§ Mr. C. R. AttleeMay I ask the Prime Minister, with regard to the course of the two days' debate on foreign affairs, whether, in view of the fact that he said he was covering only a certain number of points in the statement he made, he will be opening the debate today with a full statement on his American visit?
§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank)As this is a business Question, perhaps I may be allowed to reply, although I have not had previous notice of it. This is a foreign affairs debate, 808 as was announced by me on Thursday last. The words were:
Debate on Foreign Affairs.The right hon. Gentleman asked me:Is it proposed that the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday should take place on the Motion for the Adjournment?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 366.]To this I indicated assent. That is the debate on which we are about to embark.
§ Mr. AttleeI always thought that when a Prime Minister visited another country and had discussions with the leading statesmen of that country, that came under the heading of "foreign affairs." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the general expectation was that he would amplify—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—the brief statement which he made when he said that he would deal with
the three points which were perhaps most uppermost in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. There are, of course, a number of other issues upon which the House should receive information. These I shall reserve for our debate next week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 204.]It has been the general expectation that the right hon. Gentleman would address the House.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not consider that there is any ground for complaint at all. The Government have given the Opposition the fullest opportunity with a two-day debate on foreign affairs, and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself to America is naturally a part of that debate, but only one part of it. At the request of the party opposite, I made a preliminary statement which covered some considerable aspects. I should like to reserve myself for the second day of the debate when we understand a little more clearly how the main issues were viewed by the House. I think that would be right, not because it would lead me to change my opinion or the form of my statement, but because I might be able to rescue hon. Gentlemen opposite from some of their difficulties.
§ Mr. AttleeThe right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that he made that statement at our request in order to clear up certain points, if possible, and that it was generally understood that he would make a full statement later. The whole purpose of this debate is that the 809 right hon. Gentleman should make a full statement. [Interruption.] Even the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary might allow us to have some views on this side of the House. That was the generally accepted view, and I specifically did not ask more than one question of the right hon. Gentleman because he had said that he would amplify his statement.
§ The Prime MinisterI dealt with what I gathered were the most controversial points, and I really do not think it is usual for the Opposition, when a prolonged debate is offered, to insist upon prescribing the exact order in which Ministers shall speak. I am sure that the statement which the Foreign Secretary is about to make will have the effect of giving a great deal of information to the House and may enable the party opposite to point their criticisms more severely at me before I am called upon to reply, if I should think it indispensable, in the course of tomorrow's debate.