HC Deb 25 March 1952 vol 498 cc201-4

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

84. Mr. SYDNEY SILVERMAN

To ask the Secretary of State for War what contracts he has placed for the manufacture of military shoulder-flashes bearing the letters U.S.S.R.; what is the cost; and for what purpose these distinguishing marks of a foreign army are to be used.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. May I raise a point with you, Mr. Speaker, on Question No. 84. That is a Question which has to do with the alleged manufacture of military flashes bearing the insignia of a foreign State.

I put this Question down last Tuesday to the Minister of Defence, and on the very day on which it appeared on the Order Paper I received an intimation that it had been transferred to the Secretary of State for War. That I raised no point about, although it was a little unusual on this occasion, because I was asking about contracts placed by the Minister of Defence. However, I raised no point, believing that I should be able to raise it again and I had the Question transferred to today, when the Secretary of State for War was down as the third Minister to answer Questions, hoping, therefore, that this extremely important matter could be dealt with by an oral answer today. It has not been reached because on today's Order Paper it is down at No. 84.

Might I ask you whether, in view of the importance of the Question, you would direct the Secretary of State for War to answer it now?

Mr. Speaker

The proper procedure if a Question is not reached is for the Minister to request my permission to reply, in view of the public interest of the answer. Unless I receive such a request from the Minister, or an intimation of his willingness to answer, I never call a Question when the time for Questions has expired. Does the Minister wish to reply?

Mr. Head

I did not ask you for permission, Mr. Speaker, because it did not seem to me that the matter was of very great public interest. However, I am in the hands of the House. If you wish me to answer, I can.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot say that.

Mr. Silverman

I should like to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for War has just said that he did not ask you for your permission because he regards the question as not being of sufficient public importance. In the course of Questions I asked the right hon. Gentleman by a note whether he would take this course, and I have here his reply in which he told me that he would gladly have done so but that he felt a little diffident about doing so, having already asked permission to answer another Question. He does not say to me that it lacked any public importance. On the contrary, he says expressly that he would very much like to answer it. In those circumstances, may he not do so?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that I am bound by the Minister's decision as to the importance of the Question.

Sir Herbert Williams

Mr. Speaker, before you call upon the Prime Minister to move his Motion—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)

On a point of order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that as this Question has been raised by the right hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), we might hear the answer of my right hon. Friend before going on to this other matter?

Mr. Speaker

I am very willing to hear the answer if the Minister wishes to give it.

Mr. Head

I will, with your permission and that of the House, answer Question No. 84. The answer is:

None, Sir. These arm titles were made during the last war for wear by nationals of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who were serving with the British Army: other allied nationals similarly wore arm titles. Remaining stocks of these and other arm titles were sold recently for pulping.

Mr. Silverman

Since these are the actual facts, would the right hon. Gentleman say why he considers that it was not in the public interest to make them generally known at the earliest possible moment, because, in the absence of that knowledge, the most mischievous use might otherwise have been made all over the world, to the detriment of peace, about a matter which was capable of a perfectly innocent explanation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was of the highest importance to counteract any suspicion at the earliest possible moment, instead of giving the impression that he was trying to evade the question?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman himself has had it within his power to receive a written answer to this Question for some time, but it was by his own choice that he deferred the Question in order to get a verbal answer. I do not personally think that the very considerable prominence given to this in the "Daily Worker" has the effect which the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. Silverman

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that very considerable prominence has been given to this not merely in a paper with a very limited and not very influential circulation in this country, but in papers which have a wide circulation in this country, in papers in the U.S.A. and in other papers all over Europe? Was it not, therefore, of great importance that, instead of pursuing a policy of what looked like the most evasive secrecy, the earliest opportunity of putting the matter in its right light should have been taken?