§ 45. Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that persons drawn from the ranks of the Conservative and Labour parties are members of the Swinton Committee, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Liberal?
§ 47. Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of all Members of this House who have been appointed to, or invited to, work with the Swinton Committee?
§ Mr. AttleePerhaps my hon. Friends would be good enough to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make at the end of Questions.
§ Mr. ManderIs it proposed to deal with this particular Question which I have asked?
Later—
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill)I propose, with the permission of the House, to take advantage of the Questions of the hon. Members for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) about the work and composition of the Swinton Committee, to make a few general observations on the subject. I submitted to the House some time ago the view that it was not in the public interest that Questions should be asked and answered about this Committee or other branches of Secret Service work, or about measures to deal with Fifth Column activities. It would be very wrong for a Government to plead the public interest as a reason for avoiding public and Parliamentary criticism and debate, and, personally, I would never do so. I am always anxious to give the House of Commons the utmost possible information, and to welcome debate. Therefore when I said it was not in the public interest that this matter should be 958 pursued, I hoped that this would have been accepted by all Members of the House. However, I regret to say that a number of Questions have been put on the Paper day after day, quite disregarding the request which the Government made. It would have been possible for the Government, under the powers now accorded, to prevent these Questions from appearing on the Paper, and to prevent all reference to the subject in the newspapers; but I thought it would be much better to leave the putting down of Questions to the good will and sense of responsibility of Members, and I am very sorry that in a few cases this attitude has not been forthcoming.
Now why is it that we have thought it right to plead the public interest against the discussion of the Swinton Committee and its work? Not assuredly because we have anything to conceal which would reflect upon the loyalty, impartiality, and good faith of the Government, or anything which would do the Government harm as a Government, if it were all explained in the utmost detail. The reason is simply one of principle, namely, that matters of this kind, and Committees of this kind, are not fitted for public discussion, least of all in time of war. The House has recognised this principle for many years, and has always refused to allow any discussion of Secret Service funds, or to receive any return of how the money is expended, and similarly I am sure the House would wish the rule to be respected in the case of a Committee which, as I said, deals with Fifth Column activities and other cognate matters. No other country, when it is at war, gives information of this kind, and once the principle was admitted that a stream of Questions could be put about them, and that the Government would be bound to answer these Questions factually, there would be very serious injury done to our safety.
The House has, almost unanimously, recorded its confidence in the Government. That does not mean that the House is confident we shall do everything right, or that errors of policy and administration should not be freely criticised, and scandals or negligence exposed; but it does mean, I think, that when such a Government pleads the public interest, it should be believed that it is acting fairly and honourably, and telling the truth, and not concerning itself with 959 shielding any Ministerial or personal, or party interest. I hope very much we may be believed by the House, and that confidence will not be withdrawn from us, even in a small matter like this, at a time when we are making head, and making head successfully, against dangers as great as any that have ever threatened our national freedom and survival.
I am sorry indeed to have to say so much about this Committee, because it makes people think there is something mysterious in the whole affair. Nothing could be more straightforward. About 10 weeks ago, after the dark, vile conspiracy which in a few days laid the trustful Dutch people at the mercy of Nazi aggression, a wave of alarm passed over this country, and especially in responsible circles, lest the same kind of undermining tactics and treacherous agents of the enemy were at work in our Island. [An HON, MEMBER: "Watch them."] Several branches of State Departments are, of course, always charged with the duty of frustrating such designs. But they were not working smoothly. There were overlaps and underlaps, and I felt in that hour of anxiety that this side of the business of National Defence wanted pulling together. I therefore asked Lord Swinton to undertake this task. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he was the best man to do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He failed in another job."] One has to be very careful how one judges failure, especially when one's own record of success is not to one's credit. I am glad to tell the House that a very great improvement has been effected in dealing with this Fifth Column danger. I always thought it was exaggerated in this Island, and I am satisfied now that it has been reduced to its proper proportions, and is being gripped and looked after with very high efficiency. It is important that this should be so, because although we feel, and are, very much stronger than in May, the danger of invasion has by no means passed away, and we are repeatedly assured from German circles in foreign countries that the performance is about to begin. I should not have felt I was doing my duty by the National Defence, if I had not taken these special steps to cope with Fifth Column activities, and I can assure the House that the 960 powers that Parliament has given to the Executive will not be used consciously in any unfair, oppressive, or, if I may use the expression, un-British spirit. I trust therefore that the House will support me in declining, in the public interest, to answer any further Questions upon the subject.
§ Mr. ManderWhile I agree with what the Prime Minister said and appreciate it, does he realise that the reason this Question was put down was this? As the names of the Committee gradually became known, there was a widespread lack of confidence in the personnel, and when I found that members of the Conservative and Labour parties were represented, I naturally asked why the Liberal party could not be represented.
§ Mr. Austin HopkinsonThere were two points made by the Prime Minister on which I should like further information, if I may have it. First, there was the statement that the Government have power to prevent Questions being put on the Order Paper. Surely not?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad that Questions in the form which give away to the enemy matters which are essentially secret, and are against the public interest, are not accepted by the Clerks at the Table, and I think the views of Ministers would be considered in that respect.
§ Mr. HopkinsonThen I understand it is only Questions which in their form are adjudged to be against the public interest?
§ The Prime Ministerindicated assent.
§ Mr. HopkinsonThis is an important point because you, Mr. Speaker, will recollect refusing sundry Questions which I myself put down. Refusal was on the ground that the Prime Minister said he would not answer a Question on that subject. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I contested that Ruling and stood out against it. I was under the impression that it was an important part of our privileges that we should be able to put down Questions on the Paper which conveyed no information in any way detrimental to the public interest, though the Minister concerned would then be perfectly at liberty to refuse to answer. What I maintain is, that the 961 Chair cannot refuse to put these Questions on the Paper, and I think I have established that right on this occasion. Another point was this: I think we are all agreed that the Prime Minister is fit to judge whether this particular Committee should be set up.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member will remember that the statement made by the Prime Minister was in answer to a Question. There cannot be any Debate.
§ Mr. HopkinsonI am trying to elucidate further information, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. We cannot understand why so much mystery was made about it. That is really what has given rise to all the trouble. When great mystery was made about it and names were refused, trade union opinion became very suspicious, whether justifiably or not is not the point. When the name of Lord Swinton was announced that suspicion was increased, owing to his activities on behalf of big business in politics.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is making a speech.
§ Mr. HopkinsonWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to elucidate from the Prime Minister the reason why—
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member would ask a definite Question, the Prime Minister would no doubt answer it. Otherwise I cannot allow debate.
§ Mr. HopkinsonWhy did the Prime Minister make such a mystery about it and refuse to give information which was perfectly harmless?
§ The Prime MinisterIf my hon. Friend had paid half the attention to the full and very respectful statement which I have made to the House that he was accustomed to giving to obstructing my efforts to get this country properly defended before the war, I would not have had to answer this Question at all.
§ Mr. HopkinsonI ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, against this gross and lying innuendo?
§ Mr. HopkinsonMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that statement? He is perfectly well aware that no man in this country has done more than I have.
§ The Prime MinisterFar from withdrawing what I said, I will take the liberty of sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of one of his interventions in Debate, which I looked up only last night, in which he did his utmost to discredit me when I was doing my utmost for the country.
§ Mr. HopkinsonI recently looked up the same thing myself and discovered that that intervention was justified up to the hilt.
§ Captain BellengerOn a point of Order. We have the greatest faith in the Prime Minister, but is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the customs of this House, to make an attack on an hon. Member who has no opportunity of replying?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman took advantage of an occasion to which he was not entitled, and that is how the trouble arose.
§ Mr. StokesArising out of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether he does not yet realise that the real concern in the country is about the composition of the committee? Secondly, may I ask what conceivable public interest is hurt by our being told what Sir Joseph Ball and Mr. Crocker are being paid? That information was refused last week, and it is quite unreasonable that we should not be told.
§ The Prime MinisterThere would be no conceivable injury to the public interest in these two facts being known. I am entirely indifferent on that subject. But I think that if we are to have the Government cross-questioned about this committee and Secret Service work, and one point after another is brought out, and Members say, "Why did you not tell us that before?" that is a process which would be vitiating the measures of secrecy taken by the Government in this matter, and a right which is claimed by every other Government.
§ Mr. MaxtonThe Prime Minister has stated that this all arose out of our doubts and fears after the Dutch happenings. Does he recognise that after the French happenings, other doubts and fears began to arise? I accept, in general, what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to it being right and proper that Questions 963 should not be put carelessly about things of this description, but if we accept what he has asked us to do, and put upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance not to ask Questions about this type of thing, can he give us an answer to the old classical question, "Who watches the watchers?"
§ The Prime MinisterThe House watches the Prime Minister and the other Members of the Government and says whether it has or has not confidence in their general integrity and purpose, and then those Ministers and the Prime Minister watch the others to make sure that they keep up to the mark.
§ Mr. StokesWill the Prime Minister tell us what Sir Joseph Ball and Mr. Crocker are paid?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot pursue this matter any further.
§ The Prime MinisterThe main purport of my answer was that I would answer no further Questions, at any time, on this particular subject. Whether it is convenient or easy for me to answer them or not, I would not think of answering any of them. I have said that it is not in the public interest that private matters of this kind should be ferreted out and discussed in public. I should have thought that, having appealed to the House in this way, the Government might receive that consideration which they are entitled to claim.
§ Mr. A. BevanOn a point of Order. As notice was given a little while ago that this matter was to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, would it not assist—
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is not the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ Mr. BevanYes, Sir, but would it not be desirable that the atmosphere should be cleared up at this moment so as to avoid, if possible, any further discussion? Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has inadvertently missed the whole point of the criticism? No Questions have been put on the Order Paper the answers to which would have injured the public interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Prime Minister cannot point to any Question of that kind. But there is widespread dissatisfaction in the country about the composition of this committee.
§ Mr. StokesI put a Question down about the payment of the members of this committee. The Lord Privy Seal said that Lord Swinton and Mr. Wall were paid nothing, but that he was not prepared to tell us what Sir Joseph Ball and Mr. Crocker were paid. Now that we know that Lord Swinton and Mr. Wall are not paid anything, surely we are entitled to know what Sir Joseph Ball and Mr. Crocker are paid.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is covered by the very careful and lengthy answer which I have given. At any rate, that is the position which the Government take up.
§ Mr. ThurtleMay I put this one point? Has it escaped the notice of the Prime Minister that many of the Members who are pressing this Question are rather lukewarm about the prosecution of the war?
§ Mr. BevanOn a point of Order. Should not the hon. Member who has made that statement make some distinction and indicate to whom he refers, and is it not time that certain hon. Members should cease to act as pimps of the Government?
§ Mr. ThurtleMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to apply a foul and offensive term to another Member?
§ Mr. BevanWhen the hon. Member indicates the persons to whom he refers and defends his indication, I will withdraw my remark.
§ Sir William DavisonIs it desirable that, at this critical time, democracy should be made a laughing-stock by such a frivolous attack upon the Prime Minister, whom the whole country desires to carry forward this nation to victory?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it is time that this unedifying incident ceased.