HC Deb 27 July 1953 vol 518 cc887-90
45. Mr. Benn

asked the Prime Minister why the proposals he made for a conference at the highest level, free from a rigid agenda and without a cumbrous array of officials, were not endorsed nor mentioned in the Washington communiqués.

Mr. Crookshank

The statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of State, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the debate on 21st and 22nd July, all indicated that the proposed September talks were not designed as a substitute, but as a prelude for a conference at the highest level. We hope that preliminary contact, if successful, may widen out into broader fields.

Mr. Beswick

On a point of order. As this Question was directed to the Prime Minister and has been answered on his behalf, can we know whether the answer was first submitted and approved by the Prime Minister before it was given to the House?

Mr. Speaker

I think we must assume that Ministers agree among themselves.

Mr. Benn

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Marquess of Salisbury was such a gallant advocate of the Prime Minister's stand in the May speech, it is curious that there is no mention at all in the communiqué of such a meeting even at a later date? Is it not also something more than just coincidence that in that communiqué the conference is at a lower level, with a rigid agenda, with pre-conditions and with a cumbrous array of officials?

Mr. Crookshank

All I can say is that this matter was discussed during the debate, and I have nothing to add to what has been said.

Mr. H. Morrison

Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the point of my hon. Friend's Question was urged and advocated at the Washington Conference on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and whether, indeed, they sought such a conference as had been advocated by the Prime Minister on 11th May?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not think it is for me to disclose every step of the discussions.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I was not there; but it may be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the acting Foreign Secretary is making a speech on the whole matter in another place, and no doubt he will be able to give more details from his personal contacts in Washington than I can. The fact still remains that he went there to put forward the views of the Government.

Mr. Morrison

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister made the statement which my hon. Friend has in mind on 11th May? Surely the acting Foreign Secretary has reported to the Cabinet on the progress of the discussions at Washington. In view of the great importance of the effect on this country of the Prime Minister's statement, are we not, as a House of Commons, entitled to know whether the representatives of Her Majesty's Government advocated at that Conference the course that was proposed by the Prime Minister on 11th May?

Mr. Crookshank

All this is to be found in the speeches to which I have referred and which I have here. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to refresh his memory—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."] Not now—he will see that it was made quite clear that there was in no sense on the part of the acting Foreign Secretary any desire to depart from the proposal which the Prime Minister has made, but it was decided to get some kind of four-Power talks going again in the meantime; and that is what was said in the debate.

Mr. Strachey

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Lord Salisbury did advocate this course of action by the Prime Minister, it was one of the most miserably unsuccessful pieces of advocacy in the world's history?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Is not my right hon. Friend surprised by the recent adulation of the Prime Minister by the Opposition, in view of their continual denigration of that same gentleman?

Mr. Benn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I intend, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Donnelly

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker

It was not really a point of order, although it was a customary prelude to the announcement of a forthcoming debate on the Adjournment. If there is to be a debate on the Adjournment, we cannot deal with the matter now.

Mr. Donnelly

I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance about this? Just now the Lord Privy Seal said that the Marquess of Salisbury would be answering for himself in another place. I think that that was the gist of his remarks. During the debate on foreign affairs the other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same thing in reply to a question by me when I think you yourself were in the Chair. The problem which arises is this. This is the House of Commons, and two Ministers of the Crown have said on two different occasions that somebody will be answering in another place for himself. Is there no Minister in this House who is responsible on these issues and who is prepared to give an answer?

Two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have said that somebody else in another place is to answer. This raises a very serious constitutional principle, and I submit that you, Sir, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, have the duty to see that the rights and privileges of hon. Members in this House are safeguarded. I am seeking to safeguard the interests of all hon. Members in this House, and I would very much like your Ruling on this point because it raises widespread constitutional issues which are involved as a result of the acting Foreign Secretary being in another place.

Mr. Speaker

In so far as that is a point of order, the position seems to me to be this. Ministers do answer for Government policy on matters of this character, but where the conduct of a Minister is particularly attacked and that Minister happens to be in another place there seems to me to be no impropriety whatsoever in him giving an explanation in his own House. It would certainly be quite wrong for him to give it here.

Mr. Donnelly

I am sorry to hold up the proceedings, Sir, but just now you were good enough to say that we must assume that Members of the Government always agree. Surely different Members of a Government Department are responsible for one another, even when one is in this House and another is in another place.

Mr. Speaker

There is no inconsistency in my two Rulings.

Forward to