INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (Hansard, 9 February 1953)

§ 47. Mr. Emrys Hughes
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the official statement of Mr. Stalin that he still believes that war cannot be regarded as inevitable and that he is favourable to a meeting of heads of States to discuss the international situation; and what steps he now proposes to take to bring about such a meeting.

§ The Prime Minister
I will, with permission, answer this Question and No. 45, which was not asked but is on the Paper. [45. Mr. DODOS: To ask the Prime Minister if, following his visit to the United States of 29 America, he will now endeavour to arrange a meeting with Marshal Stalin in an effort to lessen the tension in international affairs.]

§ Mr. Dodds
On a point of order. The Prime Minister is asking permission to give an answer to Question No. 45 which you have put back till Wednesday, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the Prime Minister wishes to answer the Question there is nothing to prevent him doing so.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
If my hon. Friend has asked that his Question shall be postponed till Wednesday—which I understand to be the case—surely it cannot be answered today.

§ Mr. Speaker
There were two Questions put down which were to be answered together, one in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) and one in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The hon. Member for Dartford gave notice, I understand, that he wished his Question not to be answered, but I received no such notice from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, so his Question properly remains on the Paper.

§ Mr. Morrison
If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a perfect right to put his Question, but similarly my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who put down Question No. 45, has a right to ask for his Question to be postponed.

§ The Prime Minister
It is the same answer.

§ Mr. Morrison
That does not matter. [Laughter.] It really does not matter. In these circumstances, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has postponed his Question, surely the Prime Minister has no right to answer it.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand the Rule to be that if a Question appears on the Order Paper there is no power to prevent a Minister from answering it.

§ Mr. Manuel
I should like to have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, if two or more Questions are to be answered together the Minister answering has to get the permission of the hon. Members who put down the Questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
He has to get the permission of the House. It is done by general consent.

§ Mr. Morrison
This is a matter of importance which involves the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Am I to take it from what you have ruled, Sir, that, if an hon. Member has intimated to you that he does not wish to ask a Question today but prefers to ask it on some other day, some other Member has a right to insist upon the answer being given today, even though the hon. Member who put it down wishes to postpone it? That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not see anything very much in it. Question No. 47 is quite properly on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member is entitled to an answer. His right to an answer is in no way prejudiced by the action of the hon. Member for Dartford in withdrawing No. 45, and if the Prime Minister answers No. 47 I think he is entitled to answer No, 45 as well.

§ Mr. Dodds
Do I take it from what you have ruled that my Question, which it has been arranged with the Table shall be on Wednesday, will now be on the Order Paper for Wednesday?

§ Mr. Speaker
That, I presume, will be so if it is still in order, but it is quite likely that the hon. Gentleman will be referred to this answer.

§ The Prime Minister
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) should be so active in this matter considering that his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has already started for India.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, whether you can detect in this or any other Question on the Order Paper any reference to the journey of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to India?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must say that, for myself, I could not understand the observation.

§ Mr. Dodds
It was infantile.

§ The Prime Minister
We on this side of the House are all in favour of open competition.
With regard to Question No. 47, I am, of course, always ready to consider any proposals which would effectively reduce international tension, but the attitude of the Soviet Government in regard to those issues which are outstanding between us does not encourage me to think that a meeting of the kind suggested would in present circumstances lead to this result.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Has the Prime Minister forgotten that in at least half a dozen important speeches on the eve of the last Election he pressed for a meeting with Mr. Stalin? Is he aware that earlier in this year Mr. Stalin declared himself favourably towards a meeting? Why does the Prime Minister now run away? Why does he not unite with Mr. Stalin, and invite President Eisenhower?

§ The Prime Minister
I think we must try to understand the general position as it moves. We in this country would feel very severe domestic preoccupations, making it difficult to have conversations with heads of Governments, if, for instance, so many of our best doctors were being charged with poisoning so many of our best politicians.

§ Mr. Shinwell
As the attitude of the Soviet Government is apparently no better nor no worse than it was when the right hon. Gentleman made his original suggestion about meeting Mr. Stalin, why is he running away from the proposal to meet?

§ The Prime Minister
I was not aware that I was running away from anything.

§ Mr. Shinwell
You are, as fast as your legs will carry you.

§ The Prime Minister
I think there was a better moment two years' ago, and more than two years' ago, than is presented now for such conversations.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is not the fact this—and why does not the right hon. Gentleman at least own up to it—that he raised the matter merely because he was in opposition, but now he is in Government he has changed his mind?

§ The Prime Minister
The imputation of motives is always questionable, and in this case can be treated with disdain.

§ Brigadier Medlicott
Bearing in mind some of the things that were said about my right hon. Friend during the Election, is it not clear that the two Questions and his reply are a well-merited tribute to the Prime Minister's powers as a peacemaker?

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Is the Prime Minister now telling us that the reason why he objects to this meeting is that he does not want to be treated by a Soviet doctor? Is he aware that if he did go to Moscow and were treated by a Soviet doctor we would bear whatever followed with our customary fortitude?

§ The Prime Minister
If all the other difficulties were swept away I could easily take my own medical adviser with me.