HC Deb 30 January 1952 vol 495 cc189-93
Mr. C. R. Attlee

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Defence, Field-Marshal Lord Alexander, will be responsible for advising the Government on military matters, and who will answer Questions on defence in the House.

The Prime Minister

When Lord Alexander becomes Minister of Defence on 1st March, the present arrangement will continue whereby the Chiefs of Staff advise the Minister of Defence, and, through him, the Government as a whole, on military matters. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "More money."] We may even beat the record of the party opposite, but it will be by a very short head. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed who will be responsible for answering Questions and for dealing with Departmental matters in the House on behalf of the Minister. I will myself, when necessary, take part in any major defence debate.

Mr. Attlee

Is it not very difficult, where a very distinguished soldier is acting as a Minister and transmitting the views of the Chiefs of Staff, to see who is the real adviser? Surely, that is a confusion quite contrary to our British system.

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I do not think that any difficulty will arise from that. There are lots of people who have been employed in political office who have had professional military experience. Even I myself was nearly five years a cadet and a lieutenant in the Army, and I have frequently interfered in civilian matters. I do not think any difficulties will arise.

Lord Alexander is, of course, a civilian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—retired from the Army and has had a very honourable interval of nearly seven years' service, entirely remote from the military profession and in Canada. I cannot feel that any difficulty will arise on that matter. On the contrary, I think that all concerned will feel reinforced by his presence and advice.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt.

Mr. Attlee

While casting no reflection whatever on the qualities of Lord Alexander, who stands extremely high in the opinion of everybody, may I ask if there is not a great difficulty in a high-ranking officer who has held very high command, quite distinct from people who may have had temporary service in war, being the official member of the Government in competition, so to speak, with the Chiefs of Staff, who have not really had his experience?

The Prime Minister

I do not think there could be any question of competition between the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff. Certainly, it would be very disastrous if there were. There may be difficulties which arise from time to time, but they are always settled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from long experience, by discussions in the Cabinet Committee on Defence or in the Cabinet itself.

Mr. Attlee

Do I understand that there is to be an Under-Secretary for Defence? I understood that detailed Questions were always answered by Service Ministers. The whole point of a Minister of Defence is that it is not a matter of detailed administration but of main questions of policy.

The Prime Minister

During the war the handling machine, through which I, as Minister of Defence, dealt with quite a lot of things that were going on, was a very small-scale affair, but the right hon. Gentleman created, at very great expense, a very large and powerful Ministry, which we have somewhat reduced in scale by economies but which, nevertheless, has many functions attached to it of a special character—for instance, all the intelligence of the three Services, and so forth. It is a very important Ministry that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) held. I certainly feel that all routine and ordinary Questions—the Departmental Questions—ought to be dealt with in the House by a Minister acting directly under the instructions of the Minister of Defence. On the other hand, if very large issues arise, I am quite prepared to submit myself to the House to assist in the matter.

Mr. Shinwell

Will the Prime Minister not agree that if he had not appointed a person who sits, or will sit, in the other place, it would have been unnecessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary? Is it the intention to continue what is known as the Defence Committee, and who will preside over it? Will it be the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister

Normally, the Defence Committee will be presided over by the Minister of Defence, but the Prime Minister himself can take the chair if he desires. That always was so in the old Committee of Imperial Defence, which has been superseded by the modern structure. With regard to the question of the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman should be careful, because he may find himself there some day.

Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister

There are great arguments whether there should be such personalities as hereditary Peers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but the differences between parties have been greatly assuaged by the conduct of the late Administration.

Mr. Shinwell

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but would he be a little less academic about the other place and reply to my question, which I repeat: Would he not agree that if it had been unnecessary to appoint to this very high post someone who will have to sit in another place, he would not have found it necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary?

The Prime Minister

The economy of a Parliamentary Secretary would in itself be an advantage, but that advantage is very small compared to choosing the best man—

Mr. Mikardo

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find one out of that lot opposite?

The Prime Minister

—for one of the most—[Interruption.]—for one of the most responsible positions in the State. I consider that that should also be brought into consideration, as well as the salary of an additional Under-Secretary. As to anyone from the House of Lords being so appointed, I again think that that is outweighed by choosing the person who is believed to be best fitted for the job.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

Is it not a fact that under the terms of the Defence White Paper the primary responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff is to advise the Cabinet on matters of strategy?

The Prime Minister

To which White Paper is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring?

Mr. Henderson

The 1947 White Paper. While Lord Alexander may be highly qualified to be a Chief of Staff, is it not, preferable—in fact, highly desirable—that the Minister of Defence should be a politician? Is it not highly undesirable that a Service mind should come between the three Service advisers and the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister

I should be far from showing any want of respect to the trade union feelings which must prevail among politicians, but I cannot feel that that should over-ride the arguments I have already ventured to deploy.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This really is becoming a debate.

Mr. Wyatt

You did in fact call my name, Mr. Speaker, but I gave way to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker

That is quite true. Mr. Wyatt.

Mr. Wyatt

Has not the Prime Minister made a mistake in describing Lord Alexander as a civilian? Lord Alexander is a field-marshal and therefore cannot resume civilian status. Is it not most unfortunate that the Prime Minister has revived a precedent which has not before been followed since the unfortunate entry of the Duke of Wellington into politics by putting a field-marshal into his Cabinet, and will he reconsider the decision, which is indeed repugnant to our Parliamentary system of democracy?

The Prime Minister

The fact that he is a field-marshal was not considered any obstacle to Lord Alexander's appointment and tenure, prolonged tenure, under the party opposite, of the office of Governor-General of Canada.

Mr. Speaker

We must really bring this to a conclusion and get on.