance, this particular exercise would not have taken place. The confusion which appears to have arisen is something I am looking into. I do not want to attach blame to anyone in the War Office or to any headquarters or individual before completing my inquiries.

Mr. Wade

I have no desire to discourage initiative, but is it not clear that more precise instructions should be given about what is and what is not permitted? As regards this particular adventure, is it not true that it could have given rise to very serious misunderstandings with unfortunate diplomatic consequences?

Mr. Profumo

I readily agree that if this had not been stopped there might have been some misunderstandings and, perhaps, unfortunate results. The point I want to make is that adventure training is very important. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to help in encouraging initiative. I do not want to do otherwise. My motto in all this is, "Have a bash". We may go wrong sometimes, but I shall try to protect the soldier.

Mr. Mayhew

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are various ways of "having a bash"? The methods set out in the Memorandum to the Estimates seemed to us sensible and constructive, but this scheme seems to have been extremely stupid. At what level are schemes of this eccentric type approved or disapproved?

Mr. Profumo

Schemes of any type, whether the hon. Gentleman would call them eccentric or not, have to be approved at the level of the unit, and, indeed, this one should have been approved by the command.

If the existing orders are subject to or capable of misinterpretation, we must change them, but I shall not give any judgment until I have found out exactly what went wrong. My main idea is that adventure training should go ahead, even though the hon. Gentleman and some others may think that at times the schemes are a little eccentric. I give the House the undertaking that I will try to ensure that we do not run into difficulties of this sort again.

Mr. Shinwell

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so apologetic? Is it not desirable and, indeed, advisable that the initiative should occasionally be taken by the Army and that the Foreign Office should keep out of the way altogether and keep its nose clean?

Mr. Profumo

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says, but I was not being apologetic. I was trying to be factual. In this case, if the Foreign Office had kept its nose out of it, some of the soldiers might have got themselves into difficulty. There was no blame at all attaching to the officers or the other ranks. I am anxious that this sort of scheme of training should be developed to the fullest extent, but I recognise that if something of the sort is liable to happen I must put it right in order to let the training go ahead.