§ Mr. AttleeMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the Business of the week, and when he will be able to make available to Members of the House the amendment to King's Regulations which, I understand, the Government contemplate making in respect of the wearing of uniforms at election meetings?
§ The Prime MinisterWe shall ask the House to-morrow, before entering upon the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to agree to consider Lords Amendments to the Water Bill and to the Requisitioned Land Bill. I am informed that these are of a purely drafting character. In view of the suggestions which were made on Business last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India will make a statement on Indian policy on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Thursday. This can be followed by a Debate if the House so desires. Then, this other question has been raised. I think it had better be discussed between both sides of the House, through the usual channels, to see how the wish of the House can best be met with the greatest convenience and the greatest effectiveness; because I have no other wish than that. As long as I lead the House, the wish of the House to discuss matters is my sovereign rule. I have no doubt that the House can be fully informed of the legal position even before the Debate begins.
§ Mr. AttleeI am sure the Prime Minister will realise that what we all desire is to give an equal opportunity to all Service men to take their full part in their duties as citizens. We were not at all clear, from the replies which were given, whether a special exemption from King's Regulations was being given to candidates on account of sartorial difficulties, in respect of obtaining other clothing than uniforms, or whether there was to be a general relaxation for all ranks during the Elections. That is a matter on which we want some clarification. I agree that there may be some discussion through the usual channels, but I think that the House should be in possession of the Government's views before we discuss this subject.
§ The Prime MinisterI quite agree that this matter should be discussed through the usual channels, and it can be raised by any arrangements made between the two sides for this purpose. I am very anxious that it should be settled as far as possible by agreement. It is a very difficult question whether argument between people of different ranks in uniform is a good thing. On the other hand, if you say that nobody who is in uniform is to argue and that nobody may take part except in plain clothes, you throw a considerable impediment in the way of citizens who have no other dress but uniform.
§ Sir P. HarrisI have no doubt of the Prime Minister's good faith. I think that this matter should be cleared up before Parliament is prorogued. But I think that Parliament should see the new regulation. There will have to be some modification of the regulation. Perhaps we can see that to-morrow.
§ The Prime MinisterIf my right hon. Friend's answer is read carefully, that will give a great deal of information.
§ Mr. BevanAs the instrument of change will be an Amendment to King's Regulations, the House of Commons must see the actual change before it can form an intelligent judgment on what is going to be done. What is intended by the Government and what is actually done by the Amendment are not always the same thing. The Govenment have the advantage of us, because they know what the Regulation is: we do not know.
The Prime MinistersThis is not a Motion; it is a Parliamentary Question, and it is on the answer to a Parliamentary Question that the trouble has arisen. I think the House should be in a position to Debate the matter at the earliest moment, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that, even if the Government could command a majority by brute force, it is not the time when they would wish to do anything which could fairly be taken as turning the advantage to one side or the other. We might not be satisfied with the arguments on our intentions, but the House need have no fears.
§ Mr. AttleeI entirely accept what the Prime Minister said. I have assumed that this decision, which is in such flat contradiction to what the Secretary of State said the other day, has been very fully considered, and as I have no doubt 1477 that the necessary alterations to King's Regulations are already drafted and ready, we should like to have them.
§ Mr. MolsonMay I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that these Regulations are a matter of Prerogative, and that there is no need for any Parliamentary approval at all?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not wise to bring into Parliamentary discussion any question of collision between the Prerogative and the House of Commons.
§ Mr. PrittIs it proposed to make whatever alteration is made by altering Ring's Regulations or by an Army Council Instruction? If so, could the House have, at the earliest moment, either the Regulation and the Instruction that has been passed, or the one that is intended?
§ The Prime MinisterNow the hon. And learned Gentleman has got me.
§ Mr. SilvermanCan the Prime Minister say whether it is the Government's firm intention to stand by the discrimination between serving men according to whether they are candidates, or are taking an active part in an election otherwise than as a candidate, that has been stated already?
§ The Prime MinisterA great many hon. Members of the House, of all parties, have worn uniform in addressing meetings lately, and in the last few years, and I did not feel that we needed to take away from them, for the 17 days period, what they had enjoyed so long. On the other hand, I have a great doubt whether it would be wise to encourage altercations among people wearing uniform, between the floor and the platform. You might have a general on the floor and a private on the platform. It does strike me that that might raise an awkward position. On the other hand, if you say that no one must take any part in these meetings except in plain clothes, how are the many hundreds of thousands of soldiers in this country who have not got plain clothes—[Interruption]—they could obtain a suit if they wished—to play their part? My only desire is to do what is thought to be reasonable and fair. I gladly welcome a Debate in the House, which I will attend myself, in order to see what the feeling is, and I will do my utmost to have some form of the information about any legal aspect of the Regulation and so forth cir- 1478 culated, if possible, officially to the House, and, if not, by special and extraordinary measures.
§ Dr. Edith SummerskillMay I ask the Prime Minister if he has considered this point? If this Regulation goes through in this form, it denies the right of a candidate's husband to wear uniform, while the candidate's opponent is allowed to wear uniform, which is my position?
§ The Prime MinisterWell, of course, hard cases do not make good laws.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understood that we were on a Business question, but we are now getting into a Debate. It seems to me that hon. Members questions ought to be on Business.
§ Mr. BevanMay I ask the Prime Minister whether this decision that has been taken by the Government, and in which the right hon. Gentleman probably had a great influence, is his way of having his own back on the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the bad advice he has been receiving, and in view of the fact that a general is putting up against him?
§ Mr. ShinwellI would like to ask a question on Business. How was this decision reached? Did the right hon. Gentleman know anything about it?
§ The Prime MinisterAs a matter of fact, I have thought a great deal about these matters, and I think I am the author of this change in that I brought it before the Military Department and then brought it before the Cabinet. I should be going too far to say that opinion was immediately and spontaneously united on the topic. I should welcome further enlightenment from the House in the course of the suggested discussion.
§ Mr. MathersIs the Prime Minister aware that the very laudable ideas he has expressed, in answers to these later questions, have been rather vitiated—
§ Major Randolph ChurchillOn a point of Order. Is this a matter of Business?
§ The Prime MinisterLet the hon. Gentleman say what he has to say.
§ Mr. Evelyn WalkdenNow, sonny.
§ Mr. MathersHas not that laudable expression of ideas been rather vitiated, by what has taken place since the beginning of last week?
§ Major Randolph ChurchillHear, hear.
§ Mr. E. WalkdenI wish to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of Business. Over the week-end, from the Treasury and from inspired sources in the Government, a statement has been made that we, the hon. Members of this House, were to receive a statement about C.E.M.A. This statement has been given very great publicity, and we have been waiting for the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The statement has been put out on the tape to-day, but we have had no statement at Question Time. When are we going to have it?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis has nothing to do with a point of Order.
§ Mr. Kenneth LindsayAccording to an announcement made yesterday by the Minister in reply to a Question, a statement was to be made in this House. I have been waiting to see when the Chancellor was going to make that statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat has nothing to do with me; I do not control the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.