HC Deb 25 July 1944 vol 402 cc573-5
26. Mr. Hugh Lawson

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state the frequency of meeting and average attendance at the Cairo Forces Forum.

Sir J. Grigg

No, Sir. I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Lawson

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when this information will be available, seeing that I put down a Question to him on this matter a long time ago?

Sir J. Grigg

Quite frankly, I have not asked for information, as it does not seem to be a matter of sufficient interest.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not the case that the Forces Forum has not met, because no soldiers have attended?

Sir J. Grigg

If that is the case, I think the only possible conclusion to draw is that the original public meetings were a species of political exhibitionism which it was quite right for the Commander-in-Chief to restrict.

Mr. Pritt

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If a Question is put down on the Paper with your permission, has a Minister any right to say that quite frankly he did not trouble to get the information?

Mr. Speaker

I should think that the Minister did not mean that. I think he said that he had not made special inquiries from Cairo. That was the meaning of the expression, surely.

Mr. G. Strauss

In view of the very wide interest in this question, which has been shown in this House many times, surely the least the Minister can do, when a question is asked about this matter, is to make an inquiry, and if he does not do that, is it not very discourteous to this House?

Sir J. Grigg

I am called upon to make a vast number of inquiries and a great many of them take up the time of commanders-in-chief which might be spent on obviously more important duties; and surely, I am entitled to wait until I get information from Cairo on a matter which is not of the great public importance which the hon. Member assumes.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox

Is not this an organised attempt to rule the Army by politics?

Mr. A. Edwards

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reply of the Minister, who seems to think he can answer Members with studied offensiveness, what steps can hon. Members take to ensure that their questions are answered? On this occasion he expressed the opinion that it was of no public importance and he really had not taken the trouble to put the question. This is astounding and contemptible.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of Order for me. After all, a Minister is responsible to the House, and it is for the House and not for me to deal with a Minister.

Earl Winterton

I rise on a point of Order to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the term "studied offensiveness," which seems to be quite new in a point of Order, is in Order?

Mr. Speaker

I should think that it is in Order, though I should say that it is regrettable.

Mr. Cocks

Is not offensiveness the only quality which the Secretary of State for War has got?

Sir Richard Acland

May I press for an answer on this point, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that, if this is allowed to go by unchallenged, there is almost no point on which the Minister may not say it is of so little importance that he does not choose to answer it? What is the machinery by which the House or you, Sir, decide whether a Minister is justified in saying that or not?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Baronet forgets that it is always within the power of any Minister to refuse to answer any question if he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. That is a Minister's prerogative.

Sir R. Acland

The Minister is not saying that it is not in the public interest. He is claiming, against the very strong view of a minority of Members, that this matter of political discussion in the Army is one of so little importance that he is not called upon to answer. He does not say that it is not in the public interest to answer it but that it is so unimportant.

Sir J. Grigg

Perhaps I can make my position clear. These incidents in Cairo were likely to lead to breaches of discipline, and the most important thing in the Army is the preservation of discipline. I, personally, do regard it as contrary to the public interest that further advertisement should be given to this attempt to subvert discipline.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister is aware that the Forces Forum was a fake, and that it never meets, why does he not openly make that statement in answer to the Question, instead of dodging behind the facts?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot answer that question.