HC Deb 20 January 1943 vol 386 cc219-22
Mr. Arthur Greenwood

Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House inform us about the Business for to-day and the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Eden

The Government have given some consideration to the representations made yesterday, and particularly to the suggestion that, possibly, the Debate on man-power should be divided into two parts, the first part to be in Secret Session and the second part in public. After careful examination I am sure that the latter proposal is quite impracticable. I think hon. Members would find themselves in a most embarrassing position in taking part, as it were, in the second stage of a Debate the first stage of which had already been held in Secret Session. Besides that, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give what-might be called a human budget in this Secret Session, involving a lot of figures. Hon. Members will no doubt want to ask a number of questions to which they will require replies, and, therefore, I suggest that our present arrangement suits them. If, after this Debate, we find that there is any demand for some other form of discussion on this topic or something kindred to it, then we had better consider that through the usual channels, but I must warn the House that we are beginning to pile up these Debates rather heavily.

Mr. Greenwood

Yesterday we had a kind of preliminary canter to the discussion which formally opens to-day. I think we got ourselves into rather a muddle over that, which was unfortunate. The result of the statement made by the Minister of Production at the end of Questions was really to strengthen the opinion held in all quarters of the House on the need for a public discussion of these problems. Hon. Members, a number of whom are here now, spoke to me about it in the course of yesterday's discussion. I can see the difficulty about splitting a Debate into two parts, one open and one closed, so to speak, but if there are to be two days of secret Debate, then I think the House will really wish, at an early date, for an open discussion in Parliament on the broader issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday and, no doubt, other matters which will be raised in the course of the Debate now about to begin.

Mr. A. Bevan

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I say that the House as a whole will agree that in this matter of the mobilisation of labour we are discussing one of the questions which bear most closely on the domestic lives of our people? The Minister of Production yesterday said that there are to be considerable transfers of men and women in the country. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but mine is that nothing causes more trouble than sending men and women hither and thither, and nothing causes more resentment than the fact that their grievances are hidden in Secret Sessions and that we have no opportunity at all of ventilating their difficulties in public and asking redress of their wrongs. Why is it necessary to have a two days' Debate? I am sure the secret Debate will disclose no reason for giving two whole days on this matter in secret, but if the Government insist on having two days in Secret Session, of course they must have it. I respectfully submit, however, that in that case we must insist on having a public Debate upon the implications of these transfers before the transfers are made, otherwise we shall not be able to hold the resentment of our people within reasonable bounds.

Earl Winterton

It is obviously impossible to discuss now, in open House, the Government's reasons for holding a Secret Session, but I would ask them to take cognisance of one fact. I think it is only courteous to warn the right hon. Gentleman and the supporters of the Government above the Gangway, that some of us, when we come to the appropriate Motion, will feel bound to raise the question of the reasons why it is necessary for the House to go into Secret Session.

Mr. Eden

Of course, hon. Members are fully entitled to do that. On the question of whether we are to have one day or two days' Debate, it was in order to meet the wishes of the House that the Government gave facilities for these two days. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has a statement of very great importance to make, and it is my belief that the House will wish to Debate the matter for two days. If it appears that they do not wish to do so, that will be another situation. My only difference with the right hon. Gentleman opposite is on his description of yesterday's discussion as a "preliminary canter". I do not think so. I think a "parallel canter" might be a more correct definition. It may be that it will be necessary to have a further Debate, and, if so, the Minister of Production might speak in it at an early stage, but I think we should stand by the programme to which we have already agreed.

Sir Percy Harris

There are two separate problems: one, the transfer of people from one job to another, and the second, the moving of people, wholesale, from one part of the country to another. It is that second part that the House will possibly want to discuss.

Mr. Eden

That is exactly what I had in mind in my answer.

Mr. Bevan

I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too much, but I think we are entitled to say in this matter that before any scheme of transfers is put into operation—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Services? They have to move all round the country."]—we should have an assurance that we are to have an opportunity of discussing it in Public Session.

Mr. Eden

I could not give a categorical assurance of that kind. What I can say is that if there is a demand for an early public discussion of the matter through the ordinary channels, we shall naturally do our best to meet it.

Mr. Stokes

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind before finally deciding that unless we get a satisfactory reply some of us will be tempted to divide the House?