§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
§ 7.50 p.m.
§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)I wish to raise a matter which came up at Question Time as long ago as 5th July, a matter of some importance concerning the posting of an aircraftman called Abse to the United Kingdom from Cairo, and his concern with the Cairo Forces Parliament. The actual question was why was Aircraftman Abse posted immediately after he had taken office in the so-called Forces Parliament, kept under arrest for 14 days pending his departure, and why the protest of the officer, for whom he was doing very useful work, was ignored. The third point is now unimportant, and I will not say anything about the second point, whether he was kept under arrest 1091 or not. I am convinced that he was. The right hon. Gentleman is probably convinced that he was not. But it is not the important matter, and I propose to confine myself to the question of his posting. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman—I had to drag it out of him; it was not till the third supplementary question that he gave it—was in effect this: When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament, a public protest was organised against the decision. In that public protest Abse took a prominent part. The Air authorities considered whether disciplinary action was necessary, but came to the conclusion that he was guilty only of misplaced zeal and they refrained from disciplinary action but thought it necessary, nevertheless, to post him. A Liberal Minister could not possibly put forward a more illiberal suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is free from that criticism at any rate; no one would call him a Liberal. It is a most illiberal thing to say, "I cannot punish you because you have not done anything punishable, but I will banish you to the Persian Gulf." Ultimately it became London.
With regard to the actual reason advanced, I can establish that there is not a word of truth in it from beginning to end. As a matter of fact I put, very summarily, in a later supplementary, the facts as I understood them, and the right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept them. Let me deal with the specific points. It is suggested that the Army authorities had decided to close the Forces Parliament. The Secretary of State for War has always vehemently denied that he tried to close it. Then there is the suggestion that a public protest was organised. It was not a public protest, because the Army had taken the precaution to exclude all the Press beforehand. It is hardly right to say that it was organised, because we shall see how it came out that there was no opportunity for it to be organised. The phrase "a public protest was organised" suggests that some one called a protest meeting. What happened was that a few short speeches were made then and there. It is said that Abse took a prominent part. No one has suggested what part he took, and in fact he took no part whatever. I shall also 1092 hope to show that the reason for his posting was probably not that at all.
On this point the facts seem pretty clear. Let me recite the facts as I understand them. The Forces Parliament was organised with the Army authorities' complete good will. It was a very successful and useful thing. It was held in a pleasant place, called "Music for All," and it attracted masses of British and Dominion troops of both sexes and all Services. They had to pay 3 piastres—7½d.—to go in and they went in large numbers. On 2nd February it formed a party Government with full approval, official photographers, plenty of Army publicity. The great misfortune was that Labour had 119 Members, Common Wealth 55, Liberals 38 and Conservatives 17, so that if you throw the Liberals in with the Tories, it was progressive by 174 to 55, which is over three to one, but if you regard the Liberals, as they regard themselves, as progressive, there were 212 to 17.
That was the beginning and end of the trouble. Let us see how the Army dealt with it. On 1st March the Parliament held its first meeting in its new form. It had a King's Speech and it went off very well from beginning to end. Notwithstanding the presence in Cairo of several Army officers, who, no doubt as fighting men, are very fine but as politicians are the daddies of all Blimps, no complaint was made. The man whose case I am raising—not because he minds being posted to London but because this is a matter of public importance—was guilty of being Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not the least like the one here. On 5th April there came the second meeting and all the trouble. There was to be a debate on the nationalisation of the banks, and from the formation of the parties one can guess what was likely to happen. It is said that meanwhile German propaganda had represented that at the meeting at which the King's Speech was discussed, about which Colonel Blimp had made no complaint and people more reasonable than he had made no complaint, the troops were mutinous because they had been discussing politics on the King's Speech. We have never been given any details of what the German propaganda said, and no one suggests that there was the slightest foundation for the German suggestion. Nobody has explained why we should take any notice 1093 of it or why we should prefer to conciliate or appease Goebbels rather than let the men get on with their sensible political conversations.
On 5th April, when the second meeting was to be held, there arrived an Army commander and an Army educational officer. This Parliament was managed by a governing committee, but nobody had the decency or courtesy to communicate with it. Suddenly, at the beginning, when everybody was there except the Press—the war correspondents were there, but the Press had been removed—up gets the Army commander to read an Order to the effect that the name of the Forces' Parliament was to be changed, no civilians were to be present, no Press were to be present, which meant that there was not to be any report of the proceedings, and, much worse, the subjects in future, including the choice of subjects, were to be supervised by the Army education authorities and the meetings controlled by them. This is the way they treated grown men who had been fighting for their country and who, when less fighting came their way, were trying to understand politics and decide whether to vote against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the next election. The Army commander announced that these things were to happen. The reason he gave was German propaganda—a new thing to settle our politics for us—and a half suggestion that King's Regulation 541 made political meetings illegal, anyhow. It was a feeble suggestion, since the Army had encouraged these meetings. Abse has not been posted because Geobbels asked for him to be posted, or because of anything that happened in the King's Speech debate. He has been posted, according to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, because he took part in an organised public protest.
We had better, therefore, see what happened, because this was the first time anybody suggested there was any protest. The leaders of the four parties must have had some hint of the order and a few minutes to discuss it, and that is the nearest approach to any organisation of a protest. But this is what happened. The Prime Minister was a corporal in the Army Pay Corps and an ex-councillor for Stepney. As Labour was in office he was a member of the Labour Party. That is a terrible thing. I can speak 1094 with perfect impartiality because I am not one, yet it seems very naturally a very terrible thing. He moved a Vote of Protest and he took three whole minutes. I wish I could be as brief as he was. He took the line that this was an interference with the rights of civilians in uniform. The other speakers also spoke for approximately three minutes each. The leader of Commonwealth made a three-minute speech. The Liberal leader was a Flight Officer in the R.A.F. and he took that much of a prominent part in this protest; but he was not posted. The Conservative was a corporal in the R.A.F. and in his three-minute speech he was a little violent. He was more violent than the other three. I do not know whether he was posted or not.
No complaint has ever been made out in Cairo of the terms or of the manner of the protest made by these four gentlemen. Abse remained perfectly silent because the protests were rightly being made by the party leaders only; Abse was only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he said nothing; but he has been posted. There was a vote of 600 to 1 or somewhere between 560 and 600 to 1 which meant that the Government's stooges present were one only. The meeting went on, and no complaints were made by any authority that there was anything wrong at all, and still less that Abse was doing wrong, but he was posted. The meeting was no longer public, for the war correspondents and other civilians were then turned out. The Cairo authorities—and it is not the fault of the R.A.F.—then proceeded to show Goebbels that there must be something in it by stopping all communications to London. It is an odd thing that within five days of the meeting two letters were sent to London which arrived by the oversight of the censor, in which it was stated that arrangements were being made to get rid of the leaders who made the protest by posting them. The actual postings, however, were not of the leaders of the protest. The only postings were four in number. There was a committee of nine, and four of these were posted. All except Abse were sent to really unpleasant places; people have to be sent there, of course, but it is not right to send them there because they had or had not made a three-minute speech or because they were members of the committee of this very valuable organisation. It happened 1095 that one of those posted was one of the speakers as well as being a member of the committee; that was the Army Pay Corps corporal. So far as I know, the three R.A.F. men who were posted were none of those who had taken part in the protest, but they were all members of the committee. The Secretary of State for War pretended on 16th May that the posting of Lance-Corporal Solomons was a pure coincidence—or an impure coincidence—made not because he had had anything to do with the matter but in pursuance of a request for posting which he had made himself; but that is obviously incorrect.
Various reasons have been advanced by the Government at times for these postings. The reason given for posting Abse is that he took a prominent part in the protest. It is no use saying that German propaganda had anything to do with the posting of Abse, because that has never been suggested. Other reasons, given vaguely, for closing down, or half closing down, the Forces Parliament, were German propaganda, but that really does not come in here. There was a shadow of a suggestion that it was all political and therefore a breach of King's Regulations. And there was a suggestion from the Secretary of State for War somewhat later, on the 25th July, that the fact that after the Parliament had been put on the chain and made to sit in another less comfortable and less interesting place only about three people attended, showed that the whole thing was a piece of political exhibitionism but as any piece of politics breaks his heart one can forgive him his little outburst. One reason why few people attended the later meetings was that if you got posted to the Persian Gulf for protesting or not protesting against a highhanded piece of stupidity, it was better to leave the thing alone.
The only other thing I need say is this: this is a great citizen Army, and a jolly good citizen Army, and I mean by that all the Forces. It has to come back and live in this country, to houses if there are any, to Government of some kind. It is very good that even in Cairo, let alone other places, sensible, intelligent people in the Education Department give them a chance to think; but when the day comes when there is a Labour majority in the Middle East Parliament some silly Brigadier tries to close it down, and the 1096 moment someone protests, anyone with any brains who had any part in it is sent off to the Persian Gulf or the South Pole or somewhere else. It is a major scandal and I hope that anyone who has had anything to do with it will find all the soldiers' votes, and the votes of the families of all the soldiers, against him at the next election. But that is not good enough. These soldiers are grown up men, as good men as on that Front Bench. They have fought for their country and have had the good fortune not to be killed. Other fine men are not there because they have been killed defending people who behave like this.
§ 8.7 p.m.
§ Mr. Loverseed (Eddisbury)I intervene briefly because I have from the start taken a great interest in this particular Parliament in the Middle East. I am rather sorry that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air has been made the target of the attack to-night because I think it should have been directed to the War Office, who have behaved in the most blimpish manner over the whole business. The Royal Air Force has lived up to its name as the most progressive Service in allowing living discussion in the Service. There is just one question I would like to ask. It is, At what date was it decided by the Air Ministry that Abse should be posted? I ask this for a particular reason. I asked the Secretary of State for War some time ago why certain people were posted, in view of the fact that some time before the Parliament was closed I received a letter, which was heavily censored, from the Middle East, censored with ink lines and typewritten crosses but which an efficient secretary managed to read. It stated that it was at that time known, or was common knowledge throughout the Middle East, that Abse and another person were to be posted. I received that letter before Abse was, in fact, posted, and I would be interested to hear at what date it was proposed to post him. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to the majority in the Parliament who protested against the decision to close it. The majority was 600 to 1, I understand, and the one dissenter was the blimp to whom my hon. Friend referred, and who I think should be known by name as Brigadier Chrystall.
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour)The hon and learned Gentleman gave notice that he wished to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment the case of the posting of Aircraftman Abse. He did not give notice that he intended to deal in the main with the merits or demerits of the Forces Parliament. He argued in favour of the Forces Parliament. He justified its existence in glowing phrases. I come here to-night not to debate the Forces Parliament, but to do my duty and endeavour to answer the particular question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised as to the reasons for the posting of Aircraftman Abse, My hon. and learned Friend stated that Aircraftman Abse was posted because he took part in an organised public protest. Aircraftman Abse was not posted for that reason. He was posted at the discretion of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, a discretion which may be exercised by all Commanders in the field as regards the posting of their personnel. Here let us not forget that we in Westminster are in a somewhat different position, geographically and from the point of view of responsibility, from those who administer territories open to attack in time of war. We have a responsibility different from that of those responsible in the theatres of war.
§ Mr. PrittIf it is said that he was not posted for that reason, for what was he posted? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going back on what his Chief said? He said:
When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament … the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered whether disciplinary action was called for.
§ Captain BalfourMy hon. and learned Friend should read the complete answer. My right hon. Friend gave this reply:
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full discretion to post an airman at any time if he considers such a posting to be in the interests of the Service, and Aircraftman Abse was posted by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East in the exercise of this discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 1136–7.][Interruption.] Time is limited. I have listened patiently, and I shall endeavour to give such reply as I can; I would ask my hon. and learned Friend, in the few minutes which remain, to extend to me the courtesy that I gave to him. The 1098 Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief exercised his discretion because, in his view, Aircraftman Abse's enthusiasms were such as to render him unsuitable for service in that Command. I would submit to the House that the first duty of a serving airman or soldier is to his Service. Everyone wants to see outside interests encouraged and it is not the wish of one particular party to suppress political interests. I think all of us wish to see political study, or any other form of interest that a man likes, permitted to him, and opportunities afforded him for the exercise of particular bents and tastes. But if a man is over-enthusiastic and devotes too much of his time and attention to his particular enthusiasm and moreover diverts others in the same direction, whether it be music, sport, the study of political philosophy, or political economy, there comes a point when the commanding officer decides that in the general interest the man should no longer serve in his Command.
§ Mr. PrittOn a point of Order. Is it in Order, when a Minister has first said that the posting was in accordance with the exercise of the commanding officer's discretion and then said it was exercised because the man took a prominent part in a public protest, for the Minister or his colleague to come to the House and proceed to give a whole lot of other reasons suggesting that the man is a bad soldier, neglecting his work and letting his enthusiasms run away with him, which the right hon. Gentleman had every opportunity to say but did not say?
§ Captain BalfourMy hon. and learned Friend is very clever. When he has made his case and I wish to make my case, he interrupts.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Minister is entitled to make his reply as he chooses. I cannot control how a Minister answers in Debate.
§ Mr. Foster (Wigan)Should he not keep his temper?
§ Captain BalfourThe man was posted, not because he took a prominent part in the Forces Parliament—
§ Mr. PrittOn a point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now giving the lie direct to his own chief, who said that the man was posted 1099 for a specific reason. The right hon. Gentleman now says he was not posted for that reason.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a matter for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his chief.
§ Captain BalfourI will read it again:
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full discretion to post an airman at any time if he considers such a posting to be in the interests of the Service, and Aircraftman Abse was posted by the A.O.C.-in-C., Middle East, in the exercise of this discretion.That is why he was posted and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered that this man's enthusiasms were so—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has very little time.
§ Mr. PrittBut if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman uses it in misrepresentation, he must expect interruptions.
§ Captain BalfourThe hon. and learned Gentleman does not like—
§ Captain BalfourWell, we will read on:
I am informed that he was not at any time placed under open arrest. This airman had for three weeks prior to his posting been taking an educational class for his unit, and his posting was no doubt a matter of regret to the Education Officer whom he was assisting. It was not, however, considered that this provided a good reason for varying the decision.
§ Captain BalfourI will read it:
When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament. … a public protest was organised against the decision, in which this airman figured prominently. The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered whether disciplinary action was called for. He decided, rightly in my opinion, to take the view that this was really a case of misplaced zeal and not to take disciplinary action. He did, however, think it was in the interests of the Service that this man should be posted away from the command.He did not consider that it required any disciplinary action, but he did consider that this man's whole attitude to the Service was such that a satisfactory airman, an excellent airman—and may I here interpose and say that Abse is doing excellent work at his present station and that there has been no complaint at all—that when a man had developed decided enthusiasms which had an influence upon his own Service life and that of others, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has a clear right to say "I would prefer to have a man who will concentrate more on his Service duties." [Interruption.] The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief accordingly exercised his discretion and that is the reason why the airman was posted
§ It being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eight o'Clock.