HC Deb 20 November 1951 vol 494 cc217-21
51. Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take, in connection with his impending American negotiations, to ensure that Japanese imports will not be extended.

55. Mrs. Castle

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek assurances from President Truman that no decision for the use of atomic weapons in Korea will be taken without consultation with the British Government.

The Prime Minister

As I stated in answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) yesterday in a Written Answer, it would not be fitting for me to make a public statement now about the questions on which I hope to have confidential discussions with President Truman in Washington.

Mr. Winterbottom

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave apprehension in certain industries in this country, particularly the rubber industry, that the price of American aid for re-armament may be a price that they will have to pay?

The Prime Minister

It does not come outside the considerably wide limits of the answer I gave.

Mrs. Castle

Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the assurance for which I ask in Question No. 55 has to wait for several weeks during which a dangerous mood is operating in the United States as a result of unsubstantiated atrocity stories? Are we to be left without this assurance?

The Prime Minister

Yes, it means that.

At the end of Questions—

Mrs. Castle

In view of the reply of the Prime Minister to my Question—when he refused to seek assurances immediately from President Truman that atomic weapons will not be used in Korea without consultation with the British Government—I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the danger of the use of atomic weapons in Korea without the consent of the British Government.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Lady asks leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the danger of the use of atomic weapons in Korea without the consent of the British Government. She asks leave to do so under Standing Order No. 9. I would first point out that we shall in a moment be on the Adjournment. Secondly, I could not accept this Motion as relating to a definite matter of urgent public importance because the use of atomic weapons is still in the realm of the hypothetical and it could be discussed at any time. I do not think that it falls within Standing Order No. 9.

Mrs. Castle

In view of the first reason you have given for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, namely, that we shall be on the Adjournment shortly, may I express the hope that I might catch your eye in the debate?

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing wrong in cherishing hopes.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. May I submit, on the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, that this question ceased to be hypothetical at the moment when the Prime Minister gave his supplementary answer that this action might well be taken without consultation with the Government and in the absence of Parliament? The House was intended to infer those very things from the answer to the two Questions which the Prime Minister has given. In view of the fact that Parliament is to be in Recess for a long period, may I suggest that the Prime Minister's answer means that a matter which might have been hypothetical before is hypothetical no longer? The Prime Minister has made it an actual, existing and urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker

The mere fact that the Prime Minister stated that it might be able to happen does not make it less hypothetical.

The Prime Minister

If the Question of the hon. Lady referred to any action which could take place between the present time and any visit I might pay to the United States, it really should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary. I thought that it was associated in the same sphere as Question No. 51 and that it meant that I should seek special assurances from the President at the forthcoming meeting. Therefore, I answered the two Questions together. If the hon. Lady wishes to address a Question upon this subject in the interim period, she can put it down on the Order Paper whenever she chooses, and no doubt it will be explained what the situation has been, not only in these recent months but in the many months before.

Mrs. Castle

As I have put the Question down on the Order Paper for today and have received this highly alarming answer, should I be in order in tabling the Question again, and would the Table accept it, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to recover his wits on the matter?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Lady is in possession of additional information, namely, the answer she has received, I have no doubt that it would be in order.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. Might I ask you to consider afresh the Ruling which you have given on this matter, Mr. Speaker? With very great respect, I would say that it seems to be a Ruling which—and I appreciate that it was given on the spur of the moment—fairly interpreted, means that no impending crisis, however grave or serious, can be a matter of urgent public importance if there is the slightest possibility that it will never happen. That seems a variation from the way the Standing Order has been interpreted over the years.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think my Ruling can carry that interpretation.

Mr. James Hudson

On that same point of order concerning the hypothetical nature of the question, I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no hypothesis involved in this question at all as, on the first great occasion when atomic bombs were dropped in the area of the world which is now under consideration, the Prime Minister himself stated—and it is reported in HANSARD, in column 78, on 16th August, 1945—that he, with President Truman, the two gentlemen now involved in this question, took upon his own responsibility the decision to drop bombs in the area in question. It cannot possibly be hypothetical, unless some statement beforehand is made to the contrary, or that the Prime Minister and Mr. Truman again are merely engaged in a hypothetical matter. They are engaged in a most serious issue.

Mr. Speaker

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that what happened in the past necessarily removes this question from the realm of the hypothetical.

Mr. James Callaghan

Further to the point of order. The Prime Minister's answer, as I understand the position, interpreted the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), as asking whether he would seek assurances from President Truman when he went to Washington, but the question does not say anything about going to Washington. It asks whether the Prime Minister is prepared to seek assurances from President Truman. The answer we have had indicates, to many hon. Members at any rate, that the Prime Minister is prepared to leave this matter in abeyance until he goes to Washington. That seems to be a very practical, real and immediate matter of urgency which ought to concern the House and the country very much. Can we not have some further elucidation of the Prime Minister's mind on this matter? This Question is addressed to him about something that may take place today or tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden)

This is a matter which might well be probed in the debate which is shortly to take place on foreign affairs. The position in this matter, so far as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware, is exactly the same as it has been since the Korean war began. There is absolutely no change in the position between us and the United States whatever. We had understood that the hon. Lady wanted my right hon. Friend to raise the matter again when opportunity offered at Washington, and my right hon. Friend said that he could not foresee what he would raise at Washington. So far as we know, the position is exactly the same as it has been under the previous Government, ever since the Korean war began.

Mrs. Castle

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minster gave a most categorical answer to my supplementary question to him? I asked, "Am I to understand from this reply that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek immediate assurances from President Truman on this urgent matter, in spite of the very dangerous atmosphere at this moment?" He replied, "The hon. Lady can understand just that." In view of that reply to my supplementary question, can we just leave the matter to be probed in debate, without a specific guarantee that the assurances will be given by the Government?

Mr. Eden

Is it not clear that the assurances for which the hon. Lady asks are precisely the assurances which existed under the late Government and which continue now absolutely unchanged as far as I am concerned?

Mr. Speaker

I really cannot accept the Motion as being within the terms of the Standing Order. It can be further discussed. I should not feel myself justified in interrupting the course of business, even if it were possible for an event of this kind.