HC Deb 16 December 1942 vol 385 cc1934-41
Mr. Stokes

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I wish to make a short statement in answer to the charge made yesterday by the Prime Minister against those who in the pursuit of their duty ask Questions about the tank situation. In reply to my Question about the qualifications of the members of the Tank Board in June, 1940, the Prime Minister said: On account of persistent mischievous attempts to undermine the confidence of the troops in these weapons which play an important part in the defence of this Island, I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1942; col. 1772, Vol. 385.] I now make this statement for two reasons, first to protect hon. Members in the exercise of their duty from what would certainly be regarded outside this House as criminal charges, and secondly to show that I myself had one object only in the statements which I have made from time to time about tanks, namely, to secure proper weapons for our soldiers. On 8th January this year I first drew attention to the inadequacy of our tanks in Libya, pointing out that the Germans then had tanks armed with 77 mm. guns. In November, 1941, the Prime Minister said in this House: This is the first time we have met the Germans at least equally well armed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1941; col. 468, Vol. 376.] On 27th January, 1943, he said that our men had met the enemy for the first time with equal weapons. But on 11th November this year, on his return from his visit to Libya, the Prime Minister said: Alas, they"— that is, our troops— had no weapons adequate for the fight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1942; col. 22, Vol. 385.] That is precisely what I have been saying since January of this year. On 2nd July this year the Prime Minister told us that in June, 1940, he called a meeting of all authorities to design and make a new tank capable of speedy mass production and adapted to the war conditions to be foreseen in 1942. In 1942—that was the test. The Prime Minister went on to say that the tank was to be adapted primarily for the defence of this Island and capable of other employment in various theatres. This tank, the A22, was ordered off the drawing board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1942; col. 599, Vol. 381.] Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister said: This tank was never intended for the fast-moving long-range warfare of the desert"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1942; col. 1774, Vol. 385.]

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member now seems to be making a detailed reply to a previous statement by the Prime Minister. I understood that he proposed only to make a personal statement.

Mr. Stokes

I submit, with all respect, Sir, that I am bound to justify myself against the most serious charge made by the Prime Minister. He makes an accusation against me which would certainly be regarded as a criminal charge if made outside this House, and I wish to take only a minute or two in meeting this charge. Surely, with all due respect, I should have the opportunity to develop my case.

Mr. Speaker

It is not a question of developing a case. It is a question of making a personal statement.

Earl Winterton

On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the method which is being adopted toy Ministers of making long controversial statements immediately after Question time is an entirely novel one? It has become the practice to make controversial statements, accompanied by controversial terms—to put it mildly—in circumstances which afford no opportunity to those Members who are attacked to reply and is therefore not altogether in accordance with the spirit of this House. In those circumstances, I respectfully suggest that those hon. Members who feel compelled to make personal statements should be given rather greater latitude than might have been allowed to them before this new method on the part of Ministers grew up in the House.

Mr. Gallacher

On the same point of Order. May I say that while I, myself, have no objection to an hon. Member making a personal statement, in view of the circumstances of this case, I am certain that if I had risen to make such a personal statement, before I had uttered the first sentence I would, with the acclamation of the House, have been floored?

Mr. Speaker

It is quite wrong to suggest that it is a new system for Ministers to make statements after Questions. It is an old and common practice, and I would point out, with regard to the two instances which have been raised, that both the statements in question were made in answer to Questions which appeared on the Order Paper. The replies to these Questions involved statements which were rather too long to be conveniently made at Question time, and, therefore, for the convenience of the House, they were made after Questions in order that the time of other hon. Members should not be taken up by them.

Mr. Shinwell

On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you do not make a distinction between statements, quite properly, and in certain circumstances very necessarily, made by the Prime Minister or by any member of the Government on an important matter concerning the war effort, and a statement made in the course of such a statement, reflecting on hon. Members and to which hon. Members have no opportunity to reply? Is there not a distinction?

Mr. Speaker

In this case I have given leave to the hon. Member concerned to make his personal statement to put the matter right, but the hon. Member is making a detailed reply.

Mr. Stokes

I will try not to transgress, but it is most difficult to reply to a statement which was not exclusively in answer to my Question but was much more comprehensive. I asked the Prime Minister a supplementary question whether it was not a fact that the Government were aware before the war of the existence of the German Mark IV tank and why was not a counterpart proceeded with earlier. I got no answer. The fact is that the existence of the German Mark IV tank was known before the war. This tank mounts a 77 mm. gun, firing a 13 lb. shell dead accurate at 2,000 yards, whereas the Churchill is only designed for a two-pounder gun which the troops are instructed not to fire until within 400 yards of the enemy. Further, so far as I know, there is no tank yet in production in this country equal to the German Mark IV. We are relying entirely on American production. The second question which I put to the Prime Minister was this: "Was not a letter from responsible officials of the Ministry of Supply sent to the Minister of Supply in May, 1940, saying that the Churchill A.22 would be a failure if proceeded with without tests?" To this also I got no answer. I therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, propose to read to the House an extract from a letter dated 24th May, 1940, addressed to the Minister of Supply. This came from the chairman of the special Vehicle Development Committee on behalf of his whole Committee. The letter is as follows: In the meantime I most urgently ask you—

Mr. Speaker

This is going far beyond a personal statement. I quote now from Erskine May: The indulgence of a personal explanation should be granted with caution; for, unless discreetly used, it is apt to lead to irregular debates. As far as I can see, that is exactly what the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. Stokes

I must cut my statement short. It is impossible in a statement of this kind to deal with all the details. I hope the House will accept my statement as evidence that my Questions, far from being mischievous, were based on most serious matters of fact, and that the House will see fit to insist on a full inquiry into the matter of tank production. The matter is of such importance that I rose to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to make a statement to-day, in view of your explanation that no opportunity to do so could be afforded on the next Sitting Day. I hope that the Government will in due course give time for a Debate in which I may be fortunate enough to catch your eye.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is going far beyond a personal explanation.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will be good enough to represent to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the use of the word "slime," though perhaps Parliamentary, was, in the circumstances, most unfortunate?

Mr. Eden

No, Sir. I am not prepared to do that. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House a long time, and so have I, and I have often heard harsher things said than that.

Mr. Stokes

May I conclude my statement?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is taking advantage of the leave I have given him to make a personal statement to continue a Debate.

Mr. Stokes

I do not wish to continue a Debate, but may I conclude with my final sentence?

Mr. Speaker

I hope the hon. Member will not go on much longer.

Mr. Stokes

May I express the hope that Members may not be intimidated in the discharge of their duties nor may it become necessary for the Prime Minister again to descend to the level of accusing them when they do so of "spreading slime."

Earl Winterton

I wish to ask for your Ruling and protection, Sir. What course is open to hon. Members who, while not concerned in a particular controversy, take strong exception to the use by Ministers in the course of a long statement of terms which might be, or could be, answered in a Debate? What action could be taken; would it be open to Members to put down a Motion deprecating the use of such terms?

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members can put down a Motion in what terms they like.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

You have allowed a certain latitude, Sir, to my hon. Friend, but it is not only those who actually put a Question down who have been injured by the statement which has been made. There are—

Mr. Speaker

I followed the usual practice of allowing a Member to make a personal statement. Now it is developing into a kind of Debate, and I cannot allow it.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I do not wish to debate, but I wish to put a point. I do not think I have ever been at variance with you, Sir, during the whole period I have been in the House, and I certainly do not wish to be so now, but I do call your attention to this fact: This matter is of very great importance to large numbers of people. If statements are to be made by Ministers which reflect upon the records or reputations of others—I am referring here to officials and generals who have communicated with me—is there not an inherent implication that there will be a right to reply? There is a particular passage in the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister which I desire to show the House was inaccurate. I could have done so in two sentences, but if no opportunity is given to traverse statements owing to the circumstances in which they are made, grave injury is done. I think the House ought to protect itself in this matter. I only wish to refer to one sentence. If you do not permit me, Sir, I shall not pursue it.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman will see the difficulty in which I am placed. If I were to give latitude to several Members to take part in a matter of a personal explanation, I should be making a precedent which would be very dangerous, and I must be very careful.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I see that, and I bow at once to your Ruling. I understand the position perfectly. May I put a question to the Leader of the House? There is a passage in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not wish to be controversial, but I wish to correct it. I wish to have an opportunity to correct a claim which is incorrect and which may have been made inadvertently, I can call his attention to it very shortly. I therefore ask whether an opportunity will occur—this, after all, was a very long statement about tanks—to discuss the matter, if only briefly, so that Members may put it in slightly different perspective?

Mr. Eden

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the particular points dealt with largely in that statement were points put in supplementary questions. If there is a question the right hon. Gentleman wants to put to the Prime Minister about any part of his statement of course he is at liberty to do so, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would come and answer it himself.

Mr. Maxton

Am I right, Mr. Speaker; in believing that the House has still the right to demand the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance, and is not that course open to us on such an occasion as now?

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members still have the right to move the Adjournment of the House on matters of immediate public importance.

Mr. Bellenger

A matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I wish to ask you directly, Sir, whether hon. Members in this House are not entitled to some protection from the Chair when statements or imputations are made, even by the Prime Minister of this country, about somebody endeavouring to cover something or other with slime? Are we not entitled to some protection from you, Sir, against the right hon. Gentleman for using un-Parliamentary phrases like that against hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Speaker

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to add to my labours. I am always anxious to protect Members from imputations, but sometimes things are given as well as taken.

Commander Locker-Lampson

Was not the word "slime" used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on a well-known occasion?

Mr. Bellenger

If that expression had been used by a private Member of this House and had been challenged, then you would probably have exercised your right to ask him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. May we not ask for the same treatment even for members of the War Cabinet?

Mr. Speaker

I have always treated members of the Cabinet just the same as any private Member, and I intend always to do so.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of the insults and abuse and the foul language that have been used against me in this House, can we now have a personal explanation of this new sensitiveness?

Mr. Granville

On Business, might I ask whether, in view of the statements which have been made yesterday and to-day, the Leader of the House will consider making arrangements for a Debate on the Adjournment Motion, on the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden

We have not got to Business yet.

Mr. Buchanan

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was to be a statement on Business.