§ 46. Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will ensure that in all future ceremonial parades on national occasions contingents of the women's Services will be included.
§ The Prime MinisterIn future, as in the past, contingents of the women's Services will be included in ceremonial parades on national occasions when this is appropriate.
§ Mr. HendersonIn view of the fact that representatives of the women's Services were not in the parade on Friday last, does that mean that, in the view of the Prime Minister, that was an occasion when it was not appropriate for members of the women's Services to be on parade?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, the arrangements for the funeral were made by the Earl Marshal, and I have felt that they were extremely good; but I agree that this question of women's contingents marching in the very long and arduous journey which had to be made is one which requires detailed consideration.
§ Mr. HendersonWould the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give this his personal consideration, because I am quite sure he will agree that the exclusion of representatives of the women's Services is not conducive to good recruitment for them?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is the rule which we have accepted—that there are exceptions.
§ Mr. Charles RoyleIs the Prime Minister aware that there was some concern that this House was not represented in the procession?
§ Miss BurtonMay I ask the Prime Minister if it is true that the Earl Marshal's office said, in connection with this occasion, that the three Services had been consulted and that they felt it was not advisable that women should take part—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Earl Marshal's office.
§ Mrs. Barbara CastleCan the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why, contrary to expectations, those Members of the House who were chosen to represent us at the funeral service of his late Majesty did not march in the procession through London? Can we take it that they were considered less physically capable of doing so than members of the Diplomatic Corps?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that precedent was followed, and I think that the way in which precedent was applied to the various complex questions which were raised was an admirable example of efficiency.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonI gather that the Prime Minister is not unsympathetic to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), and I think that all quarters of the House would feel happier if he would give an undertaking to give sympathetic consideration to promoting the participation of women in these functions. I am not talking necessarily about the Earl Marshal's responsibilities, but participation of the women's Services in these functions. They are part of Service life generally, and participation in them is very good for morale.
§ Miss BurtonOn a point of order. I am sorry to persist, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask if you are aware that I was not referring to what the Earl Marshal's office had done but to the fact that this decision was reached by the three Services? I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he would recommend to the Service chiefs that, in future, women should take part on these occasions?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is quite in order, but the hon. Lady did refer to the Earl Marshal's office.
§ Miss BurtonYes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the point has now been covered.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIf the Earl Marshal's office consulted the Services before coming to the decision to which they did come, are not the Service Ministers responsible to this House for the information or advice which they gave to the Earl Marshal on that occasion?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it is a firm rule of Questions, which applies to those on the Order Paper as well as to supplementary questions, that no question can be addressed to a Minister on any matter unless he is executively responsible for the decision, and I think that questions about the advice that was given, and so on, would be out of order.