§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)I desire to make a statement with regard to Burma. Questions have arisen as to the manner in which the pledges given by successive Governments in this country to the Burmese people should be implemented and, in order to assist in the elucidation of these matters, His Majesty's Government propose to invite a representative group of Burmans from the Governor's Executive Council to visit this country in the near future for discussions.
In a statement made to this House on 20th January, 1931, at the time of the decision to separate Burma from India, it was stated that His Majesty's Government wished it to be understood that the prospects of constitutional advance held out to Burma as part of British India would not be prejudiced by the decision to proceed with the separation of Burma from India. Since that time great steps forward towards self-government have been made in India and developments in the same direction have taken place in Burma. In the latter case, however, the matter has been greatly complicated by the Japanese invasion and occupation, from which Burma emerged after the surrender of the Japanese in a condition of great chaos and without any settled Burmese Government. In the White Paper which was subsequently issued by the Government and agreed to by this House, a plan was set out whereby it was hoped that Burmese self-government could be rapidly achieved.
Recent developments in India have led the Burmese people to desire to expedite their own advance to self-government and their leaders have expressed some impatience with the apparently slow 2342 development of the White Paper plan. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government think that that plan requires reconsideration and that the Burmese leaders should be given the fullest opportunity of putting forward all the suggestions which they may wish to make with a view to their discussion.
His Majesty's Government do not regard the White Paper plan as unchangeable in the light of developing circumstances. Their desire is that the Burmese people should attain their self-Government by the quickest and most convenient path possible. His Majesty's Government further take the view that the pledge of 1931 must be fully carried out. In particular, I would repeat, so far as Burma is concerned, what I have already said with regard to India. We do not desire to retain within the Commonwealth and Empire any unwilling peoples. It is for the people of Burma to decide their own future, but we are certain that it will be to their interest, as it will be to ours, if they decide to remain within the Commonwealth and we sincerely hope that they will arrive at such a decision. Likewise, we consider that the new Constitution for Burma should be settled by nationals of Burma and we believe that arrangements to this end can be made as a result of the forthcoming elections, without the necessity for holding fresh elections for a Constituent Assembly, on the analogy of what has already been done in India where the Constituent Assembly is based upon the ordinary provincial elections.
In the same way, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Burmese Government which has now been formed should, within the existing Constitution, exercise a full measure of authority in Burma. It is not possible, of course, as was pointed out in the case of India, to enact a new interim Constitution, and the old Constitution must, therefore, be carried on in form, but, His Majesty's Government have no desire to interfere with the day to day administration, which is now in the hands of Burmese members of the Governor's Executive. We shall endeavour in the forthcoming discussions to remove any difficulties that the delegates may still feel to exist in this regard.
In all these matters, it is the desire and intention of His Majesty's Government to hasten forward the time when Burma shall realise her independence, either within or 2343 without the Commonwealth, but for the sake of the Burmese people it is of the utmost importance that this should be an orderly—though rapid—progress. It is because of their anxiety that they should be in a position to continue to help the people of Burma in that progress that His Majesty's Government have invited the Burmese leaders to come here for discussions.
§ Mr. ChurchillIt was said, in the days of the great Administration of Lord Chatham, that one had to get up very early in the morning in order not to miss some of the gains and accessions of territory which were then characteristic of our fortunes. The no less memorable Administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is distinguished for the opposite set of experiences. The British Empire seems to be running off almost as fast as the American Loan. The steady and remorseless process of divesting ourselves of what has been gained by so many generations of toil, administration and sacrifice continues. In the case of Burma it is hardly a year since, by the superb exertions of the Fourteenth Army and enormous sacrifices in life and treasure— sacrifices in British blood and in Indian blood—the Japanese were forced to surrender, destroyed, or driven out, and the country was liberated. And yet, although barely a year has passed away, there is this extraordinary haste that we should take the necessary measures to get out of Burma finally and forever. The same formula, the right hon. Gentleman says, will be used as was used in the case of India, with the same extensions he put on to that formula when the Indian Mission was sent out, eliminating the—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is no Motion before the House.
§ Mr. ChurchillWith great respect, Sir, I thought we were entitled to make some observations on this very important statement made by the Government
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would be the case if there was a Motion before the House, but it is not the usual thing otherwise.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay I put myself in order by moving, "That this House do now adjourn"?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a Motion which can be made only by the Government.
§ Mr. ChurchillDo I understand then, Sir, that this statement is to be made by the Prime Minister, foretelling in a very short time the loss of Burma and the departure of the British from that country, and that no counter-remarks are to be made from this side?
§ Mr. SpeakerI must obey the Rules of Order; that is my duty. If there is no Motion put before the House we cannot discuss the matter.
§ Mr. ChurchillSurely, Government statements which are not on a Motion, have been followed frequently, if not invariably, by comments from the other side of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think so. The practice was started during the last Administration, and time after time, statements were made that could not be debated.
§ Mr. Godfrey NicholsonOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If we went on to the Adjournment would you not call right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who desired to make a few observations on this Burma declaration?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat would be quite in Order.
§ Mr. ChurchillI am on the previous point of Order and your Ruling, Sir. If I had a moment of leisure, I could submit to you a great number of precedents in the present Parliament where statements of importance made by Ministers have been followed by comments, and where you, in your position in the Chair, have yourself permitted and tolerated that comment. But, of course, if you are now giving a new Ruling that Ministers may make statements involving the disappearance of large portions of His Majesty's Dominions without any comment being permitted in the House at the time, then all I can say is that I am sorry I was not aware of this change in the Rules before I ventured to rise.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have been trying to get back to the old practice of moving the Adjournment when such statements are made so that discussion may follow. We did that several times in the last Parliament and it is the proper procedure. When we have the Adjournment Motion we can have a short talk about it.
§ Mr. ChurchillBut on this point about the principle of Government statements being made without discussions, am I to take it that you rule that no comment may be made upon them? If so, there have been a great many breaches of the Rules in this present Parliament. I can cite one that now occurs to my memory, which was in respect of the decision to nationalise the steel trade and on which a considerable conversation went on. I should have been most grateful to be in possession of the change in your views as to the change in the practice before I came down here this morning. It is very disconcerting, when one does one's best to keep within the Rules of Order, to be informed that the Rules and practices have been changed.
§ Mr. BowlesMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman, Sir, that on that occasion you advised him to put himself in Order by asking a series of questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerErskine May, under the heading "Ministerial Statements in the House of Commons", says:
As no question is before the House, debate on such statements is irregular.
§ Mr. ChurchillThis question turns on the word "debate" and whether comment is debate. No one would attempt a full-dress Debate on such a subject, but when a statement of this startling, far-reaching and grave character is flung out to us, it does seem strange that this should also be the occasion when we are told that owing to the new interpretation which is to be put upon, the Rules no comment is to be permitted by the Opposition on that subject.
§ Sir Peter MacdonaldOn that point, Sir, may I submit to you that many hon. Members on this side of the House have taken a great deal of interest in the Constitution and development of Burma in the past, and that we feel that we should be notified beforehand of a grave and serious statement of this nature instead of its being made on a Friday morning when no one expects it? We have no chance of raising questions on it, and I respectfully suggest moving the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of debating it now.
§ Mr. ChurchillFurther to that point, I am bound to state that yesterday the Prime Minister did inform me and my colleague the right hon. Gentleman the 2346 Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that he intended to make a statement, and although I did not see the text, it follows very much along the lines of what he said. That was confidential information, however, and I did not feel entitled to impart it to my colleagues except to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) who was to be here. Therefore, although I appreciate the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning the matter to me, hon. Gentlemen on this side are in no way relieved from the inconvenient position in which they were put, namely, that this grave and irrevocable step is to be announced and, apparently, we are not allowed to comment on it. If you, Sir, give this new Ruling on the subject, which is a departure from the practice which has been in force both in the last Parliament and in this, I have no choice but to submit, and I shall not attempt further to comment upon this lamentable and deplorable event and announcement at this moment, but I ask the Government if they will move the Adjournment of the House. We are later to discuss the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess, and I shall endeavour to present myself to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that I may perhaps be fortunate enough to catch your eye.
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)There are one or two short items to dispose of, and then it is proposed to move the Adjournment of the House. Thereafter, it is a matter for you, Sir, whether a short discussion on this subject may be interpolated among the other subjects to be discussed, of which notice has been given. But once the earlier items have been disposed of, the right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that I shall move the Adjournment of the House.