HC Deb 21 August 1940 vol 364 cc1314-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 5th September."—[Mr. Attlee.]

3.57 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

I beg to move, to leave out "Thursday, 5th September," and to add "Wednesday next."

My reason for moving this Amendment is that it is the only opportunity which hon. Members have of taking part in any discussion on the question of the Adjournment of the House, and I wish to express a view which is felt not only by some of my hon. Friends and myself, but also in the country as a whole. I have no desire to criticise the Government.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member moves to leave out "Thursday, 5th September," and to insert "Wednesday, 28th August." That is not a Motion to criticise the Government. The question of the omission of the one date and the substitution of the other, and the reasons for doing so, is the only question that can be raised.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

May I be allowed to give the House some of the reasons which have actuated me in moving this Amendment? I must say that I am supported in moving it by reading the Adjournment discussion which took place in this House a year ago on a very similar Amendment. The Amendment on that occasion was discussed in terms of great eloquence by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, who at that time sat on the Opposition side of the House. His view was confirmed in an equally eloquent speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, then Leader of the Liberal party, and it was eventually added to in prestige and substance with inimitable force, by the present Prime Minister, who at that time was sitting below the Gangway.

I do not desire to quote the arguments used on that occasion. All I wish to say is that many of the very powerful arguments which were then advanced are applicable to the position we are in today. It is true that on that occasion we were not at war, although war was threatening, but I do not think anyone in this House would argue that the reasons which were given then against the Adjournment of the House for a long period, are any less forcible to-day, because we are at war, especially having regard to the kind of war in which we are engaged. It is also true that the present proposal is for an Adjournment of a fortnight, whereas last August an Adjournment for a much longer period was proposed. But I submit that a fortnight is a very long time. It is a considerable period even in times of peace; in war it is a very long period and, in warfare of the type which we are now experiencing, a fortnight may be of the gravest importance to this country and to the world in general.

We were much reassured by the address which the Prime Minister gave yesterday and it is true that, from some points of view, we might adjourn after a speech of that character with feelings of confidence which, some time ago, we might not have had. But we have had speeches made on many occasions and in many parts of the world prognosticating the course of events and even my right hon. Friend, who has dealt with the position in this House with great frankness and honesty and candour, has found some of his own statements falsified by events. We speak about a fortnight as if it were of no account, but we should remember that Norway was subjugated in less than a week, Holland went down in less than a week, Belgium in less than a fortnight and the country which was our great ally-France with its powerful Empire-was compelled, through the absence of the sittings of the French Parliament at the time, to sign a humiliating peace which is a source of such great sorrow to so many of the French nation to-day. In those circumstances I ask: Is it wise that the House should adjourn for a fortnight in the present circumstances? In the Motion on the Order Paper as it stands, there is no provision for summoning the House earlier than 5th September. I speak subject to correction and perhaps there is to be a further Motion to that effect, but that does not invalidate my argument. There should be a sitting of the House, even if only for one day, within the next fortnight.

Is anyone prepared to deny that the next fortnight may be even more important in the history of this country and of the world, than the last fortnight has been? The days are growing shorter, the nights are growing longer. The North Sea and the English Channel, never too peaceful or too smooth, will be becoming more turbulent. This next fortnight may mean everything with regard to Hitler's attack. It is full of great possibilities for this country and the world. Suppose that in the next fortnight-I do not say it will happen and I am sure we all sincerely hope it will not happen-this country sustains anything in the nature of calamity or disaster. Is it not right that this House should be sitting, so that the Prime Minister may be able to calm and reassure the nation? On the other hand, suppose, as we all hope, those young heroes of whom we are so proud, defeat this "blitzkreig" and smash it up. Is it not equally important that this House should be sitting in order that the Prime Minister may have the opportunity of giving praise where praise is due, and tendering the thanks of the nation to our fighting men?

The argument has been used that Ministers are tired and that the House is tired, but, after all, we are meeting only three days a week and there is no great political conflict in progress. Many of us have been long enough here to remember periods of political strife during which one never got home from the House before midnight, for days on end. The House at present is a calm, quiet, in offensive assembly, and if the strain of attending on three days in the week in those circumstances is proving too severe for Ministers or Members I suggest that they ought to have some examination made of their physical condition. This House since the war has done magnificent work. It has functioned since the war as it never functioned in my short experience of it and those with longer experience would, I think, agree that it has not functioned, within the last generation or two generations, with anything like the efficiency it has shown since the war started. It has shown itself a free assembly in which every Member has the right to express his views. It has been able to repair injustices and initiate reforms on more than one occasion. Three or four months ago it changed the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House did not change the Government I would like hon. Members to say who did. Is it wise, then, that we should abrogate our functions even for a fortnight at this time?

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

My hon. Friend has made great play with the point that we should not adjourn for a fortnight. Does he realise that since Munich —I speak from memory—there have been only four clear weeks during which this House has not been sitting, that is, since September, 1938?

Sir H. Morris-Jones

I submit that different considerations apply in time of war to those which apply in times of peace. It is not a question of passing more legislation or of having anything great to do. But there are matters which require attention. There is one question, for instance, which has been mentioned in the course of this afternoon already, namely, that of old age pensions and war savings in which many hon. Members are interested. Another question is that of the treatment of refugees during the last two or three months—a question which concerns every Member of this House. I think the House of Commons ought to dissociate itself clearly, emphatically and unambiguously from any responsibility for the work of whatever Department is responsible for the terrible mistakes made in connection with the refugees. Personally, I am a great admirer of the Home Secretary and I think he has done great service to the State.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Member had better get on to the question which, as I have said, is solely one of the date to which the House is to adjourn.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

I refer to the question of the refugees, only as one which I wish to see ventilated before the House adjourns. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is to be discussed to-morrow."] I know the matter is to be raised to-morrow but I wish to state, as part of my argument in regard to the functions of this House, that I and a number of other hon. Members were continually writing to the Department on this matter and it was not until we raised the matter on the Floor of the House that we were able to get any attention paid to it.

Mr. Speaker

That has nothing to do with the Motion.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

This House, after all, is the voice of democracy and the only bulwark of free speech and democratic freedom and of everything for which it has stood for generations. We have been told that vigilance is the price of liberty. That applies in war as well as in peace, and I suggest that the Mother of Parliaments should not adjourn for any indefinite period until the cause for which we stand is triumphantly vindicated.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Granville (Eye)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not know whether the running fire of commentary and enlightenment which came from hon. Members during my hon. Friend's speech is an exhibition of what I might call the Council of State. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly rational suggestion that this House should not adjourn while the Battle of Britain is in progress, but that we should meet next week and, as democratic representatives of the people, carry on the business of Parliament. I do not know whether I shall be subject to the sort of commentary from hon. Members to which my hon. Friend was subject, but it will not stop my speaking, and if I have to go on for two hours I shall say what I have to say. I hold the view that it is wrong for the House of Commons to adjourn. My hon. Friend referred to this Assembly as the voice of democracy, the only free Parliament left in Europe. If we had adjourned the House as we did a year ago, in early August, we should never have heard the historical speech that we had from the Prime Minister in public Session yesterday. There has been too much secret Session and a tendency to place upon the Executive too great a responsibility.

I am told that the reason for the Adjournment is to enable Miinsters to have more time to spend in their Departments. I understand that point of view, but we should follow the example of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and munition workers. The latter have been working all hours to put Hurricanes and other aircraft in the sky, and 2,000 of our young pilots stood between us and invasion last week. We have appealed to the workers on the radio, Ministers of the Crown have appealed to them, and they have been asked to work all the hours imaginable with no holiday. If I have to choose between saying that Ministers of the Crown should have 13 days to spend in their Departments and should not come here for three days a week to keep in touch with the House of Commons, and giving an example to the people of the country by remaining in Session, I would choose asking Ministers to work extra time and asking the House to set an example. I would like to quote some words because they are better than those I could choose: It may sound rather a vain thing for a Member of Parliament to say, but it seems to me that this House is a recognised addition to the defences of Great Britain, that we are safer when the House is sitting, and that the power and will of this House count very much, and, properly commanded, will reinforce the power of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be regrettable if we, as it were, go out of action just at a time when the situation is becoming most acute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug, 1939; col. 2439, Vol. 350.] These were the words uttered by the Prime Minister from this corner bench on 2nd August last year. That was before we were in the war. We are in the war now, and the people are solid and determined to go forward and fight the way to victory. Would it not be a better thing if we, the democratic representatives of this great country, instead of going off to our constituencies or to a holiday, remained here in Session, setting an example to the people and showing that we have learned the lesson of what happened to the French Parliament? If Paul Reynaud had been able to call the French Parliament together France might have still been fighting—but here we are supporting a Government which is determined to prosecute the war to victory. It is the duty of this democratic Assembly to give the Government all the support it can, but it is our job to stay here in the political front line of the war as an example to the democracies of the world.

4.21 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee)

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has omitted to notice that power has already been taken to bring back this House at any time if it should be needed. The logic of his argument was that we should never leave this Chamber at all and should continue sitting. Every argument he applied to the Motion that we should adjourn for a fortnight would apply to his Amendment that we should adjourn for a week, because, as he pointed out, something might happen during that week or fortnight. We have taken power that the House should be recalled if necessary, but it is not true that, even in war-time, people do their best work by working continuously without any holidays whatever. That is not true of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, it is not true of the workers in the factories, and it is not true of Parliament. It is particularly not true of Parliament because Members have to keep in touch with their constituencies and get knowledge of what they are thinking and what is happening in the country. At this time, considering the stress through which Parliament has been, an adjournment for a fortnight with power to recall in a shorter time is reasonable and will, I am sure, commend itself to hon. Members.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I support what has been said by the Lord Privy Seal. I have no doubt at all that Parliament will do well to separate for a fortnight. There was one day last week when there was more rude temper about this House than there should be, just because we are tired of looking at one another. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me feels, but if it is the same as I feel sitting opposite to him—[Laughter.] I suppose we all have similar feelings about different people in all parts of the House. There are 101 things I want to get done. Since the outbreak of war I have never missed one of the weeks during which the House has been sitting, except once when I was at a by-election. I have now 101 things I want to do which I cannot do in the odd three or four days of the week-end. I am sure that other hon. Members are in the same position. I want a week in which to do nothing in which I can weigh up the whole situation away from this atmosphere, away from everybody with whom I am normally associated. If hon. Members are suspicious of the Government bringing off the French trick, surely that is not the best point of view for Government supporters to put up. I am in opposition to the Government and have declared my opposition to them.

Mr. Granville

But the hon. Member is supporting the Government now.

Mr. Maxton

I am speaking now about the issue before the House. The Government happen to have proposed it and I happen to agree with it. I opposed the appointment of this Government and voted against it, but I think that I can trust them for a fortnight. The Lord Privy Seal assures us that the Government will call us back if they feel the need of us. What I have urged on several Adjournments, and I urge it again now, is that the House of Commons should have the right to call itself back and to call the Government back if we feel the need of doing so. I did not put a Motion on the Order Paper because it has always been thrown out by an overwhelming majority, but I want an Adjournment that puts it in the power of 50 or 60 back benchers, if they can get a proper requisition, to have the House recalled whether the Government want it or not. I shall support the Government on this Motion but I shall not be satisfied with this Adjournment business until the power of recall is put into the hands of back benchers.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

I moved the Amendment because I heard a suggestion that when the House meets on 5th September it is likely to adjourn again for the whole of September. Can my right hon. Friend give me some assurance on that point?

Mr. Speaker

That has nothing to do with this Motion.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

We have been able to ventilate the matter, and in view of the discussion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 5th September.