§ Q2. Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of interest aroused by the recent publication of the book, "Crisis", by a Canadian, Terence Robertson, he will now authorise the preparation of an official history of the Suez affair.
§ Q6. Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that no official facilities were provided to the author of the book "Crisis", he will now authorise the preparation of an official history of the Suez affair by independent historians.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 26th November last year.
§ Mr. JohnstonIs not the Prime Minister aware that his reply will disappoint a great many democratically 1389 minded people on both sides of the House? Would not he agree that the time has come to put an end to rumours about Suez? The best way of so doing is to authorise an honest official account of exactly what happened there. Will the Prime Minister earnestly reconsider his decision?
§ The Prime MinisterI am at the moment reading this book and finding it very fascinating. The way to end the rumours is for right hon. Gentlemen opposite concerned to state flatly whether the allegations in this and other books are true.
§ Mr. RowlandIs the Prime Minister aware that, though he informed me in an earlier Written Answer that no official facilities were provided, the author states in his preface
that documentation from official and private sources"——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There are all sorts of difficulties here. One is that one cannot quote verbatim in Questions. Another is that the Government are not responsible for this work.
§ Mr. RowlandI should like to ask the Prime Minister to give further consideration to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) so that we can make sure that the allegations made about the Government and the Foreign Secretary of the day are officially and impartially confirmed.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is merely asking the Government to confirm or deny assertions in a book for which they are not responsible, so it is out of order.
§ Mr. ShinwellIf, as my right hon. Friend implies, no official facilities were furnished to Mr. Robertson to write the book, has he any idea how Mr. Robertson managed to get information about decisions taken in the Cabinet? Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently I had an opportunity of reviewing the book and found it full of omissions and inaccuracies?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I go through the book myself, I am becoming more and more interested in some of the information in it certainly, but I confirm that the author has not received any help 1390 from British official sources as to what went on in the Cabinet, or, what seems to be much more relevant, what went on behind the Cabinet's back.
The Earl of DalkeithHas the Prime Minister ever in his life come across so virtuous a being as an independent historian, as referred to in Question No. 6?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I say, this has been a matter of great political controversy, and it could be put beyond all doubt by a clear statement from those who had Ministerial responsibility at the time.
As to having an official historian to do this, I think that we must draw a distinction—the distinction has been drawn in past cases—between the case where the efficiency of a Government operation is in question—and there could be little doubt about the efficiency or inefficiency of this one—and one where the good faith of the Government is concerned. It has always been held, and stated by a former Prime Minister, that where good faith is involved it is a matter for the House rather than for official historians.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIs not the Prime Minister aware—as his answer suggests he is—that the only two official histories written so far are the two histories of the wars, and that therefore his decision in this matter is clearly right, and I hope he will stick to it? It is much better that when official histories are written they should see events in perspective.
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am right for the right reasons. He is getting me a little worried on this question. Since this whole issue and most of the reason why there is a strong desire for an impartial history to be written is because the good faith of certain Ministers of the time is involved—and the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet at that time—I would hope that this matter could be cleared up in the only straightforward manner available to this House: either for the right hon. Gentleman or the former Foreign Secretary to tell us exactly what happened, not only at Villa Coublay, but elsewhere.
§ Mr. Philip Noel-BakerWill the Prime Minister bear in mind that an account of these events has been written by the Earl of Avon which leaves a good deal to be desired as history, but that many people have accepted it as official? Will he consider that it is most desirable that the British people should know what was said and done in secret on their behalf and at their expense?
§ The Prime MinisterI have said that this is desirable, and I think that this can be done in the manner I have suggested, if the right hon. Gentleman were able to get up and make a statement about it.