HC Deb 14 May 1930 vol 238 cc1860-1
32. Sir G. PENNY

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the term Board of Admiralty when used in its official sense, invariably includes the Sea Lords?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

I would refer the hon. Member to His Majesty's Order in Council of the 5th November, 1929, which lays down the membership of the Board of Admiralty and also defines the responsibilities of its respective members. The term Board of Admiralty used in a collective sense means all the members mentioned in the Order in Council. In an administrative sense, it means either the First Lord, acting after consultation with the whole Board or the appropriate member or members of the Board, or the appropriate member or members of the Board acting with the expressed or implied approval of the First Lord. Questions of high policy affecting the Navy are thus only decided after consultation with and (normally) the concurrence of the Sea Lords, but circumstances may conceivably arise in which a decision has to be taken without their concurrence. The decision would still be officially that of the Board of Admiralty, but obviously it would not be so described in circumstances where it would be misleading to do so.

Sir G. PENNY

Arising out of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman dispel the doubt which exists in the minds of many hon. Members of this House, and say when the phrase was used in another place the other day to the effect that the Board of Admiralty agreed to the Naval Treaty, did it include the Sea Lords?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I think an opportunity will arise for the position to be made quite plain in the Debate tomorrow, but I would like to say, in fairness to the Noble Lord who made the statement in another place, that it was really inadvertent, and, if you read the text, you will find that he said, I propose to read presently a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but unfortunately he did not proceed to do so.

Sir G. PENNY

May I have an answer to my question as to whether the Sea Lords did concur?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am very anxious not to make long answers. I have said that there will be an ample opportunity to-morrow to make the position quite plain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is in order for hon. Members opposite to quote speeches made in another place.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

It was a Minister who quoted it.

Mr. SPEAKER

If it was a declaration of policy in another place by a member of the Government, reference can, of course, be made to it.

Forward to