HC Deb 21 March 1938 vol 333 cc950-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel C. Kerr.]

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

I desire to raise the question of the speech that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on Friday last. This speech was widely reported in the newspapers of our own country and also received additional publicity by reason of the fact that certain material parts of the speech were broadcast over the British Broadcasting system. I wish to base my comments upon the report which was published on Saturday in the "Times." In fairness to the Minister, I ought to read to the House the contents of the report, according to the "Times."

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Mr. Morgan Jones

On a point of Order. As this is a matter which concerns a member of the Ministry and inasmuch as, I understand, he has been given notice that this matter is to be raised, is it not the business of the Government to take steps to secure his attendance?

Mr. Henderson

I did not give the Prime Minister notice, but I did give notice to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Mander

Is it in order to ask whether the Minister concerned, who has been notified, intends to be present on this occasion? It is an insult to the House if he is not to be here.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)

The Minister has had word sent to him. This matter has come on unexpectedly. He will be here very soon.

Hon. Members

Here he is.

Mr. Henderson

Speaking at Biggleswade on Friday last, according to the "Times" newspaper, the Parliamentary Secretary made the following remarks: He could countenance nothing more ridiculous than a guarantee that the frontiers of Czechoslovakia should not be violated, when half the people in that country could not be relied upon to be loyal to the Government of the country, and from what he knew of Mr. Chamberlain he did not think he would make a move to give a guarantee of that kind. Germany could absorb Czechoslovakia and Great Britain could remain secure, but Germany could not invade France without threatening us. We should, therefore, reaffirm our undertaking to France to defend her if she should be invaded. He could think of Governments he liked better than M. Blum's. He did not think we should tie ourselves in advance by giving undertakings to go to the aid of European countries if they were invaded, unless their security was of vital concern to us. That is a report of the speech published in a newspaper which, I think it is generally agreed, expresses the official point of view of the Government of this country more than any other newspaper. Unfortunately, this speech has received wide publicity not only in our own country but in other countries in Europe. I have been informed on very reliable authority that this material extract, especially the reference to Czchoslovakia, was broadcast over the German system—in German, of course—and that many hearers in Czechoslovakia and in other countries where there are German-speaking people had the opportunity of hearing this statement. I am also informed that it was put over in such a way as to indicate that this represented the views of His Majesty's Government. Whether that be true or not, there can be no doubt that this speech and the publicity which it has received have caused the utmost alarm and consternation in the minds of the people of Czechoslovakia. In these days, when we have only recently had an example of the bullying tactics of a great nation against a small nation, it does not require a very great stretch of the imagination to realise what effect this would have upon the minds of the people of that small country. There are several points which I think are material to this matter. First of all the Prime Minister last week said that he refused to be rushed into making any new declaration of foreign policy.

Mr. Magnay

Is it in order for any hon. Member to read an extract from a newspaper?

Mr. Benn

On a point of Order, I understand that it is in order to bring in documents that are relevant to the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct, provided he only uses the paper for the purposes of the Debate.

Mr. Henderson

I was observing that the Prime Minister last week stated that he refused to be rushed into making a new statement on foreign policy. It is not my purpose to-night to express any views on the advisability or otherwise of giving a pledge to Czechoslovakia or any other country. But surely if it is undesirable for the Prime Minister to make a statement on foreign policy it is equally, if not more, undesirable for a Minister of the Crown to embark upon declarations affecting an issue such as the one concerning Czechoslovakia—a burning question, and one on which there are wide differences of opinion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member seems to be proceeding now to criticise and attack the Minister in question. He cannot do that except on a substantive Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Henderson

I have no desire to put it on the plane of criticism. It may be that what I was saying was rather a forcible comment, and I certainly do not desire to raise this matter for the purpose of making a criticism of the Minister. I was merely indicating that, having regard to the Prime Minister's statement last week, it was at least unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman's statement should have been made. Apparently the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon that the Under-Secretary had been misreported. It may be that he was misreported, but, if that be so, it seems to me the more important that this opportunity should be given to him to put on record exactly what he did say, in order that the public of this country and of other countries may be able to decide how far he was misrepresented. It may then prove that the suggestion that he has been guilty of an indiscretion will not be borne out, and no one, I think, will be happier to learn that the Minister has been misrepresented than Members of the House and also the people of Czechoslovakia.

9.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)

I welcome this opportunity of making a brief personal explanation on a matter which has already occupied the attention of this House for a considerable time to-day. May I say straightaway that I do not quarrel with the general statement on propriety which was made by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). I can only say to the House in palliation of an error which I do not deny and which I will later briefly explain, that I have been so recently translated to an important position that I have not begun as yet perhaps properly to realise the importance which may be attached to chance words of mine. Indeed, when the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said this afternoon that nobody really took any notice of what I said, I suppose she was giving expression to a thought that was in my mind, and that I had not been able to rid my mind of, even since my right hon. Friend did me the honour to ask me to join his Administration.

I can assure the House that I did not realise the importance that might be attached to words of mine, and that I shall realise in future that, even though my particular task at the moment is to support the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour at the Ministry of Labour, any words that I may say on foreign affairs or on other subjects must be weighed most carefully before they are given expression. But may I say to the hon. Member who has just sat down—and I feel sure that he will agree with me—that the spoken and the written word do not always convey quite the same impression, and I do believe that if he had been present at the meeting to which he has drawn attention he would not have formed quite the same opinion as he has formed, no doubt quite sincerely, of what I said.

I do not intend to go in any detail into what I said, and I hope the House will agree with me in that attitude, but I do not attempt to deny that I was indiscreet in making a speech on foreign affairs at this moment when my particular task lies elsewhere; but I would like to say to the hon. Member, as an illustration of the difference between the spoken and the written word, that though it is true that I said—and I think I was in error to say it—that I could think of governments in France which I would prefer to the Government of M. Blum, I did say (what does not appear) that we must to-day stand by France, for we are not only in honour but in common safety completely involved in the fortunes of France. I think the hon. Member will agree that the one extract from my speech without the sentence that followed did not give full and fair expression to what I was trying to say.

But I do sincerely apologise, not least to those Under-Secretaries whose honourable office I have brought to-day into great public discussion, but also and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have told him that, as he naturally knows, I was not attempting to speak for the Government as a whole. I cannot speak for the Government as a whole. I do not know the policy at this moment of the Cabinet. [Laughter.] I am very glad indeed that hon. Members opposite laughed at that, for it enables me to refer to one other quotation which was made, which I think fittingly illustrates the difficulty of relying on a published report, and at the same time, I think, if they will not think me offensive, it implies a mild censure on themselves. They quoted something I was supposed to have said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not make guarantees of this kind. They did not quote what I also said, that attempts had been made by the Opposition to rush my right hon. Friend into a hasty declaration to guarantee the frontiers of Czechoslovakia, and I added that I did not think the right hon. Gentleman would make any such hasty declaration. I do not think there was anything improper in that. I do not want to end on a note of controversy because I know that it was on my part an action which I should not have taken if I had taken fuller regard of the circumstances and had realised the importance of my new position. I can only ask the House to accept this explanation and hope that they will regard the matter as at an end.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

The hon. Member has made a conciliatory speech and an ample personal apology, which I am sure must have given satisfaction in every quarter of the House. But I am afraid it does not entirely dispose of the issue at stake. His speech was made on Friday night. It was reported in the "Times" of Saturday, and in a large part of the national Press. He made "front page," as they say in America, in a number of national journals. He was on the wireless; he was on the wireless in Germany. There was renewed publicity in the Sunday Press. There is no explanation whether he was speaking for the Government or not until this afternoon, no explanation of any kind from the time the issue was raised on Saturday morning in a number of important papers. The Prime Minister this afternoon said he understood that the Minister had been misreported. So far as I can gather from the explanation now made, the Minister says he was not misrepresented, but that if we had heard what he said we should have formed a different view from that which we have formed from the reports in the Press. One measure which might be taken is that the Minister should publish what he did say from the verbatim text of his speech, if it exists.

But there is another point. The Minister has given currency, very wide publicity, to statements which are very far from the truth about a friendly Power. He said that half the population of Czechoslovakia were ready to be disloyal to their Government in case of war. I do not think the Minister can be fully familiar with the facts. There are 3,500,000 Germans, that is to say, German-speaking people, in a State of 13,000,000. These 3,500,000 have lived in Czechoslovakia, in the territory previously known as Bohemia, which was part of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, for 500 or 600 years. They have been there longer than the French Canadians have been in Canada. They have never been part of the Reich. Among these 3,500,000, how many in fact owe allegiance to Herr Henlein's party, and the German party which desires to unite with the Reich? Everyone knows that for years, ever since the War, there have been German Ministers in the Coalition Government which rules in Czechoslovakia, and these parties have been gaining strength. Only the other day I was told that the trade unions which are loyal to the Czechoslovakian Government, which fear and detest the prospect of domination by Germany, have increased their membership by 25 per cent. in the last three months. It was a very grave misrepresentation of the facts about a matter which, as everybody knows, is under international negotiation at the present time, for a Minister of the Crown to speak about the internal affairs of a foreign country with whom we are not only at peace but with whom we have always had, and I hope always shall have, the closest and most friendly relations.

These are important points. I hope the Minister will make an explanation on that point too, and with an apology to those whom he has misrepresented. But that does not entirely dispose of the matter. What is really important is whether the view expressed by the Minister is the view of the Government or not. I hope the Prime Minister will now give us an assurance that what the Minister said is not only his own personal view but that it is not the view of the Government to which he belongs.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I do not think the question can be left where it is. The Minister's new-found enthusiasm for the Government has gravely embarrassed the Prime Minister and the Government in the heavy task they have at the moment, and it is remarkable to think that we have the pleasure of the hon. Member in the Government in exchange for the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). The hon. Member has used language which was gravely discourteous towards the head of the French Government. It is difficult to understand how any man with any sense of responsibility could possibly use language of that kind. And he went on to use words gravely discourteous towards the Czechoslovakian Government, quite apart from the policy he put forward. To say that half the Czechoslovakian nation were unwilling to support their Government is language which no member of any Government should possibly use even if it was wholly true. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has explained the circumstances in which the Germans have been co-operating in the Czechoslovakian Government for a long period, and I will add this one point. The reason why other Germans, those of which Herr Henlein is the head, are not co-operating with the Government, is because Herr Hitler will not let them; it does not suit him to have their grievances remedied; he wants someone there to be used as an excuse for stirring up trouble in that country.

I hope that before the Debate comes to an end the Prime Minister will say that the views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary are not in any way whatever the views of the Government. We may be told on Thursday what the views of the Government are, and they may be just the same as the hon. Member said, but that is not the point. They are certainly not the views of the British Government at the present time, although there are countless people all over Europe who think they are owing to this blazing indiscretion. The Prime Minister must feel, in the interests of his policy, which he is, mistakenly, I think, but sincerely, trying to pursue, that he should make it clear to the whole world that, whatever policy he is going to pursue in the next few days, it is not at this moment in any way whatever associated with that of the hon. Member, and that the hon. Member was not speaking for the British Government in any sense at all.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

If it was only a matter of one Member of the Government or of this House having done something which had offended the rules, customs or traditions of this House, the apology of the hon. Member would have been sufficient. As I understood him, he apologised for an indiscretion. When any hon. Member is prepared to apologise as profusely as the hon. Member did for an indiscretion, such an apology would be readily accepted, but, as previous speakers have remarked, this is a matter which goes deeper. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the apology which the hon. Member has made? Is he entirely satisfied that it was merely an indiscretion? It is useless to hide the fact, but the hon. Member who made a speech at Biggleswade has expressed more than once both inside and outside this House certain views which lend colour to the accuracy of the report of his speech which appeared in many newspapers. The hon. Gentleman has not gone as far as to repudiate that speech entirely, but has merely qualified it in certain respects. I entirely accept the qualification which he has made this evening. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He said that the speech as reported, did not accurately represent his views. The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say what he likes about the position, but when he is speaking as a Member of the Government on affairs which are very—

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member wants to criticise what the Minister said at Biggleswade, he must bring forward a substantive Motion.

Mr. Bellenger

I was endeavouring to comment on the hon. Gentleman's own argument about the indiscretion of a speech of this nature. I will try to keep in order. My main point is that the hon. Gentleman has explained to us this evening that the report, as given in the public Press, was hot entirely what he said, but he has not told us what he did say. If he told us that, it might be possible to put a substantive Motion on the Paper. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is entirely satisfied by the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman as to the speech which the hon. Gentleman is alleged to have made at Biggleswade. Apart from the indiscretion which a junior Minister has made and possibly which the right hon. Gentleman is willing to overlook, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not a matter which can be left in the category of a pure indiscretion. The speech was made by a junior Minister, a Member of the Government, and therefore, I think the House is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister what attitude he takes towards that speech.

9.48 p.m.

The Prime Minister

I intervene in response to the appeals that have been made to me by several hon. Members as to what exactly my position is on this matter. My hon. Friend has very frankly and fully expressed to the House his regret that, being fresh to responsibility, he has committed an indiscretion. He has made a speech about foreign affairs, and not being a Member of the Cabinet, he is not, of course, a party to the Government's policy until it is declared. Undoubtedly, my hon. Friend would have been better advised if he had been more careful in the language he used, especially at a moment of some delicacy. I am satisfied that my hon. Friend had in his mind no sinister object, that he committed an indiscretion, an error of judgment, and nothing more, and I am satisfied to leave it at that.

As my hon. Friend himself said, he did not profess to speak for the Government. He did not realise, perhaps, that any Member of the Government is liable to be held responsible, as a member of the Government, for what he says, but, as I have said, my hon. Friend is fresh to office, and has not fully realised what the implications might be. I am quite certain that he will be careful not to repeat what he has done. As far as I am concerned, I accept his explanation that he was not speaking for the Government, that he was expressing merely his own views, whether they were completely or incompletely reported; and of course, the policy of the Government and its attitude towards the particular question on which my hon. Friend spoke, will be disclosed in the House in the course of the present week.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Attlee

The House is always very ready to accept an apology by any Member who frankly admits that he has made an error, but there is a matter which arises on which, I think, we must ask for something more definite. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made a certain statement. That statement has been taken very widely to be a representation of the policy of the Government. The hon. Member affected to know the mind of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I said that from what I know of my right hon. Friend, he is not likely to be rushed into a hasty declaration to guarantee frontiers. I think the whole House will agree that my right hon. Friend is never likely to be rushed into hasty and unwise decisions.

Mr. Attlee

The point is that people outside this country naturally do not know how far the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is in the confidence of the Prime Minister and is entitled to speak on his behalf. From the report which I have, the hon. Member said: From what I know of Mr. Chamberlain, I do not think he would make a move to give a guarantee of that kind. I do not know whether that report is right or wrong, but it is a report by a very responsible Press agency, and I think the House ought to have something more than a mere statement by the Prime Minister that the hon. Member was speaking for himself. There ought to be a definite repudiation of those views. The Prime Minister has not made up his mind. We all realise the difficulty in which Under-Secretaries and Ministers were placed during the weekend in having to make speeches at various public meetings when they did not quite know where they were. What is required is a definite statement from the Prime Minister that he has not yet decided his policy with regard to Czechoslovakia. If he is inclined to leave the matter where it is, it may be held that he has approved of what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said. The Prime Minister has left the matter by saying that it does not necessarily represent what he feels or what he does not feel. We have had a definite statement of policy by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. There ought to be a statement, clear and emphatic, that that is not at the present time the decided opinion of the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister has not got a decided opinion at the present time. I think that is due to the House, to the country and to other countries.

At the present time, people throughout the world are waiting to hear what is the Prime Minister's decision. A number of Ministers, members of the Government, have made statements during the weekend. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire happened to make the most emphatic statement, but other Under-Secretaries and members of the Cabinet have made statements of varying degrees and various tinges, and there is not any greatest common measure among them. What we require from the Prime Minister now is a mere statement that at the present time, whatever may be the statement he is going to make in future, the statement made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is not the Government's policy.

The Prime Minister

I have already explained the position.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Benn

The first defence that was made of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was that his speech was misreported, but I gather that the Under-Secretary does not persist in that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn

Is the Press Association account correct or not?

Mr. Fleming

It is perfectly clear in my mind that, from the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, what he said was—

Mr. Benn

I gave way because I thought the hon. Member wanted to interrupt me, but if he wishes to make a speech, perhaps he will wait until I have finished. Nobody has the least desire to pursue the Parliamentary Secretary. He has acted in a way which commands the universal assent of the House. It is always the case that if a man apologises his apology is accepted at once by the House. Indeed there is nothing which the House appears to enjoy so much as an apology. But the point in this case is that if the Press Association report is correct—and I understand that the hon. Member does not challenge it, and the Press Association is a responsible agency—then there are things in that speech so insulting to Czechoslovakia and so encouraging to Germany that one trusts that the Prime Minister will rise now and say, "I repudiate this statement. The policy of the Government remains what it was before." Otherwise infinite harm may be done in Central Europe.

I cannot see what the Prime Minister has to gain by not saying frankly that he repudiates the hon. Member's speech. No doubt, he has seen this report of the Press Association and he must realise that the speech could only further embitter feeling on the Continent. When the right hon. Gentleman takes into account the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary about the Czechs, about the people who live in Czechoslovakia, about what Germany can do, and what we would not do if Germany did act, he must realise that all these things are disastrous to our prestige in that part of Europe. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman has been exculpated, I think the least the Prime Minister can do is to state frankly not that the hon. Gentleman was mis-reported—because that defence has disappeared—but that he as Prime Minister repudiates what was an indiscretion by the Parliamentary Secretary, and also that the policy of the Government remains what it was and that we are bound in exactly the same way as before. We ask for no change of policy to be announced tonight, but we ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that our ties with these small people on the Continent to whom we are bound and to the Covenant of the League of Nations, remain as they were before the delivery of this speech. That is a reasonable request, and in the public interest, and for the honour of the country, the Prime Minister ought to accede to it.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I support the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want to carry on a hue-and-cry against the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), but the Prime Minister ought to recollect the circumstances in which he brought the hon. Member into his Government. The hon. Member came in because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) went out, and of some 400 Members from whom the Prime Minister could choose, he selected the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for promotion. Therefore, when the hon. Member uses the phrase, "If I know the mind of the Prime Minister" it may reasonably be taken on the Continent, by friend and foe alike, that this man who has been singled out for this promotion in these very special circumstances, is a man very close to the Prime Minister with intimate knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's inner and private thoughts. I can understand the Prime Minister's anxiety to be loyal to his junior colleague, and I appreciate that attitude on his part. But there are bigger things involved here than the position of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. There is the general European situation. I know the Prime Minister is to make a speech on Thursday in which all doubts and misunderstandings and uncertainties may be dissipated. But from now until Thursday is a period of four days, which is a long period in European political history in these times, and I would urge the Prime Minister to make a specific statement of the kind requested from him by the right hon. Gentleman.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I do not propose to pursue the particular indiscretion of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), but to offer a few observations on the general principles involved. At a time when the Government are toying with the idea of national unity it is a singular mistake for the Prime Minister to take into his Government one who represents extreme ideological views either on one side or the other. One of the greatest men in the science of statesmanship in Europe to-day has said that he who would be a leader has to fight a battle on two fronts—a battle on the left and a battle on the right of his own party. The Prime Minister has successfully fought the battle on the left of his party but he has not yet taken up the challenge which has come from the right. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire must be wondering whether he is going to hold his office for more than three or four days longer, because he has described as ridiculous a policy which may, conceivably, be enunciated by the Prime Minister next Thursday as the policy of the Government. In that case, the hon. Member's tenure of office will have been a very short, but a very gay one.

The Conservative party constitutes its Governments in the same way as the party itself is constituted. There is in the party a large bulk of gentlemen of pedestrian ability who can be relied upon to vote according to the party machine and never to give any trouble and occasionally there are admitted a few of the more brilliant members of the party who must carry the flag and fight in the forefront of the battle against Socialism. Precisely the same thing happens in the case of Conservative Governments. On that Front Bench we see a number of estimable gentlemen whom we all like and who can be relied upon never to commit indiscretions of any kind. But the great tradition of leadership and the great fight against Socialism must be carried on, and occasionally a more brilliant Member is admitted to a kind of apprenticeship to the Ministry. That, I believe, was the intention of the Prime Minister when he appointed the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire to his present post.

The hon. Member has committed an indiscretion which, apparently, the House has permitted to pass, but which if it had been committed by a Minister in a Labour Government would not have been allowed to pass without resignation. The Conservative party has an institution of a kind, with which we on this side are not favoured. I believe it is known as the Bonar Law College at Ashridge where prospective Conservative candidates and Ministers are instructed in the principles which should govern their conduct in the House and the Ministry. I conclude with the suggestion to the Prime Minister that he should send his new recruit back to that college for a further course of instruction.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to ask a couple of questions, because we are getting subjected here to the usual humbug and hypocrisy. This apology is not an apology at all. The hon. Member had the chance of making an apology, and—

Mr. Speaker

When an apology is made, it is the custom of the House to accept it.

Mr. Gallacher

When an apology is made, but is it not permissible for Members to accept the apology or otherwise? Anyhow, I do not accept it. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, when he saw that report on Saturday, he took any steps to find out whether his Minister had been correctly reported. I want to ask the Minister whether, when he saw what the Prime Minister has told us was an incorrect report, he took any steps to correct that report between Saturday and Monday. I want to ask the Prime Minister a further question. Would he have said or done anything whatever about this impermissible, this vicious, this partisan, Fascist speech if the question had not been raised on this side of the House? I would like answers to these questions. Why is it that the Prime Min- ister pays no attention whatever to what I am asking? I continually find that the Prime Minister is prepared to pay attention to all and sundry, but when I get up I get the impression of a Sphinx with gastritis. I demand an answer to my question.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Ten o'clock.