HL Deb 01 August 1966 vol 276 cc1202-8

9.30 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that, as the publishers of S.O.E. in France, they are jointly responsible with the author, Mr. Foot, for the accuracy of the contents, they will ensure that the corrections to be made in the second edition of this book are in accordance with the facts; and whether they will also make arrangements for these amendments to be issued with all copies of the first edition from now on, and to be made available to all concerned.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking the question standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to explain why I am bringing it forward. The main object is to try to impress on Her Majesty's Government, as publishers of this book S.O.E. in France, that they have a responsibility to ensure that any amendments which are to be made in the second edition shall be made available to all those who have obtained copies of the first edition. The apology which was made by Mr. Foot in a letter to The Times and in another place by the Minister of State of course referred only to Odette Hallowes and Violette Szabo, but it is not only against them that what I consider unpleasant, untrue and unjustifiable statements have been made. I think the book dealt very shabbily with Peter Churchill, but I do not propose to go into that matter further because I understand from his solicitors that he is taking certain action. There was also an entirely unwarranted attack on the reputation of a well known author, Mr. R. J. Minney, and his book which he wrote about Violette Szabo was referred to by Mr. Foot as being completely fictitious—he went on to add "as far as I can ascertain." In my humble opinion, if Mr. Foot had used a little more assiduity he could easily have been able to find out that the book was not completely fictitious. However, Mr. Minney, also, I am sure, is not going to sit back and let that remark go unchallenged.

With regard to some of the other inexcusable denigation, I propose to mention only one matter because the hour is very late. It occurs on page 431 and it concerns two gallant women, Yolanda Beekman and Eliane Plewman. Both these women were dropped behind the lines in France, either in 1943 or 1944—I cannot remember which—and until they were caught by the Gestapo they did wonderful and dangerous work as wireless operators. Eventually, however, they were caught and, as happened in all such cases, they were taken to the Avenue Foch where they were questioned and brutally ill-treated by the Gestapo in an endeavour to get them to give away their friends and colleagues. Now, if your Lordships will permit me to read it, that has been described in the book in this very brief extract: Yolande Beekman and Eliane Plewman were both knocked about the face a good deal immediately after capture in France, in perfectly fruitless attempts to make them betray their friends; but the bruises soon went down. I should like to ask your Lordships what place a remark like that has in an official history of S.O.E. in France. I should have thought that anyone who knew anything about the methods of the Gestapo when questioning prisoners would know that such treatment was quite normal. In fact, I personally know a woman who, during such an interrogation or investigation, received a broken jaw.

In my Question to-day what I am doing is to ask, first of all, whether the Government will ensure that the amendments in the second edition will be in accordance with the facts, and, secondly, whether they will make arrangements to see that they are issued with all copies of the first edition and made available to all concerned. But I hope Her Majesty's Government will do more than that, and that they will do as I asked in my Question a fortnight ago—namely, withdraw all copies of the first edition so far as it is physically possible to do so. The reason why this should be done was expressed much better than I can do it in a letter to the Daily Telegraph a few days ago, written by Jacky Smythe, whom many noble Lords will know personally—Brigadier Sir John Smythe, who of course has the Victoria Cross—and with your Lordships' permission I will read two paragraphs. He writes: I understand that 10,000 copies of this book were printed and have mostly been sold. A large proportion of the copies have gone to libraries, museums and military historical record offices all over the world; and there they will remain for all time as correct records, sponsored by the British Government, of the Resistance Movement in Europe. It is most unlikely that many of the people or the libraries who have bought a first edition for 45s. are going to buy a second—and therefore the slur on Odette and Violette will remain. What Mr. Foot and the Foreign Office must do between them—if their apologies mean anything at all—is to withdraw all those copies which have gone to official bodies, and every other copy they can, and replace them immediately by one of the new copies which have been promised by the Minister of State. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to accept that suggestion. My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

9.37 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has, as he indicated, followed up his Question to which my noble friend Lord Chalfont replied on July 18. I am grateful to him for creating this opportunity for me to state the Government's position on these important questions more fully than was possible on that occasion. In the book to which the noble Lord has referred we have the somewhat rare privilege of considering contemporary history—history of a time and of events which are all vividly within our memory. It is a history of the deeds and sacrifices of men and women, all of whom possessed a rare kind of courage—courage more rare, as most of us would believe, than in the bravest deeds on the battlefield.

It is a book published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and this has led the noble Lord to claim in his question that Her Majesty's Government are jointly responsible, with the author, for the accuracy of its contents. This is not so. Indeed the author Mr. Foot, a distinguished historian, himself makes this perfectly clear. He concludes his preface with these words: Lastly, it must be made quite clear that though the book has been prepared under official auspices and with official help, it in no way reflects official doctrine: I am an historian, not an official, and the views given below are my own. No responsibility for any statement or opinion in these pages attaches to any organisation or person but myself". That is the last paragraph in the preface to the book. The fact that the book bears the Stationery Office imprint does not detract from this statement any more than it does with other officially sponsored histories.

My Lords, the term "official historian" does not confer infallibility. In the present case it means no more than that Mr. Foot had access to the archives of the Special Operations Executive and other official files. The use he made of those archives, the opinions he expresses and any emphasis, or lack of it, are his own, and not the Government's. The recording of history is an art which cannot be produced by a Government Committee, and to imply, as the noble Lord has done, that the Government should exercise this art, is as absurd as to suggest that we should redraft the work of the Poet Laureate. The author of this book, Mr. M. R. D. Foot, makes it clear that he took as his working motto Othello's nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice". In my view he has succeeded. Like the artist to whom Oliver Cromwell—another hero in his day—sat for his portrait, he has painted a true picture, warts and all.

Not many of us figure in the pages of history; still fewer are privileged to read pages of history in which they themselves have played a leading and noble part. It would be rare indeed if the historian, in seeking to set out the truth—nothing extenuating and without malice—could be so completely successful as to avoid giving hurt or offence to anyone. Indeed, in a work of more than 500 pages it would be surprising if there were no inaccuracies of fact—given the nature of the archives of which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool is perfectly well aware. Mr. Foot said himself in his preface: Naturally I have tried to produce as complete, as accurate, and as fairly balanced an account as time permitted. No-one will be less surprised than myself if inaccuracies remain; for the whole published literature on the subject is pitted with them, and the unpublished archives arc often contradictory and confused". The noble Lord has quite properly drawn attention to certain other passages which he regards as unfortunate or unnecessary, but he will forgive me if I do not comment on them, beyond pointing out that, unhappily, some of Mr. Foot's references to the awards, to two very gallant ladies, Mrs. Odette Hallowes and the late Mrs. Violette Szabo, have been misunderstood. In view of this, Mr. Foot wrote to The Times expressing his deep regret that what he had said had given rise to misunderstandings and so caused keen distress.

He made it clear that he—and I quote never intended, as has been wrongly suggested in some quarters, to cast any doubt whatever on the worthiness of the G.C. awarded to Mrs. Hallowes in 1946, and if any language of mine conveyed that impression, it was certainly never intended. It was equally never my intention to suggest that the late Mrs. Szabo did not deserve her G.C.: quite the contrary. Here also, I deeply regret the pain which has been caused to her daughter. In both cases I shall take the opportunity in any reprinting of the book, to make my views quite clear". My honourable friend Mrs. Eirene White, the Minister of State, on July 11 in another place referred to this letter and, speaking as a Minister, fully associated Her Majesty's Government with these sentiments, as I do now.

I was also personally glad to see and hear Mrs. Hallowes, on television, express her satisfaction that the matter would be put right, and also give her expert opinion that the book itself was very good indeed. In this she is in agreement with many reviewers who regard it as a valuable and objective contribution to the history of the war. I can assure the noble Lord, in response to the question he put to me, that Mr. Foot's proposed amendments to the text will be incorporated in the reprint. I cannot say just when the next edition will be published; but it certainly will be as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me to make arrangements for the amendments to be issued with all future sales of copies of the first edition. With the best will in the world, I am afraid that is not possible because virtually the whole of the 10,000 print has been sold. Stationery Office stocks are quite exhausted and we understand that very few copies are still in the hands of booksellers. It really would not be practicable, as he asked, to make amendments available to people who already have copies of the book. It would be impossible to ensure that errata slips would reach everyone who had bought a copy, and in the circumstances I hope your Lordships will feel that the promised reprint of the book will be regarded as sufficient.

I hope also that my answers to the noble Lord's questions will finally dispel any lingering misunderstanding, if any still remain, about the passages to which he has referred. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in the sincere hope that these misunderstandings will not be allowed to obscure the historical value and merits of the book as a whole. Indeed, in my view, it is a book which should be read by all who wish to know the story of ordinary men and women, whose heroism and love of their country rendered great.