§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £560,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the excess cost involved in the employment of extra troops in China, not provided for in the Army Estimates of the year, and the loss of Army receipts involved in the withdrawal of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.
Earl WINTERTONI understand that this Estimate is in respect of the cost of troops in China, and that owing to the system which has been in vogue now for the last three years this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the whole cost of these troops in China is provided for in this Supplementary Estimate and not in the ordinary Army Estimates. I have no comments to make on the matter except to say that those who in this House find in the ironic march of events some consolation for the frequent tedium of our proceedings will be delighted to see the present Government and the Secretary of State for War defending a course of policy which they so ferociously criticised when they were out of office. I would like to quote to the Committee, for the benefit of the Government and their supporters, the Resolution on the subject which they supported some three years ago.
Earl WINTERTONMay I point out that this is the only occasion on which the Committee or the House will have an opportunity of discussing the policy 1426 of keeping troops in China? The situation is very different from that which arises with an ordinary Supplementary Estimate. It is true that by the custom of the House it is not possible to discuss policy on an ordinary Supplementary Estimate, because the policy has been discussed on the Estimate itself, but although this is described as a Supplementary Estimate it really covers the whole cost of keeping our troops in China, and I submit that in these circumstances we are entitled to discuss that question, because it is the only opportunity we shall have of doing so. It would be out of order to discuss it on the Army Estimates, because no provision is made in the general Army Estimates for the cost of these troops.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the Noble Lord is quite entitled to discuss the purpose for which this money is being spent, but I do not know whether he would be entitled to recall all that has happened on this subject in the past. He is entitled to discuss whether this policy was justified or not.
Earl WINTERTONAn important point is involved. As an old Member of the House I am always anxious to stick up for the rights of the House, but I must point out, with great respect, that in my submission I am perfectly entitled to raise a question of policy, and I am perfectly entitled to refer to the attitude of Members of the Government in the past. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; and, if there is any dispute, I shall be pleased to put the point to Mr. Speaker. I know—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already ruled that the question of this policy could be discussed. The Noble Lord must not threaten the Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI said the Noble Lord must not threaten the Chair. The Noble Lord must remember that Mr. Speaker does not decide questions of Order in this Committee. I decide them when in the Chair.
Earl WINTERTONThat is so, and I have not the least intention of transgressing your Ruling, but I was trying to get your Ruling quite clear. In the 1427 course of your Ruling you made some reference to the Opposition, and I submit that you ruled very clearly that I am entitled to discuss policy, and that is the only point with which I am concerned. All I said was that had you ruled that that was not so I should have to consult higher authority. Your Ruling is perfectly clear. [Interruption.] Certainly, I am perfectly entitled to do that. Every Member of the House has a right to consult higher authority, which is Mr. Speaker, and can do so.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the Noble Lord wishes to challenge the Ruling of the Chair, the method is not to consult Mr. Speaker, who is not responsible for conducting the Debate in Committee, but to table a Motion in the proper way.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid the Noble Lord is not treating the Chair with respect. I distinctly ruled that on the question of policy the Noble Lord was in Order, but it is perfectly obvious that on a Supplementary Estimate of this kind he cannot discuss the actions of past Governments.
Earl WINTERTONThat is so. If I may be permitted to say so, there is really nothing between myself and the Chair. I only wanted to be quite clear that this question of policy could be discussed. [Interruption.] There is not the least need for the hon. Member and his colleagues to jump up on points of Order.
§ Mr. STEPHENI also wish to be clear with regard to the Ruling that you have given. I think I understand it, but I am doubtful after hearing the comments of the Noble Lord on your Ruling. I take it your Ruling is that on this Supplementary Estimate we can discuss the policy involved in the Supplementary Estimate, but that the general policy previously decided in connection with the matter is outwith our discussion. In the past I have had occasion frequently to discuss Supplementary Estimates with your predecessors in the Chair, and they have always kept us very specifically to a discussion of the amount of money involved in the Supplementary Estimates and any change of policy which had arisen and 1428 which called for the expenditure of the supplementary sum of money; but, in so far as there was no change of policy, then the details of a Supplementary Estimate itself were all that we were entitled to discuss. For instance, if the original amount had been so many thousands of pounds and there were now some additional hundreds of pounds, then we could discuss those additional hundreds of pounds but not the original sum.
Earl WINTERTONMay I point out that the hon. Member does not seem to realise that this is not an ordinary Supplementary Estimate? This is an Estimate affecting the whole of the troops in China and it would not be in order to discuss it on the main War Office Vote. Consequently, our only opportunity is to discuss it here to-day.
§ Mr. STEPHENI am quite as anxious as the Noble Lord to protect the rights of hon. Members. I take it that under your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, the question which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham was raising cannot be discussed on this Vote?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell)I think it would suit the convenience of the Committee if the Noble Lord would indicate which aspect of this Estimate he wishes to discuss.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBefore the Noble Lord replies to that question I must point out that on a strictly Supplementary Estimate policy cannot be discussed, but where a Vote is a new Vote, a certain amount of latitude is allowed. I am not quite sure that it would be in order to discuss policy on this Vote, because it is not directly a new Vote, but it is something between. I do not want to be too strict in my Ruling, but it is perfectly obvious that I cannot give the Noble Lord the same latitude as he would be entitled to on an entirely new Vote.
Earl WINTERTONI only want to safeguard the situation, because otherwise this, or some subsequent Government, might, by this method, endeavour to avoid the discussion of Supplementary Estimates. My speech can now be compressed into three or four sentences. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member upon his change of view, and to express my pleasure at seeing him in the role of 1429 the defender of a most useful method of maintaining our prestige in the Far East, and upon having had the courage to alter his view in regard to what was said in February, 1927, when he was dealing with the question of the troops in China. May I express the hope that he will continue to stand firmly against those who are opposed to this policy, and I hope he will realise that the maintenance of this small body of troops in China, although the cost is very small, stands for a great deal, and probably, among other things, stands for the protection of our nationals in that country and for the prestige of our flag. I congratulate the Financial Secretary upon his change of view.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI understand that the Noble Lord wishes to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon what he regards as a new rule. As a matter of fact, there is no new rule here, and I think it will be possible to explain in as few sentences as the Noble Lord himself has used precisely the position we occupy in this matter. The Noble Lord began his speech by saying that we had reduced considerably the number of extra troops in China. The number of troops on 1st March last year, when the late Government was in office, was 6,469. On 1st June last year, nine days before the present Government assumed office, the number was 4,064. I think that indicates that the late Government regarded the position in China as somewhat easier than it was the year before. I would like to remind the Noble Lord of the fact that the number of extra troops despatched to China in the period regarded as critical by the late Government in the early part of 1927 was between 17,000 and 20,000.
It will be seen that between 1927 and 1929 there was a very considerable reduction. That means that in the opinion of the late Government the position had improved; indeed, it might be said that the position had improved more rapidly than the Noble Lord and his friends had anticipated. Therefore, I think we were justified in our criticism as to the precipitate haste with which the Government despatched so many troops to China. When the present Government assumed office the number of troops in China was approximately 4,000, and the number now in China is 2,620. There are three battalions of extra troops in China, and I think the Noble Lord will agree with 1430 me when I say that that indicates an easing of the situation, and it is clear that the position to-day is not the same as it was in 1927. Of course, when we took office it was impossible at one fell swoop to abandon all the commitments which confronted us, and I do not think that even the Noble Lord would expect the Government to adopt that method.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThen it would be very interesting to know what is the Noble Lord's complaint.
Earl WINTERTONI did not complain. On the contrary, I congratulated the Government upon the policy which they had adopted.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIf all the Noble Lord desired to do was to congratulate the Government, then there is ample room for my surprise. The reason for my seeming reluctance to rise to explain this Estimate was due to a very substantial reason. It happens to be a Supplementary Estimate which can excite no undue controversy, and, that being so, I do not think I need detain the Committee by going into details.
Dr. VERNON DAVIESThere is an item of £263,000 given as the extra cost of troops in (respect of China. There is also another item of £263,000 put down as savings on other Services. I want to know if the Army has any hidden reserves, or is this an example of exceedingly clever budgeting? Because it looks very suspicious to find that on some occasion when you want to raise money you can find it from some hidden source.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe two figures are merely a coincidence. It so happens that the actual expenditure in respect of China is £263,000, and the accumulated savings in respect of the Rhine and other Services amount to £263,000.
§ Question put, and agreed to.