PERSONAL STATEMENT (Hansard, 14 March 1945)

§ The Prime Minister
I desire to ask your leave, Sir, to make a personal explanation. My attention was called to the following remarks, as reported in the morning newspapers, made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) last night. I have checked these remarks from the typescript of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which is being printed to-day and which will be accessible to every Member of the House: I come to my final point, which is that of the sheer necessity of a proper inquiry into all the circumstances. Thousands of people have lost their lives and tens of thousands of young men have been wounded. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to laugh it off, but the Ministers responsible are primarily the Prime Minister and the Minister of Production. They are the people who have deceived the country and the country should know that they have repeatedly come to the House and have lied.

§ Mr. QUINTIN HOGG
On a point of Order. The last words of the hon. Member's speech were that two Ministers of the Crown have repeatedly come to the House and lied. That is what I understand the hon. Member to say. If he did say that, is it in Order?

§ Mr. A. BEVAN
Let us have an inquiry and see if that is true.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I did not catch the last words of the speech, I was only too glad to hear the end of it.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN
On a point of Order. Is it correct that the hon. Member said that two Ministers have come to this House and lied? If that is correct, there should be an inquiry or a withdrawal."

§ Mr. A. Bevan
On a point of Order. This is a most unusual statement that the Prime Minister has made. He is perfectly entitled to ask for a personal explanation, but is he now raising the un-Parliamentary form of the statement or is he raising the content of the statement? In any event we are in no position to judge what the actual language was. We have not in fact seen HANSARD, and the statement read out by the Prime Minister as to what I said I know to be inaccurate, because I made no such statement last night. I did say that there should be an inquiry, but I made no reference to the last statement made by the hon. Member for Ipswich. I seriously suggest that if we are to have this interpolation by the Prime Minister in this matter, after there was ample opportunity for the Government to reply last night, and when the Secretary of State for War had an opportunity of replying, it is un-Parliamentary to make use of this opportunity to reopen a Debate to which the Government should have replied last night.

§ The Prime Minister
My request and personal explanation do not relate to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). They relate exclusively to the hon. Member for Ipswich, and it is to him that I have offered this invitation.

§ Mr. McGovern
If something that the hon. Member for Ipswich has said was un-Parliamentary, is the Prime Minister entitled to invite him to break Parliamentary rules by repeating it?

Mr. Bellenģer
It would perhaps help the House and my hon. Friend if you, Sir, gave a Ruling. Last night, when this matter was called to your notice, you stated that you had not heard the statement. I ask you, therefore, whether that does not end that matter, as far as your jurisdiction is concerned?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, in a way it does as far as I am concerned, inasmuch as I did not hear the actual words used, but it does not end the matter entirely. These 238 were words which were un-Parliamentary, and I think the hon. Member for Ipswich, if he takes my advice, will be well advised to withdraw. It is not right that Members of this House should go about calling each other liars; it does not do the House any good.

§ Mr. McGovern
May I ask again if the Prime Minister is entitled to invite an hon. Member to break Parliamentary rules by asking him to repeat these words?

§ The Prime Minister
The alternative to making a complete withdrawal is, of course, implied in my invitation.

§ Mr. Stokes
Of course, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I certainly admit that I was guilty of what is termed un-Parliamentary language, and to that extent I apologise to you and to the House. I am perfectly willing to alter my interpolation by saying that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were guilty of "terminological inexactitudes." In saying that, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not depart from the substance of what I said, that both this House and the country have been deceived.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think the use of the phrase "terminological inexactitudes" is an unequivocal withdrawal. I must ask for an unequivocal withdrawal.

§ Mr. Stephen
I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that, so far as you were concerned, the matter was finished, but that, if the hon. Member for Ipswich would take your advice, he would withdraw his statement. You said, however, that, so far as you were concerned, it was finished. Now, I understand, we are beginning as if we were still in last night's Debate.

§ The Prime Minister
I submit that the fact that you, Sir, did not hear these remarks does not alter the fact that they were used in your presence. As to that, we have the reports which have gone all over the country in the daily Press. We have also the OFFICIAL REPORT, which will be in the hands of Members later, and I have a host of credible witnesses that the words were used. I ask that those words should be withdrawn.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
The words have been withdrawn.

§ Mr. Speaker
In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), it is true that, as far as I was concerned last night, if the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) had asked for these words to be repeated, I should have had to deal with them at the time. I would then have ruled them out of Order and asked the hon. Member to withdraw them. Now the Prime Minister is entitled, not having been present last night, to take the first available opportunity to ask that these words should be withdrawn.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
May I raise a further matter?

§ The Prime Minister
I submit to you, Sir, that it would be desirable to clear up the points of Order which I have raised before we embark upon any further discussions.

Mr. Arthur Greenwod
This is a most unfortunate incident. I think the House agrees that, if we descended to un-Parliamentary language, it would make this House something like a bear garden, and I hope that my hon. Friend will, in full spirit, withdraw his statement. I do that in the interests of the House and of orderly discussion.

§ Mr. Stokes
I submit to you, Sir, that I have withdrawn that term, but I decline to withdraw the substance of what I said.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am very anxious that the House should not get into a tangle about this. Honestly, I do not think the hon. Member for Ipswich did withdraw his statement in the right kind of spirit. The use of the phrase "terminological inexactitude" is playing with words. The hon. Member, having withdrawn in substance, might now withdraw the words, and I am certain the House would accept that.

§ Mr. Stokes
I submit that I have withdrawn the words, and I thought that I would accommodate the House by using the right hon. Gentleman's own term.

§ The Prime Minister
It would be grammatically impossible to substitute the words "terminological inexactitudes" for the verb "lied" in the context. I used this expression many years ago not at all as a substitute for the word "lie." It was to deprecate persons using the expression "lie" and to show them that marked understatement might conceivably meet their requirements. As such, 240 it was accepted with extreme good humour by the House about 30 years ago. On my personal explanation, I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman's statement stands, namely, that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production have lied. If this House is going to be conducted on that basis, all I can say is that it will fall far short of its traditions of the past.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
As I understand the position my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has withdrawn the statement—

§ The Prime Minister
No, he has not.

§ Mr. Bevan
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait for me to finish my sentence. The hon. Member for Ipswich has withdrawn the statement that any person lied. What my hon. Friend has adhered to—and he is perfectly entitled to adhere to it—is his statement that the House has been deceived. He said that the Government have deceived the House or that the Ministers have deceived the House and the country, and that is a perfectly proper Parliamentary expression. That stands, but the term "lied" has been withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman has got all the satisfaction to which he is entitled.

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman seems to have placed his case in the hands of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan.) Am Ito understand that the statement that my right hon. Friend and I have lied is withdrawn? Am I to understand that or not?

§ Mr. Stokes
I say to my right hon. Friend that I am not in the least in the habit of putting my case in other people's hands. I am perfectly prepared to stand up for myself to him or anybody else. What I have already said is that I apologise to the House and to you, Sir, for having used an un-Parliamentary expression, and I repeat it now. I would also say that in deference to your wishes, and in view of the un-Parliamentary expression I used, I will alter the word "lied" in order to suit the grammatical context and say, "have come down here and deceived this House and the country."

§ The Prime Minister
I must say that my right hon. Friend and I have received no satisfaction at all at the hands of the hon. Gentleman, and I respectfully appeal to the Chair for proper protection.

§ Mr. Austin Hopkinson
May I, for the sake of the dignity of the House, appeal, as one rebel to another, to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to find some better form of words than that? As you have said, Mr. Speaker, what is really at issue is that we should observe good manners—although you did not put it in exactly those words—in this House, and I think the opinion of the House is that the form of withdrawal used by the hon. Member is not quite as adequate as we should wish. At the same time it is perfectly obvious what he has in mind—I am sorry to say that my mind works very like his. What he wishes to avoid is having to withdraw his implication that the information is incorrect, and I would appeal to the hon. Member to try to find the necessary form of words to make a complete withdrawal of the statement now, and to bear in mind that a lie implies an intention to deceive.

§ Mr. Stephen
I understand the hon. Member for Ipswich has withdrawn the offending words—the statement that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Production have lied—and has proposed to alter his words to some form such as: "The Prime Minister and the Minister of Production have been guilty of terminological inexactitudes," and surely that puts his whole speech into Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Ipswich has suggested that we should substitute for the word "lied" the statement that the Ministers concerned have deceived the House, but I take the view that the word "deceived" indicates improper motives, and therefore that also is un-Parliamentary and cannot be accepted.

§ Mr. Stokes
I do not wish to exaggerate the whole situation, and if "misled" will suit you, Sir, I am prepared to substitute that.

§ Mr. Speaker
I wish the hon. Member would just withdraw the word. That would be more satisfactory.

§ Mr. Bevan
No other hon. Member of this House would have been accorded the latitude which the Prime Minister has received this afternoon.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is making a reflection on the Chair.

§ Mr. Bevan
No, Sir, I did not do that.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is very like a reflection on the Chair for the hon. Member to state that no other hon. Member but the Prime Minister would have been accorded such latitude.

§ Mr. Bevan
I—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will shut up they will give me a chance of saying something.

§ Mr. Stokes
This is not the Reichstag yet.

§ Mr. Bevan
In so far as my remark may have appeared to be a reflection on you, Sir, I immediately withdraw it. I had no such intention.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I have a record of withdrawals, and I would say to the hon. Member that the only and best way to withdraw, is to withdraw.

§ Mr. Stephen
Will my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich not put this matter fully into Order if he says: "I withdraw the words that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Production have lied, and instead say they have been guilty of terminological inexactitudes?"

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member for Ipswich would take my advice, he would just say: "I withdraw the word 'lied'" and leave it at that.

§ Mr. Stokes
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about this, but the whole substance of my speech was to show, as indeed it did show, in my view—and I shall be glad to debate the matter with the right hon. Gentleman if he cares to come here—that both the country and the House have been deceived in this matter, but I quite unequivocally withdraw the word "lied."

§ The Prime Minister
I accept the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal of the word. The other expressions about the challenges and charges made against me or my right hon. Friend or any other Member of the Government, are all matters which come within the ordinary ebb and flow of our party affairs; but the word "lied" I felt bound to take notice of, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for withdrawing it on this occasion.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I be permitted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you feel disposed to make any statement to the House concerning a certain comment that you made at the end of the speech of my 243 hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) last night?

§ Mr. Speaker
It does not really call for any further comment, but hon. Members will be aware that I am very keen on short speeches either by Private Members or by Ministers, and I never miss an opportunity to "get one in." Apart from that, I should like to thank the House for the way in which they have dealt with this matter.