HC Deb 19 March 1941 vol 370 cc254-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale].

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)

I wish to raise a point of which I have given considerable notice to the Government and about which there has been considerable discussion, namely, the refusal of the Government to allow this House an opportunity of knowing something about the administration of the bases which it is proposed—and in my opinion quite rightly proposed—to hand over to the United States of America. In my opinion, not only is the future of the struggle in which we are engaged bound up in the friendship between the United States of America and ourselves, but the future happiness of the world, and of mankind, will depend on the closest cooperation and friendship, which I hope will exist for all time, between the two nations. Nobody is a stauncher or more convinced believer in the utmost friendship and co-operation with that great country than I am. We are proposing for our mutual benefit and security, to hand over to the United States of America certain portions of British possessions, so that they may be used as bases. It is quite right that that should be done.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale.]

Sir A. Southby

But this House of Commons is concerned with those portions of the British Empire which are not self-governing. Therefore, we have not only a privilege, but a duty to perform. In my opinion it would not be right that agreement should be finally reached concerning the future of the peoples who inhabit these areas without this House of Commons having an opportunity to express its opinions, its wishes, and its hopes to the Prime Minister and those who are guiding the destinies of the country and the British Empire at the present time. I cannot see any reason why the Prime Minister should not, in Secret Session, take this House, as far as may Be possible, into his confidence, so that he might hear what responsible Members of this House have to say upon the subject. I cannot for a moment imagine that any harm could possibly be done to the excellent relations which exist between the two peoples at the present time. After all, our counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic, the Foreign Relations Committee, has a function to perform—and performs it most excellently —and it, no doubt, has had an opportunity of discussing this very subject. I cannot see, therefore, why the House of Commons should not have equal facilities. There is no question of discussing the policy of handing over the Bases, because I do not think there is a soul in the country who is not agreed upon that. There is no question of discussing anything which could in the least create doubts and difficulties at a time when everybody should be doing his best to help the ship of State along, in the prosecution of the war. At this moment I am not concerned with the details, or even with the broad outlines, of the Agreement. All I am concerned with is the fact that the Executive have stubbornly refused to allow this House of Commons to express any views at all. In my humble submission, the Prime Minister, who has the support of all of us, might well be fortified in his task by hearing what some Members have to say. So short a time ago as on 6th March, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in reply to a Question, said: It is impossible to stop Government business in the middle of a war so that everything can be brought up for discussion by this House"— everybody will agree with that. But an opportunity will be given to this House for discussing all major matters." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1941; col. 1026, Vol. 369.] There could hardly be anything more major than this. We are doing something which has never been done before. We are parting with portions of the British Empire, and with the people in them. As those people have only us as their guardians, I think it is right that we should know in broad detail what it is proposed should be the future of those people, and what rights they are going to possess. At present, they are citizens of the British Empire. It cannot be right, when we are fighting for democracy and the right of free peoples to express their views, for the Government to come to a major decision of this kind, which will have most far-reaching effects, without giving the House of Commons the opportunity, which is their right, of expressing their views. It is not a bit of good coming to the House when everything is signed, sealed and delivered, and saying, "Here it is; take it or leave it." We are a council of State. Of course, we shall support the Executive in anything they do; but they also have a duty towards us and that is to allow us, as far as in their power lies, to express our views, and to make helpful suggestions. I suggest that a Secret Session is the proper time and the proper way in which this matter can be discussed before a final and irrevocable settlement is come to. I would not for one moment advocate that necessarily every detail should be disclosed by the Prime Minister —obviously, when a momentous decision of this kind is being come to, it is not right that every detail should be discussed —but what I do say is that the Prime Minister might well hear what we had to say even if he did not speak himself in the Debate. If he heard what Members had to say and learned of their doubts and fears, he could then go away fortified for further negotiations. I think I can stand before my fellow Members of the House absolved from any question of having raised this matter precipitately. I raise it, I hope, with as much courtesy and considerations for the difficulties of the time as any responsible Member of Parliament could do. But I cannot square it with my conscience to stand in this House and not raise my voice in protest that before anything so big is done, this House of Commons shall be denied any opportunity whatever of expressing its views

I do know something of the United States of America. I know that the people of the United States of America are proud of their freedom and are perfectly prepared to allow freedom to other peoples. They do appreciate frank statements of opinion. I believe they have immense respect and regard for the way this country is behaving at the present time. They have a tremendous respect for this House of Commons and I do not for one moment believe that there is a soul in the United States of America but who would say that this House of Commons was expressing a perfectly right and sensible opinion when it asks that it should be given time to discuss this question of the administration of the leased bases. I make this point clear again because it is not to the policy of the transfer that I object because to that I for one heartily subscribe, and I wish it God speed. Indeed, it is not every detail of the transfer that I am troubled about: but we should discuss some of the questions of administration that must come to the mind of every hon. Member in this House, and what the future is going to hold for the peoples of the leased territories. It is only these questions on which I say that I and other Members of the House have a right to be heard before the signatures are put to this document.

I do not suppose that there is a soul in this House who has not from time to time heard the taunt levelled against Members of the House of Commons that they never stand up and do what is right at the proper time; that things arc allowed to go by default when they should have stopped them and made themselves heard. It is not always very easy for a Member to stand up and express his views. I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say himself, and not so long ago, that the causes he espoused were not always the popular ones, and those he took up were not always those which commended themselves to other Members of the House. Nobody would deny his courage in that matter, but I think, were he sitting to-day where I am, he would be doing what I am myself trying to do at this moment. I must register my protest that this House of Commons should not under proper conditions with ever desire to help and in no way to hinder, and while showing our great appreciation of the kindliness and helpfulness that has come from the other side of the Atlantic, be given some opportunity of discharging our duty to those citizens of the British Empire whose fate is bound up in this Agreement and who only have us to look to as the guardians of their liberties and of their future.

Sir Stanley Reed (Aylesbury)

I would not like it to go forth from this House that the point of view held by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) is the only point of view that is held by Members on this side of the House. I am sorry to say that I must differ entirely from the argument he has put before the House, and I must do so on what I suggest are grounds of history, Constitutional practice and the present state of the world, particularly in the Western Atlantic. I would point out in the first place that Treaty-making rights are vested in the Crown and the function of Parliament is to accept or reject a Treaty when it is concluded I might have joined my hon. and gallant Friend if he had taken the ground that this agreement is bad in itself and should not, therefore, be carried out; but I understand that he entirely approves the Treaty. Well, to accept the major and substantial element, and then to desire that this House shall discuss, now and at this stage, the technical details, of which it cannot be fully cognisant, and on which only the Government can be fully cognisant, is a point of view that I cannot, with all respect, support.

Sir A. Southby

That is not what I said. I did not say that we should discuss the technical details. I said that we should be allowed to express our views before a decision is come to by the Executive.

Sir S. Reed

That is more illogical than ever. If you do not discuss the details, what will you discuss? If you express wholehearted support of this statesmanlike measure, what will be discussed when it comes to the other points in the agreement, which must be points of more or less technical detail of which we are not, and cannot be, fully seized? Above all, the worst possible course that we could pursue at the present time would be to discuss this Treaty in Secret Session. If we are to discuss it, let us discuss it in the open and say exactly what we have to say. If we discuss the matter in secret, it will be playing into the hands of a limited section who may oppose the action we are taking now by enabling them to say that we want to say in secret what we dare not say in public. Having accepted the principle of the Treaty, no useful purpose whatever, I submit, would be served by having a public Debate on matters of detail upon which we cannot be fully conversant, and the disadvantages of a secret Debate must be obvious to everybody.

I share with my hon. and gallant Friend his keen anxiety to see that our fellow British subjects are amply protected under any transfer of authority; but when he talks about citizens of the Empire he is talking about "Mrs. 'Arrises"; there are no "sich" persons. We and they are subjects of the Crown and not citizens of the Empire. I think Constitutional lawyers would reject in toto his definition. We are, of course, all anxious to protect their interests; but who is there in this House, having given wholehearted support to the Prime Minister and the Executive, who will dare to say that the future of our fellow subjects, in whom we are so keenly interested, is not safe in their hands? I must decline absolutely to express any doubts on that subject, because I feel completely certain that the destinies of those people are perfectly safe in the hands of those in whom we have placed our fullest trust and our fullest confidence at this great juncture in our Imperial history.

This agreement seems to me to be one of the biggest things we have done in our Imperial history. I have lived abroad for some time, and I have often had to deplore that this country has so often done right things in the wrong way—that having taken a big decision it has been niggardly, argumentative and querulous over details. I think that, having taken this big decision—I gather with the full approval of my hon. and gallant Friend and the whole of the House—the last thing we want to do is to cloud that big decision by arguments and details which we cannot have the full knowledge and authority to discuss. Therefore, with great respect. I must differ from my hon. and gallant Friend. I feel just as strongly as he does on this matter. I say that we should remit this question with full confidence to those in whom we have placed our trust and who have great tasks of State to fulfil and a great burden to carry. I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by a public discussion, and I would deplore above everything else a secret discussion of this question at this time, for it would certainly be open to the gravest misinterpretation in quarters of the globe where we do not want the faintest doubt or misunderstanding to arise at the present time.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

I wish to make it clear that I do not dispute in any way the advisability or wisdom of the Treaties which are now contemplated, but I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) in submitting that it would be to the advantage of the people concerned and the advantage of the Government, and would be in accordance with the historic importance of this House, that we should be given an opportunity of discussing what is to take place and stating to the Government our views on the terms proposed before the documents are actually signed. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), I thought he was in a contradictory state of mind. First, he cavilled at the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom that a Debate should take place in Secret Session, meaning therefore that any Debate should be in public; and then he went on to say that he did not want any public Debate either. I am not prepared to accept that supine state of mind. We have our responsibilities to the people who inhabit these Colonial possessions, and 1 think it would both stimulate and reinforce the powers of the Government to know what are the views of the House.

Personally, I take the view, which is not necessarily shared by the majority of hon. Members, that no harm whatever would be done by having a public Debate on the points I would like to raise. I have for a long time taken the view that the Treaty-making rights of the Crown should be abrogated. That may not be the general view. However, I suggest that we are really on the point of under taking a commercial transaction. We are about to sell parts of our Colonial possessions in exchange for certain goods that we require. It comes to that. We had better face the facts and not pretend that we are indulging in any high and mighty moral issue. We are not doing, anything of the sort. In exchange for certain facilities which are to be provided for us, we propose to sell up part of the British Empire. I do not contest that point at all. Probably it is a prudent and wise thing to do, but we have accepted our responsibilities towards the people who live in those territories, and I am particularly concerned —

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

Does the hon. Member realise that in the opinion of the United States these bases are vital to their own safety, and does he not consider that their safety is a matter of great concern to us?

Mr. Stokes

I am not disputing that for a single moment. I say that there are certain aspects—an attitude of mind of our friends across the Atlantic towards these inhabitants—which ought to be safeguarded in this House. I am thinking of the colour bar, and I should like to satisfy myself that proper protection has been afforded to these people, when this Treaty is signed. Another matter which has been discussed in the islands, and which has been referred to in the newspapers—I say it at the risk of being accused of King Charles's head—is that as a result of all this work there is going to be a very great change in the value of possessions in the islands. I should like to know what will be the effect, and who will derive the benefit as the result of this work. My hon. and gallant Friend and myself have been interested in this subject for some time, and we have sought for assurances and have had half assurances and have been put off—we agree that when the Lease and Lend Bill was not through it was difficult to raise the point. My submission to the Government is that unless an opportunity is given to discuss this question, it is yet another example of the Gestapo methods of the present Government. [Interruption.] Whenever we raise anything which is inconvenient it is always termed as not in the public interest or we are told that there is a war on. I personally protest against the idea that we should allow the Executive to give chunks of our Colonial possessions away without first coming to this House, and I support what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in opening this Debate.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

There is one unfailing guide in this House of how to make up one's mind if one needs assistance, and that is my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), for whom I have the greatest personal regard, because he is always wrong. Never was he more wrong, to my mind, than at this moment. His perfectly audible speech was a perfect ex ample of the unfortunate nature of the Debate which would take place if this matter were discussed. His statement that we are buying with territories in the Empire what we need is a pettifogging attorney's attitude at one of the greatest and most inspiring moments in our history. Had my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) attended the lunch yesterday —

Sir A. Southby

I was not asked.

Mr. Baxter

Had he attended the lunch for the new American Ambassador, he would have realised that the speeches showed that at last the great Continent of America—a Continent slow to come to a decision, but moving with irresistible power when it does so come—is now in this war and is coming to our rescue. We need her help, and this is the birth of this Anglo-Saxon understanding—the future of the world is embodied in it. At such a moment are we going to say to America, "Wait a minute, the Parliament of Great Britain wants to talk about terms and colour bars, and nigger problems, and who gets the contracts''? All these wealthy Socialists always have contracts. And so I deplore the attitude of my hon. and gallant Friend. He has fought his case well, but it is a wretched case and should never have been raised.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee)

I make no complaint that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has raised what is a very important issue. The Prime Minister has said very often in this House that he is desirous of giving every possible opportunity of debating fully and under the best possible conditions matters which it desires to raise. The gravamen of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's case was that the Prime Minister had refused the House's request for a Secret Session on this subject. I think he went rather far in speaking for this House. As far as I could gather, it seemed to be more the request of two hon. Members, and, with all respect to them, they are not the whole House.

Sir A. Southby

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not quite so.

Mr. Attlee

The short point is that there is only limited time and the Government have to try to find out what is the desire of the House. I do not think that up to the present there has been a general desire to discuss this question, but I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say that, if there is a desire to discuss it in public or in private, the Government will, of course, meet the House and give them the time they require. I am bound to say that I was not quite clear as to exactly what the points were that my hon. and gallant Friend wanted to discuss. I do not think anyone has suggested, certainly not he, that there was any question of general principle. Indeed, I was not quite sure how it would be possible to raise the matter effectively unless he had the whole instrument before him. It is a fact that this House has the right to reject agreements made by the Executive, but it has never claimed to have put before it information on negotiations while the negotiations were going on. It would be impossible to negotiate in those conditions. It is no use trying to draw analogies with countries which have very different Constitutions. The position in the United States is entirely different. It is impossible for me to say that the House should have a Debate on this matter before an agreement has been signed. All I can say is that the Government will do their best, if there is a general desire, to give time for a full Debate on the question. But I think no Government can tie themselves down in the way suggested, that is to say, that, while negotiations are going; on, details should be discussed in the House. It would not be right that that should be done in Secret Session. The hon. Member was right in saying that if we want to discuss this matter let us discuss it in the open, but we cannot discuss the details and implications—because it does come down to details—and the modification of a Treaty of this sort on the Floor of the House. We cannot discuss whether the United States should follow the doctrine of the colour bar or not, for example. I leave it at that, namely, that when the House desires to debate the matter, the Government will be prepared to meet the House.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.