§ 3.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lards, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked a Question in similar terms to the Question which is being asked by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. The terms of the Question, I would remind the House are:
To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement about the Note received by Her Majesty's Government from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea.The Prime Minister is answering a similar Question, and I will give the Answer in the terms that he uses. They are as follows:"Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow was handed a Note on the evening of the 11th of July stating that on the 1st of July an American RB-47 aircraft on an intelligence mission violated Soviet air space in the Barents Sea near the Kola Peninsula and was shot down over Soviet territorial wasters. The Note said that according to captured members of the crew the aircraft had left a British base on the 1st of July with orders to return there an the conclusion of their mission. The Note ended by protesting to Her Majesty's Government against the use of its territory on this occasion.
"The Note, which was of some length, was given to the Press by the Soviet Government yesterday evening. It is now being studied and a reply will of course be sent in due course. Meanwhile I would prefer to make no further statement to-day."
§ 3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement, but the position of the present 148 relationships between East and West seems to be so serious that, while we should in no sense get over-excited about statements made from Moscow and the like, it surely is becoming essential that the public, and especially Parliament, should know the facts, and know them from the Government.
I could understand in a way what the Prime Minister has said about having time to study the Soviet Note, but I would point out to the noble Earl, first, that this plane was shot down on July 1, and to-day is July 12; and that the twelve days have included a prolonged search for the plane. It is true that Russia has taken the extraordinary step of not revealing the shooting down of the plane for several days, but there has been ample time to get the real facts of the situation and what the public want to know since July 1. Did we have any knowledge of U.2, for example? Did we have any consultation with the American authorities about the plane leaving the base in Britain for this flight on which it was shot down over the Barents Sea?
The Prime Minister says that the Government want to study the Note before they give an answer. But I must point out to the noble Earl, in case they are having another ministerial meeting to-day, that over the tape this morning I got this:
The Moscow announcement came as a genuine surprise to British and United States authorities. The act was described in Defence Ministry circles as appalling'. Nothing was known of the whereabouts of the aircraft, and the 10-day search was a genuine one. The Ministry spokesman reiterated that the flight was a perfectly legal one for scientific purposes, and the route was known to the Ministry. It is in fact virtually impossible for any clandestine mission to be made by a foreign aircraft from a British base, since the flight plan must be made known and all necessary steps taken to ensure the aircraft's security.If the Ministry of Defence can issue that in reply to Press questions, how is it that the Prime Minister cannot inform Parliament of the situation in more up-to-date terms than the Answer that has just been given to us?Moreover, on the tape came over only an hour ago now the statement by Mr. Hagerty, the Press Secretary to the President of the United States, which is as follows:
He accused Russia of a deliberate and reckless attempt to create an international incident by shooting down149 et cetera. He said:RB-47 was over international waters and at no time was over Soviet territorial waters, or Soviet air space.If the United States are in close consultation with their principal partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to inform Parliament with equal celerity and factuality? How is it that we are still to be delayed? Have the Government seen, not the leader in the Daily Herald this morning, which was quite moving, but the leader in the Daily Mail this morning, usually regarded as a strong Government paper, in which it evinces anxiety about the position of the public and what they are doing.If I may come more up to date than that, as I understand it—I have not the actual terms—in reply to Questions on the U2 incident in another place to-day, after Question Time, the Prime Minister said that it had never been the practice to discuss such matters in the House and it would be contrary to the public interest to depart from precedent now. I suggest to your Lordships and to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, in those circumstances, if there is something about the situation which cannot be discussed in public, if we could have a private session of Parliament we could get at the facts and avoid all unnecessary panic thinking in the country, which we all want to avoid. We are not accustomed to panic in this country. I think that the further delay in getting at the facts, either about the U2, or about this latest incident over the Barents Sea. is hardly to be justified.
§ 3.50 p.m.
LORD REAMy Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has said, but I am not in complete harmony with him. After all, the statement which we should like to have from the Government is in answer to this allegation made by Russia only a few hours ago. I think it is only reasonable that the Government should be given time to digest this rather lengthy Russian document before they can refute it. On the other hand, the facts of the operation, which occurred some eleven or twelve days ago, must be known, and if the Ministry of Defence have thought fit to publish some statement on it, then I think the public would like something from the Government. I would support 150 the noble Viscount in suggesting that we might have some sort of private session in which this matter could be discussed further. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House knows that we have no desire to ask embarrassing or difficult questions. On the other hand, I am sure he also knows that we rely upon him, as we always have done, to inform the House as much as he can and as soon as he can.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I remember private sessions in another place quite often, and I am sure they never did anything to allay public anxiety; on the other hand, often they rather increased it. I think the noble Viscount is right. Of course, this is a serious situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and such matters as this aggravate the seriousness of it. What we are not anxious to do is to have information coming out in bits and pieces, a snippet here, in answer to a supplementary question, and another piece there. The intention is that the Russian Note should be answered, and our answer, of course, will be made available to the House after it has been delivered to the Russians.
I do not think that the noble Viscount's complaint of delay is really justifiable. The Russians behaved in a very peculiar way. They said that for the first few days they were helping to hunt for the plane, but in fact they knew all the time that they had shot it down. We have only very recently received this Note. All I can say is that we will answer the Soviet Note; that, having ascertained all the facts and mobilised them, they will be available to Parliament. I think that that will be the time to give it the consideration which the noble Viscount wishes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, it seems to me to be a rather extraordinary position. Exactly what arrangements, in this period of world tension, the Government make to prevent mistakes being made, I do not quite know. Have they been warned at the Ministry of Defence not to hand out some pieces of partial information as were handed out this morning, which was to be denied apparently in the Prime Minister's reply to Parliament? Are precautions being taken in these matters at all? With 151 regard to the U.2 incident, we have had nothing but stonewalling from the Prime Minister on the basis of the answer again given this afternoon—that because it is a matter of intelligence it cannot be discussed in Parliament. What the public want to know is whether we were ever consulted on this matter, and they want to know on this occasion officially, and not merely by a haphazard "handout" to the Press by the Minister of Defence.
THE EARL OF HOMEI am not fully acquainted with the procedure in the Ministry of Defence, but I notice that what was put out on the tape at 10.12 was cancelled at 10.29, so perhaps the House would do well not to pay too much attention to what was said by somebody on that occasion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGHIt seems rather a pity that it was cancelled without any effect, because here it is in the second edition —not the first—of the Evening News. If you come to the Evening Standard, apparently all kinds of information has gone from the Ministry of Defence. It describes, which I think it is perfectly proper to describe, the R.B.47 as a ten-year-old obsolete plane, but with extraordinary camera equipment, capable of taking coastal photographs of up to 150 miles. They excuse that from the point of view that it could do so without harm to themselves, so long as they were not attacked by aggressive fighters. How you are going to prove whether they were nearer to territorial waters than that, I do not know. But is it not extraordinary that the conversations between our Government and the United States have been so unsatisfactory since the failure of the Summit; that these assays by aircraft might have been cut right out until there was a more solid basis on which we could take up further negotiations?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I should have thought that the complaints which the noble Viscount made about partial information coming out rather reinforces my point that, before we come to any definite conclusion, we ought to get all the facts and the whole story placed into the Note to the Soviet Government, which Parliament will have at its disposal. On the second matter, we 152 have had working arrangements (as the noble Viscount knows, we have had them for many years, ever since the Attlee-Truman agreement with regard to the use of bases in this country) with the Americans, and whether they can be improved or modified in any respect is a matter which no doubt the Prime Minister takes up from time to time with the Americans. But, of course, this working with the Americans has been going on for many years.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, what has happened to-day suggests a lack of control at the Defence Ministry, which is generally in close touch with the Prime Minister, at least in my experience. If statements are made, and then apparently have to be revoked, it rather suggests lack of co-operation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is not just this country or this Parliament which is interested? The whole world is looking on. We may be silent, but other people will not be silent. First of all, our Allies in America have several Departments giving several statements—none of which many people believe—on these subjects. Then we have the Russians. They have this plane. It is very peculiar that, if it was not in a territorial area, it fell into a territorial area. That is the first thing. It is very queer. The second thing is that they have the evidence of the crew, and the evidence of the U.2 and Captain Powers. The world will not wait to hear what is the final reply of the Government. They will put all these things together and make their judgment. And the issue of peace and war now depends upon the judgment of the world. I think myself that the situation is as terrifying as the one that I remember in August, 1914.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANThe noble Viscount opposite is apparently prepared to take the Russian report as accurate in all respects.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANIf the noble Viscount is not, does that not reinforce the view of my noble friend the Leader of the House, that we should find out exactly what has happened before the Government attempt to provide any further information to Parliament or the public?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHBefore that point is answered, I think I am within the recollection of your Lordships in all parts of the House that when this plane was first missing it emerged, I think, in The Times that in fact the plane crew had been instructed not to send any messages. It seems to me to cast at least some doubt on some of the assumptions that are being made at the present time as to the mission of the plane. I do not say they are wrong—that has yet to be proved. But may I ask the Leader of the House and the Government that there will be no further partial statement by any Government Department until we get the authoritative statement from the Prime Minister? This statement, which was put over this morning after 10 o'clock and cancelled before 10.30, is in the Press to-night. That will go on being so. May we have a guarantee that if Parliament is to be denied information, there will be no issue of partial statements through Government Departments? I think that as a matter of control that is fundamentally important.
THE EARL OF HOMEI quite agree with the noble Viscount. Indeed, it is what I am trying to achieve—that we should wait until we get a final authoritative statement from the Government on the matter of this particular flight. I think perhaps the noble Viscount over-emphasised the importance of what he calls a statement from the Ministry of Defence. I think that what happened was that one of the newspaper correspondents rang up on the telephone and got an answer, which was then cancelled. But I gather that it was not a statement, in that sense, put out by the Ministry. I do not think we can properly pursue that matter, because I am not completely informed as to what took place.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEIn one of his remarks the noble Earl suggested that there was a working arrangement for years past allowing this sort of thing. It is important for the reputation of our country that the public and the world 154 should know whether we have been giving our assent to these flights by the loan of our air bases.
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount is on a slightly different point. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was on the point of what happened inside the Ministry of Defence—on the working arrangements. I was talking about arrangements which we have with the Americans on the use of our bases.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEI know that. That is exactly the point that I raised. Did the noble Earl mean that there has existed for some time a working arrangement by which American aircraft can use our bases with or without our having knowledge of these flights?
THE EARL OF HOMEI am not prepared to go into any details to-day. The only thing I have said is that there are working arrangements which we have had with the Americans. If they can be improved or modified, they will be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEBut that leaves us under the cloud of being suspected of being a party to this business.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHI think I may just say this, in conclusion—it is very important, in view of what my noble and gallant friend has just said. Certainly during my ministerial connections with the Fighting Services, in the war and in peace time, we were never responsible for reconnaissance flights over foreign territory in peace time. I hope that, before this is over, the Government will be able to say the same thing.
THE EARL OF HOMEI do not want to continue this discussion, because it leads us into the kind of difficulties I have described. The noble Viscount must not assume these things. Aeroplanes of all countries fly about their legitimate business over international waters. They may drift off course, either because of bad weather or for other reasons—there may be 101 explanations. It is the explanation of the facts that we want to get and to make plain to the House in due course.