Spain ("Leander" Class Frigates) (Hansard, 15 July 1964)

§ 44 and 45. Mr. Wigg
asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will make a statement on the premature disclosure of information about the discussions with Her Majesty's Government regarding the Spanish Government's intention to build "Leander" class frigates under licence;

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
The fact that negotiations had been going on with the Spanish Government had been known fairly widely both here and abroad for a number of months. On 8th June the Directorate of Public Relations of my Department was approached by a member of the Press who stated that on information he had received from abroad he had knowledge of these negotiations and was told that it was our intention that 1201 these frigates should be built under licence in Spain. In fact the negotiations had not at that time been concluded and as the House already knows subsequent events frustrated them.

§ Mr. Wigg
Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the Prime Minister's reply yesterday, when he informed the House, or he suggested, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department was misled by a journalist putting a probing question which prompted an official to give information which he ought not to have done? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has today been a little more forthcoming, but has not told the whole truth? Is it not a fact that Mr. Chapman Pincher went to his Department, gave information as to what he had heard, and was told that reference would have to be made to a senior official? Chapman Pincher returned several hours later and was then informed that negotiations had been concluded—the actual words are quoted by him. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the record in the Press section of the Admiralty showed that as long ago as 15th May there was a manuscript note which dealt with this as a purely routine matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House why when he found out—whether it was a trick or not—that the information given was incorrect he did not then—

§ Sir J. Langford-Holt
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the House no protection against a lengthy question like this?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House knows that I emphasise always, as far as I can, the need to keep supplementary questions as short as can be.

§ Mr. Wigg
Mr. Speaker, in giving that reply, you doubtless took into account the fact that I have put down two Questions which have been rolled into one?

§ Mr. Speaker
With respect, that is not a good point, because a supplementary question arises from one Answer.

§ Mr. Wigg
Whatever that may be, it knocks my bails off, but it does not alter the fact that although I pressed the right hon. Gentleman's Department time and again to confirm whether there had been a retraction or not, it took him until 10th May to write to me to say that no such 1202 retraction was issued. If the right hon. Gentleman's story is as it is now, why did he not come clean nearly three weeks ago?

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
I have no complaint to make about anybody—certainly not the journalist concerned. He published a perfectly accurate report of what happened this morning. What I cannot understand is the hon. Member. He seems to have got the idea that I leaked this deliberately in the certain knowledge that the Leader of the Opposition would step into it thigh deep. This is an astonishing reflection on the Leader of the Opposition, and I must rise to his defence.

§ Mr. A. Royle
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what approaches have been made to him by hon. Members opposite in favour of going ahead with the sale of frigates to Spain—those hon. Members who have received hospitality from the Spanish Government during the past year?

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
Will the Minister tell us why his Department first put out a false statement about this contract and then failed to deny it? This is the essence of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—[Interruption.] It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to give smart alec answers, but this is a simple question. Why was a false statement put out and then not corrected?

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained the circumstances in which this statement was made. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get his right hon. Friend out of a mess.[Interruption.] Subsequently it was stated that this contract had not been signed, but the idea that this was deliberate presupposes a degree of stupidity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition which even I think is unfair.

§ Mr. F. M. Bennett
Can my right hon. Friend clarify one other point? I thought the whole point of view of the Opposition was that they disapproved of this deal and wanted to stop it—[HON. MEMBERS: Question."] Is the attitude of the Opposition such that no one took any notice of what the Leader of the Opposition said, or do they still disapprove of the deal?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is no part of the duty of the Secretary of State for Defence to describe the attitude of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), the right hon. Gentleman said that the negotiations were widely known. As I knew nothing about these negotiations, despite the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he be good enough, in order to elucidate the facts, to make the details of the negotiations known to the House, either by the submission of a White Paper or by circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
No, Sir. I am anxious that these negotiations may at some stage be resumed and perhaps satisfactorily concluded. They were widely known, because negotiations of this kind cannot be conducted without the knowledge of a wide range of industry which might be concerned about them and a wide range of diplomatic circles. Negotiations of this kind are nearly always widely known. There was no reason why they should not be. It was only when they came to the notice of the Leader of the Opposition and he put both feet into it that things got bad.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
Is it not extraordinary—indeed hypocritical—on the part of the Opposition to deplore the leak when they have shown themselves determined to try to wreck the deal?

§ Mr. M. Foot
Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that his reply today reveals and underlines the fact that the statement made to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister was completely misleading? Does he not appreciate that that is a very important matter? Does not he realise that it was misleading in that the Prime Minister indicated to the House yesterday that the information had been inadvertently elicited from the Ministry of Defence because of the probing of a journalist, whereas the statement of the Minister of Defence today, although not coming clean completely, does not make that same claim? Therefore, what the Prime Minister did yesterday was to try to mislead the House and the country on the central point about the whole of this controversy. Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks misleading the House is or is not an important matter?

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
I do not believe that anybody else believes what the hon. Member alleges.

§ Mr. Kershaw
In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Opposition's questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. Healey
Is it not an abuse of the procedure of this House for a back bencher to attempt to rescue a Minister who is on the point of being revealed as having connived at a deliberate misleading of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have a discretion in the question of whether or not I receive a notice. There are precedents about it. I had already called the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

§ Sir H. Butcher
Is it not right that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) should withdraw his question directed against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that in the midst of all this there was allegation of deliberately misleading. In my view that should be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Healey
I unreservedly withdraw this allegation if it proves to be untrue. [Interruption.] I did not make the allegation—

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member did not make it, it is not to be withdrawn by him.

§ Brigadier Clarke
On a point of order. The Spanish naval mission—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must have silence so that in the service of the House I can hear the terms of the point of order that is being addressed to me.

§ Brigadier Clarke
On a point of order. I can show that what the Minister said is true, because the Spanish naval mission—

§ Mr. Speaker
That does not give rise to a point of order. The hon. Member for Leeds, East is asking a question.

§ Mr. Healey
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "With draw."] May I ask the right hon. Gentle man how it came about—

§ Dame Irene Ward
On a point of order. Is not a rather unusual procedure being adopted by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? When you instruct him to withdraw, is he not to withdraw?

§ Mr. Speaker
What he said to me was that he did not make the allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] Now I am in a difficulty which concerns the recollection of the House. If the hon. Member did make it I have told him that he must withdraw it. He says that he did not make it.

§ Mr. Healey
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm—[Interruption.] I am at a loss to know what I am expected to withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
The matter would be simple to handle if the hon. Member were to say that had he given anybody the impression that he was making the allegation, he did not mean to do so.

§ Mr. Healey
I am not quite clear what allegation I am supposed to be withdrawing.

§ Mr. Speaker
As I understand it—I have not the shorthand note at the moment—it is the assertion that the Prime Minister was deliberately misleading.

§ Mr. Healey
With respect, Mr. Speaker, you will discover on consulting HANSARD that what I said was that the hon. Member opposite had been raising a point of order in order to prevent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He had been raising a point of order when the right hon. Gentleman was on the point of being compelled to reveal a certain fact. Surely this is quite a different matter from the one about which he has complained.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must get this sensibly settled. It would help me if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to say—if that were the fact—that he did not make the allegation and that if he was understood to have made it he unhesitatingly indicates that he did not intend it.

§ Mr. Healey
Mr. Speaker, if I was thought to have made an allegation that the right hon. Gentleman deliberately [...] the House, then I certainly wish to 1206 correct that impression. Now can I, with respect, get on?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can square what he said today, namely, that an official spokesman stated as fact certain things after considerable forewarning by a correspondent, when the Prime Minister yesterday admitted that what was stated as fact was not indeed fact and it was only put out accidentally because the official spokesman was misled by the form in which the journalist put the question? There is here a direct contradiction between the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday and the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence today, a contradiction which must reflect on the accuracy of one of them. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether the Prime Minister was so misinformed by his own Department as to give the House an impression which is discovered today to be totally misleading, or whether the right hon. Gentleman himself will withdraw what he said and accept the Prime Minister's story?

§ Mr. Thorneycroft
I do not see the slightest distinction—not the slightest distinction—between what I said and what was said by the Prime Minister. All I said was that I did not complain about the journalist. I have no complaint even about the right hon. Gentleman, so far as that goes, and what happened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I might have had some cause for complaint. What happened was that the official of the public relations department was guilty of a misunderstanding about this. He thought that the contract had been signed when it had not and gave certain answers—the Prime Minister said that earlier. He found out that they were not right and subsequent inquirers were told so.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Kershaw
Further to my previous point of order. I did give notice that I shall raise this matter, but it was not in order to curtail discussion but because it is obvious that so complicated a matter, in which questions of fact are at issue, cannot easily be discussed at Question Time. Secondly, it is quite clear that the Opposition, out of a guilty conscience, want to prevent—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not permissible on a point of order.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I think I should rightly take the view that the House may take some opportunity to debate this if it wants to, but it cannot do so by supplementary questions.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you did direct that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) should withdraw such allegations as he may have made that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister misled the House, should not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who made a similar allegation earlier, also be directed to withdraw it?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes—

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am dependent on the assistance of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) in checking my recollection about whether it is right that he did make an allegation of deliberate misleading. If it is so, it should be withdrawn. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would confirm my recollection because I have listened to rather a lot since then.

§ Mr. M. Foot
I am happy to confirm what happened. I did not accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House—though if I had thought about it at the time I might have said it.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am glad to be assured by the hon. Gentleman that he did not say it.

§ Mr. Wigg
I respectfully submit that a completely new situation has now arisen. The statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is rising to a point of order, would he be good enough to inform me what it is? It is very difficult when hon. Members rising to points of order make speeches, and I know that the 1208 hon. Gentleman knows that as well as everyone else.

§ Mr. Wigg
What I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that a new situation has arisen, a matter of great urgency, a matter of urgent public importance. Would you consider a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 that this House should be adjourned in order that we may discuss this matter at the earliest possible moment, namely, that the Prime Minister yesterday deliberately misled the House on a major point?

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot accept the Motion because it is out of order. Indeed it makes an allegation which can only be made on a substantive Motion.

§ Mr. Wigg
In that case, if you cannot accept it, would you be good enough to grant an Adjournment—

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing a Motion which so far I have not heard.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will read it, if the hon. Gentleman wants to know what it says—if I can read it. The words on the bit of paper which I have in my hand are—I hope that I may be corrected if I am wrong: "To call attention to a matter of definite and urgent"—

Hon. Members
"Public importance".

§ Mr. Speaker
"Public importance, namely, the question whether or not"—would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to come and help me?

§ Mr. S. Silverman rose
—

§ Mr. Speaker
I make no reflection on anybody's handwriting, either in person or by deputy, but perhaps the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) would be good enough to help me.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
May I explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked me, because he could not write and speak at the same time —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— whether I would try to embody the point which he wished to raise in a formal Motion. This I endeavoured to do, and, so far as I can remember it,—

§ Mr. Speaker
Would the hon. Gentleman's memory be assisted by looking 1209 at what I think is in his handwriting? From the announcement which the hon. Gentleman made of his Motion, there is, unfortunately, a little discrepancy from the written wording, and I will try again: "To call attention to a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the question whether or not there was a contract for frigates for the Spanish Government and how a false impression came to be"—I am not quite sure of the last word, it is "created" or "given".
I cannot accept that Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It does not appear to me to fall within the Standing Order at all.

§ Mr. Wigg
On a point of order. As you cannot rule that it falls within Standing Order No. 9, would you consider giving time on the Adjournment next week for this matter to be fully debated?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have already dealt with the Adjournments for next week in so far as, with the assistance of a ballot, I could do so. Mr. Robert Cooke.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order. Could you guide me on this point? Why was it that in the first place you rejected the Motion before you could read it?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understood from what the hon. Member said that it contained a matter which could not with propriety be put in the Motion.