§ 4.6 p.m.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, I should like to make a statement which has just been made by the Prime Minister in another place—and I will use his exact words:
" I will now make a statement on the question raised by several honourable Members regarding the circumstances which led to Admiral Sir Dudley North's relief as Flag Officer, North Atlantic, in 1940. After careful study of all the papers, questions and debates concerned with this affair, I am bound to say that there does not seem to be any difference as to the facts of the case. The orders that were given and the signals that passed backwards and forwards are on record. It has been suggested that there should be a new inquiry into the facts. But the facts are not really in dispute. The question at issue is the interpretation that should be put upon these facts and the wisdom and justice of the decisions reached by the authorities at the time. I must recall to the House that the period was one of perhaps the most acute danger that has ever beset this country. The Battle of Britain was at its height; the French fighting power had collapsed, and grave uncertainty existed as to whether the powerful French fleet might pass into enemy hands, which, had it happened, would have turned the whole balance of naval power against us.
" It is only fair to recall the memories of those anxious days in order to put ourselves in the position of those who had to make the great decisions. In the circumstances of that period the authorities concerned formed the view that they needed a different naval Commander at Gibraltar. I must insist upon the constitutional rights of the Admiralty, and indeed of all those in positions of supreme responsibility, to choose officers in whom they have confidence at moments of supreme crisis. Any other system would be dangerous in peace and fatal in war.
" A careful examination of the records has led me to the conclusion that, so far as concerned the passing of 1177 the French ships through the Straits of Gibraltar, Admiral North cannot be accused of any dereliction of duty. He obeyed his orders as he interpreted them and some blame must rest on the fact that they were not drawn with complete clarity. Nevertheless, in those dangerous days the Admiralty felt that they required at Gibraltar an officer who would not content himself with strict adherence to his orders but who would be likely to show a greater degree of resource and initiative in an emergency.
" I am convinced that, while we all have a deep understanding for Admiral Sir Dudley North in what must have been a great disappointment to him at the height of his career, it is essential in the Services to maintain the principle that the authorities of the day should have unrestricted discretion in deciding to whom they will entrust high command. I very much deprecate the use of the word "dismiss" or "remove" or, still worse,"sack". These are phrases which are quite inappropriate to those difficult decisions in conditions of war. Many officers of high rank in all the three Services were superseded in those harsh days by others who were regarded as more likely to be able to cope with the immense problems and burdens that confronted them.
" In my view a general distinction must be drawn between two things. On the one hand are definite charges of negligence and the like or charges which reflect upon an officer's honour. Any charge of this kind against Admiral Sir Dudley North could not be sustained and I believe that this is generally recognised. On the other hand, the Board of Admiralty have the right and the duty to decide on broad grounds whether an officer possesses the qualities necessary for a particular command. These qualities are not easy to define. One of them is the confidence reposed in an officer by his superior. The degree to which an officer possesses these qualities can never be a subject of an inquiry. It can only be a matter for the judgment of his superiors. And 1178 I must add that the country owes an immense debt to the whole Board of Admiralty, political and professional, as it was constituted in that dark period which led to ultimate victory.
" I am satisfied that Admiral North was not the victim of Service or political prejudice. He has nothing with which to reproach himself. He had 44 years of long, distinguished, and devoted service in the Royal Navy and there is no question of his professional integrity being impugned.
" In these circumstances I do not see that anything is to be gained by an inquiry regarding facts that are well documented and undisputed."
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for letting us have the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I think that the statement as a whole correctly puts forward what ought to be recognised as the proper procedure and practice for dealing with the replacement of officers for reasons of an accrued lack of confidence with regard to a particular post, and I have no quarrel with it at all. On the other hand, there are phrases—I will not refer to them in detail—in this statement made to-day which are somewhat weaker than the case which was so adequately stated by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in July, 1954. But I gather that it is felt that some little concession has to be made to Admiral North to set his mind at rest on things, and therefore these words have been included in the statement.
I have nothing to add to or detract from what was said in 1954. This matter is now seventeen years old, the principal professional participants in the decision are dead, and the only two to whom you can look for any comment upon it are the former great War Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, and myself, who was First Lord of the Admiralty. So far as I am concerned, I take full responsibility for the actions of the Board of Admiralty at that time, and I think the decision taken at that time in regard to Admiral North was completely justified.