§ The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
133. Mr. PLATTS-MILLS—TO ask the Secretary of State for War if the assertion that the U.S.S.R. was seeking world domination and was preparing for aggressive war, contained in the address given on 12th December to Territorial Army commanding officers and adjutants in the Southern Command by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Lieutenant-General Sir John Harding, was made with his knowledge and approval.
134. Mr. SWINGLER—TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether he gave prior approval to the speech delivered by Lieutenant-General Sir John Harding, G.O.C.-in-C., Southern Command, at Salisbury, on 12th December; what regulations he has issued in respect of pronouncements by general officers on our relations with foreign Powers; and if he has any statement to make.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell)There are two Questions down on the Order Paper which have not been called, because they are very low down in the list, but you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed me to reply. The numbers are 133 and 134. The answer to Question No. 133 and the first part of Question No. 134 is, "No, Sir." As regards the second part of Question 134, King's Regulations paragraphs 547 and 548 govern the publications and communications to the Press by military officers generally. No specific reference is made in these Regulations to relations with foreign Powers, but senior officers are not expected to make statements on them.
§ Mr. Platts-MillsWhile I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making this statement, I am sure I speak for all sections of the House when I ask him—
§ Mr. ChurchillNever.
§ Mr. Platts-Mills—not to take too serious an attitude with regard to this obvious indiscretion. Because while Cabinet Ministers—yes, and ex-Cabinet Ministers—and Archbishops, not to say the most disreputable sections of the commercial and political community, do and are continuing to spread this abominable lie about the Soviet Union, perhaps it is not surprising, however gallant an officer he may be—
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is a propaganda speech and not a question at all. It is quite improper.
§ Mr. SwinglerMay I ask the Minister whether he would draw the attention of senior officers to the fact that political propaganda must not be made on a public platform, and will he tell the House what penalties would be incurred by a private soldier who made political propaganda on a military platform?
§ Mr. ShinwellI think that where it is a matter perhaps of disciplinary action, it had better be left to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
§ Mr. GallacherMay I ask the Minister if it is not the case—I wish the Leader of the Opposition would try to show a little patience. He keeps muttering away there, and making strange noises. May I ask the Minister is not it the case that 1386 other ranks are allowed to attend political meetings, but are not allowed to participate in political meetings and make political speeches, and should that not apply to officers as well?
§ Mr. Shinwellrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerAir-Commodore Harvey.
§ Mr. PiratinOn a point of Order. With all due respect to yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for War was on his feet, about to reply to my hon. Friend, when you called on the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). May I ask that the Minister of War be allowed to answer, as it is his desire to do?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe supplementary question was not directed to the two Questions on the Order Paper. It was going far wider. Only one matter is dealt with in the Questions and the hon. Member was raising the whole question.
§ Mr. PiratinSurely, if the Secretary of State for War himself was on his feet eagerly desirous of answering, he could be allowed to do so.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhatever the Secretary of State for War wants to do, if I do not want him to do it, he cannot do it.
Mr. Ivor ThomasFurther to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It did appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman made one statement which needed immediate clarification. He appeared to suggest that this was a case which might call for disciplinary action by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Would he make it clear whether that is so or not? If that should be the case, many of us would take the strongest exception.
§ Mr. ShinwellI did not suggest that disciplinary action was about to be taken. I was merely replying to the Suggestion that it might be necessary to take disciplinary action, and my reply was that if disciplinary action was required to be taken, I would prefer to leave the matter in the hands of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
§ Mr. ChurchillAm I to understand that in using the expression "disciplinary action" the right hon. Gentleman was referring to hypothetical cases, and not to this particular case?
§ Mr. Platts-MillsWhy not to this particular case?
§ Mr. ShinwellThat point, if I may say so with respect, is irrelevant. It has not arisen.
§ Mr. ChurchillHypothetical cases are, surely, confined to those which have not in fact arisen.
§ Mr. ShinwellI always understood, Mr. Speaker, that you objected to hypothetical questions being put.
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanWould the right hon. Friend make it clear that the disciplinary committee in any action that they may take, in this, or in any hypothetical case, will apply exactly the same rules to commissioned as to other ranks?
§ Mr. ShinwellI certainly can give an assurance that so far as the Regulations provide, the same treatments will be meted out to everybody.
§ Mr. SpeakerAll this is getting quite hypothetical and is not in Order.