HC Deb 16 November 1966 vol 736 cc442-5

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to constitute a special commission to inquire into the origin, inception and conduct of the operation by British forces directed at Suez and elsewhere in Egypt in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six. I can well understand that it is natural that hon. Members opposite, or my hon. Friends, or members of the public, should inquire why we should try to set up an inquiry into a matter which happened so long ago. The proposition which I wish to argue in the time at my disposal is that it is necessary to set up such an inquiry in the interests of the House of Commons itself.

It was once the traditional practice of the House that when a disaster occurred, especially a military disaster, the House of Commons should set up an inquiry into the conduct of the Executive. Indeed, it was almost part of the tradition of the House that Supply should be granted only after grievances had been remedied, or at least examined.

The traditional practice was described in a speech in the House by Lord John Russell at the time of the Crimean War. He said: Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons. When British arms have suffered a reverse this duty has always been performed. Thus, when Minorca was lost in 1757, Mr. Fox consented to an inquiry. Thus, when General Burgoyne capitulated in 1777, the House of Commons inquired into the causes of the disaster. Thus, when the Walcheren Expedition failed in obtaining the chief objects of the enterprise, the House of Commons inquired. Inquiry is, indeed, the root of the powers of the House of Commons. Upon the result of the inquiry must depend the due exercise of those powers. Hon. Members need not think that these are merely ancient practices of the House of Commons. Some form of inquiry was instituted in the midst of the First World War, after the Dardanelles Expedition. At the time of the Singapore catastrophe, during the Second World War, Sir Winston Churchill himself enunciated the doctrine that it would have been highly desirable to have had an inquiry then and stated that, in his opinion, it would be necessary to have an inquiry into the matter after the war was over.

My first proposition is that when the previous Governments, the Government of Mr. Macmillan and the Government of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), refused requests or demands for an inquiry into the Suez expedition of 1956. there was a grave departure from the traditions of the House, unless, of course, it is contended that the Suez operation was a great Palmerstonian victory, in which case inquiry would merely cast some of the lustre on those responsible, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the Cabinet responsible—he was Chief Whip at the time.

That is my first claim. Anyone who respects the traditions of the House must recognise that first part of my argument. I know that a different view has been stated more recently. It was stated yesterday by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) in an article which he wrote in the Daily Mail, and in which he seemed to carry further the doctrine that we should not inquire into these matters. He said that it was a very commendable practice that an incoming Government should not have access to the secrets of their predecessors. Incidentally, I think that the Civil Service applied that doctrine a good deal more strictly in 1964 than it did in 1951.

Even so, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West carries it much further and says that the thicker the veil which is drawn over these past events, the better for the reputation of the House of Commons. As between the right hon. Gentleman and Lord John Russell, I prefer Lord John Russell's doctrine. However, those thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Cabinet at the time, bring me down from the constitutional stratosphere to the murky details.

It is not good for the reputation of the House that many others are apparently entitled to investigate this matter, but we are not. The Prime Minister at the time, Lord Avon, has had access to certain documents, some of which he has published. The Foreign Secretary of France at the time has made many embarrassing disclosures on the subject. The Foreign Minister of Canada at the time has made his declarations. Many of the generals involved have given their views of what happened. Indeed, a number of members of the Cabinet at that time have given their views and three or four at least have made statements to the Press which I would have thought to be plain breaches of their oaths as Privy Councillors.

I can understand their feelings, because when so much has been said in other directions they may have wished to protect themselves. But I do not know that there is any Member of the House of Commons who thinks that it is for the dignity of the House that such matters should be dealt with by a dribble of interested leakage, which is what we have had.

We have had a situation when declarations have been made that prior to the Suez Expedition a treaty or undertaking was signed by representatives of the British Government and the Governments of France and Israel in plain defiance of all the undertakings and assurances which were given to the House of Commons at the time. If those charges are correct, charges made on the authority not of subsidiary persons, but of parties to that treaty, the deception practised upon the House and the people of the country was almost without parallel in our history.

What is the remedy? The remedy is that the House should reassert the rights and practices which it had up to the days of the Macmillan Government. If we do not use this Parliamentary limb of investigation, it will atrophy.

My Bill is a simple one, framed in exactly the same terms as the Bill presented to the House by Mr. Asquith, in the midst of the First World War, for investigating the Dardanelles Expedition. Everything is in order, everything can proceed and I can give this promise, that if the House gives me the right to proceed with the Bill I will be most lenient in Committee. I will even be prepared to consider Amendments on the collusion Clause and the Selwyn Lloyd subsections.

All of these matters can be investigated, and if right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are proud of what they did then, they can vindicate their achievement and their honour. I say seriously that if this House of Commons, not merely for the past but for the future, is to abandon its power and its duty to investigate events of this character, it will mean the great enhancement of the power of the Executive and a great subordination of the power of the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Foot.