VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I rise to move that the sitting of the House to consider the Motion relating to the work of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, be in Secret Session. I know that your Lordships do not like Secret Sessions: I do not like them very much myself. I think therefore that it might be useful if I explained very briefly—because time is short—why in the view of His Majesty's Government it is necessary for them to take this action in regard to the present Motion. As noble Lords will see if they look at the Paper, the noble Lord has drawn his Motion very widely indeed. It is "to call attention to the work of the Ministry of Aircraft Production." Now the discussion of the work of the Ministry of Aircraft Production involves, and must involve, the widest questions of strategy, and also of those steps which His Majesty's Government are taking to provide particular types of aircraft which may be necessary to give effect to their strategic plans. That, I am sure the House will recognize, is exactly what the enemy wants to know, and it is exactly what we must not tell him.
I myself greatly regret having to ask the House to sit in secret. As I say, I 628 know your Lordships do not like it, and, if you would only believe it, the Government do not like it either, because clearly the Government stand to gain by an opportunity to state the full facts of the case—an opportunity which in war-time they do not always have. But sometimes we have no option. At any rate, I hope that no one will imagine that the fact that we have tabled this Motion indicates any doubt in the mind of the Government as to the discretion either of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, or of any other noble Lord who proposes to take part in the debate. Nothing is further from our mind. We have the most complete confidence that they will do their utmost not to say anything which could be in any way injurious to security. But inevitably they will ask questions. I know the noble Lord wishes to ask a number of very pregnant questions, and it is with regard to the answer to those questions that the difficulty is almost certain to arise.
I think your Lordships may remember a debate which we had in Secret Session not very long ago on the question of shipping. We had just the same discussion before we went into Secret Session on that subject, but I do not think that any noble Lords who heard the answer of my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield, who replied, had the slightest doubt in their minds that his speech could not have been made in Public Session; and yet it was of the utmost advantage to your Lordships to hear the facts that he had to expose. As your Lordships know, to-day in another place there is a debate upon man-power. That debate also is being taken in Secret Session, and so far as I know no objection has been made there, because it has been generally recognized that the national interest demands that it should be so taken. I feel confident that your Lordships will take the same wide view of your responsibilities in this matter as has been taken in another House. I therefore, without more ado, beg to move that the House do sit in Secret Session to consider the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Winster.
§ Moved, That the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the Lord Winster be in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, I am sorry so early in our proceedings to strike 629 a critical note. We object to this Motion very strongly. Of course, I know that the noble Viscount has taken the action he has taken with considerable personal regret. I accept that, but it raises a very much wider principle than that. This is the High Court of Parliament. This is not a Star Chamber; it is not a body to satisfy itself by private and confidential interchanges of view: it is the Parliament of the nation, and it is our duty, as responsible Members of that Parliament, to discharge our duties as well as we can. But we have to remember, as has been said in old times, that rights are not retained unless you continually assert them.
Let us just look at this. Here is a Motion, put down I agree in very wide terms, and His Majesty's Government say: "We are not going to have public discussion on that subject." That is what it is. Now take the last war. I well remember that great dissension arose in 1914–1915 over the supply of munitions. Your Lordships will have a recollection of that. The matter was decided, after much acrimonious but public discussion, and I do not think it is untrue to say that one of the results of those discussions in Parliament was that the supply of munitions to our troops was made worthy of the nation. Those discussions could have been shut out by Mr. Asquith's Government at that time just as easily as it is proposed to shut out this discussion to-day. But Mr. Asquith was a man who was never afraid, even if you were attacking him, of public discussion. That matter never was once, so far as I can remember, a subject of debate in secret, and they were most useful discussions.
There was another matter later on—namely, as to the attitude of the Admiralty on the question of convoys for the protection of our merchant shipping. That was the subject, too, of discussion on several occasions in the House of Commons, and I dare say also in your Lordships' House—most useful discussions. If we accept this principle, it would have been open to the Government of that day, in the event of anyone putting down a Motion to consider the supply of munitions to the Forces in just as wide terms as these, to have said: "No that shall be in secret." In the same way a Motion to discuss procedure for the defence of our merchant shipping might have produced the reply at once: "That shall be 630 in secret." But that was not done on either of these occasions, or on many others, because it is the right and duty of Parliament to discuss these matters.
It is not the right and duty of His Majesty's Government to muzzle Parliament. We object. I am not speaking now as a Party man. I am speaking as a lover of Parliament. It is wrong that this Motion by the Leader of the House should be on the Paper. I shall advise my noble friend, if, it is carried, not to proceed with his Motion as a protest. We ought to be able to discuss these matters as responsible men. I am sure the noble Viscount pays lip-service to our trustiness not to say anything injudicious but, at the same time, he takes good care we do not get the chance. That is not quite satisfactory. I am sure my noble friend (Lord Winster) would not seek to say anything which would be in the least helpful to our enemies. Of course he would not, and if His Majesty's Government felt embarrassed by any question he chose to ask, they need not reply. I have known Ministers often say: "It is not in the public interest that I should reply to that question." If the noble Viscount wished to reply, but did not wish to reply in public, he could then say: "I am willing to reply to this question, but I wish the House to sit in secret to hear my reply." That could be done, but even if it could not be done, it would still be open to the noble Viscount not to give a reply. It is not compulsory on him to reply with endangering or embarrassing frankness to any question my noble friend may ask.
It is to the principle behind this Motion that I object. I have a suspicion that there is a certain Departmental pressure behind the Motion. I do not think that Departments should be shielded by Motions of this character. For instance, the First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement the other day of a most deplorable character in which he sought to saddle on an amorphous nation the responsibility for the inadequate provision of competent aeroplanes for the Fleet Air Arm. It is, of course, the business of the Admiralty to see that their men are properly supplied. I dare say that the First Lord would not welcome discussion of that matter, which might conceivably come within the terms of this Motion. That is possibly one of the grounds of objection to my noble friend's Motion being discussed in public, 631 and in his speech I hope my noble friend Lord Winster will have something to say about the First Lord's statement, because anything feebler I never heard of. It is the business of a Department to say what the Service wants, and this nation is only too anxious to provide whatever the Service wants. I have an uneasy feeling that this may have something to do with this Motion and other matters of a kindred character. At all events, whether that is so or not, in my judgment a Motion of this kind is a derogation from the rights of Parliament.
§ LORD BRABAZON OF TARAMy Lords, we have heard the remarks made by the Leader of the House several times. It is almost a set speech. Most of us, I think, are always convinced that probably he is right, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to where we are drifting in this matter. In another place the Opposition can choose what is discussed upon the stated days of Supply. One of the matters that they can choose is the Ministry of Aircraft Production. In fact that was done only two months ago. I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Leader of the House that if the Opposition in the Lower House choose to discuss the Ministry of Aircraft Production, that will be done in Secret Session. If not, we get into the most ridiculous position that, whereas the Ministry of Aircraft Production can be discussed publicly in the Lower House, it cannot be discussed publicly in the Upper House. That is the ridiculous position into which we are rapidly drifting if we are always going to be muzzled on Service matters in this House.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, I regret very much that the Motions that I put on the Paper should result so frequently in these debates. There is nothing personal in my feeling about this, because such Motions as I put down are put down not for the reason of being able to make a speech in public, but because I hope the Motion may be of some service. I am getting rather nervous about putting Motions down because I feel that one day the noble Viscount will rise and move that the. House go into Secret Session for the duration of the war, and only come out again on those occasions 632 when there is something to the credit of the Government to mention. There is, I repeat, nothing personal whatever in my feelings about this. It is entirely a matter of principle. The noble Viscount was kind enough to communicate with me about this, but unfortunately he communicated with me on the last day available to him for, putting his Motion on the Order Paper. My Motion had been on the Order Paper for several weeks. It was postponed owing to the change at the Ministry of Aircraft Production because I felt the new Minister should have time to look around. I had a word or two with the last Minister of Aircraft Production and the present Minister about it, and also spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, so that there should not have been any doubt about my Motion or about its terms. I was really surprised when the matter was left until the very last day for this Motion by the noble Viscount to be put down.
The noble Viscount (Lord Cranborne) was kind enough to suggest a meeting and that if I gave him some information about what I proposed to say, possibly my Motion need not be heard in secret; but that seems to be getting very near to censorship of speeches. Surely it is unreasonable that one should have to go to a Minister and more or less rehearse one's speech, and, according to what one proposes to say, get permission to make that speech in public or be refused it. Similarly, although I sent some notes to the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, of what I intended to say, it is extremely difficult to speak knowing that there is a sort of gentleman's agreement by which one is bound and according to which one must not go one word outside the notes that one has sent as a matter of courtesy to the Government speaker. I have no personal feelings about this matter, but I am bound to say that I feel that the noble Viscount did delay in taking this action until rather late, and that, as my Motion had been on the Paper so long, it would have been quite feasible to have communicated with me at a considerably earlier date to let me know what the feeling was.
Now may I come to the reasons which have been given for moving that my Motion be taken in secret. The first is that the Motion is rather wide. The terms of my Motion have been known for many 633 weeks. Let us look at that point, that the terms of the Motion are rather wide. In July in another place the work of this Ministry was discussed on a Motion that a further sum not exceeding £30 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for certain Departments connected with production, amongst which was the Ministry of Aircraft Production, £10. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that on that Motion the whole work of the Ministry of Aircraft Production was thrown wide open for discussion. There was not one single aspect of the work of the Ministry which could not be debated upon that Motion in another place. I would ask, in what way is the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name wider than that Motion which was debated in another place? The two cases are analogous.
The second reason is that the Government wish to give all the facts in reply to anything that is said in debate. Well, I confess to learning with some surprise that the desire of the Government in their reply to me is to give all the facts. I remember a series of replies which the noble Viscount gave to me in another place at the time when the Spanish Civil War was raging. I would not say that those replies were characterized by a burning desire to give all the facts. It certainly is not the experience of those of us who have at tended secret debates that the keynote of the Government reply in a secret debate is a wish to give all the facts. But I agree that there is a difficulty before the Government speaker in this matter. It may be the case, and I readily admit it, that there are certain statements and certain facts which the Government speaker wishes to make that should not be made in public; but I would like in that connexion to revert to the suggestion that has been thrown out this afternoon. Is it impossible for the speech to be made in public, and for those portions of the speech which do affect security to be made in Secret Session? Trials are sometimes held under those conditions; part of the evidence is taken in public and other portions of it are taken in camera. My experience of Government speeches in secret debate is certainly this—that at a generous estimate at least 95 per cent. of the speech could cerainly be made in public without any harm whatever being done, so that one is left with a residue of 634 some 5 per cent. which, we will say, might affect security and therefore should be made in secret. But is it the case that that procedure is impossible—that at the end of such a debate it is not possible to move into Secret Session in order that the Government spokesman may reply upon those secret matters which affect security?
I really feel that these proceedings are becoming almost farcical. We are reaching a point where only completely academic questions can be taken in public and all matters that affect the war must be taken in secret. In the course of the last year one noble Lord wished to raise the question of shipping. It was intimated to him that that would be taken in secret debate. I myself attempted to raise a question of shipping. I was told it must be taken in secret debate. I then tried to raise the question of shipbuilding. Again I was told that must be taken in secret debate. I had to move my Motion on the conduct of the war at sea in secret. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, wished to raise the question of warship construction. It was taken in secret debate. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, wished to raise the question of the Fleet Air Arm: secret debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, had a Motion on the Paper concerning disposal of aircraft: secret debate. The proceedings in North Africa about Admiral Darlan: secret debate. And now the Ministry of Aircraft Production: secret debate. How far is this going?
The noble Viscount in his speech this afternoon made some very striking and very emphatic remarks about the U-boat war. One of the great troubles about the U-boat war and about shipping and what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has to do about food, is that the people of this country have not realized the gravity of the shipping position, or the full dangers and implications of the U-boat campaign. How are they ever to be fully seized of these matters if no debate may take place upon them in public? The pressure of public opinion must come behind the Government on these things if something is to be done, and that can only be effected by public debate. I am really unable to accept this security argument, because I believe it is possible and feasible to have some of the debate in secret and the remainder in public, and 635 for that reason I am compelled to believe, as I have stated before, that this procedure for secret debate has very little to do with security at all, but is really a device to save the face of the Government concerning matters which are unfavourable to them. That, to my mind, is the negation of democracy, and I must say I think it is the height of hypocrisy to govern nominally in the name of democracy while taking these autocratic methods in Parliament.
I believe that this procedure of the secret debate is having a most unfortunate effect in the country. There is a rift between Parliament and the people, and a rift which is growing. Your Lordships may have noticed a remark made quite recently in a leader in The Times newspaper in which it was stated that both the Conservative and the Labour Parties had failed to capture the confidence of the young generation. We fail to capture that confidence because that young generation finds Parliament not sufficiently responsive to its needs. They watch this cumbrous procedure, these devices of secret debates, and the result is that the rift between Parliament and people steadily widens. This secret debate procedure only accelerates that process. It is on that account that I myself most profoundly regret it.
The final reason which I would wish to bring to your Lordships' notice is this. Certainly in something which I should have had to say about the Ministry of Aircraft Production this afternoon I should have referred to what I consider the scandal of the Fleet Air Arm. It is nothing less than a scandal that the Fleet Air Arm should be equipped as it is to-day, and yet we may not debate that matter in public. But it has been spoken about in public by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who last week said that the Fleet Air Arm fight with some planes of which they certainly ought to have better samples, and then went on to say that they do good work with the old, slow although pretty sound craft which are at their disposal. I would like to hear the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command say before he sent his bombers to raid Berlin: "I am sure you will do good work; although your bombers are only old and slow, they are pretty sound." By the admission of the First Lord of the Admiralty those are the craft with which 636 the Fleet Air Arm have to work. Then he concluded his remarks by saying: "The nation should make every possible effort to see that the Fleet Air Arm is equipped with the most modern planes you can get for them." If ever there was a case of sending for water and washing one's hands, I should say that was the occasion. Sir Hugh Dowding was reported only recently as saying in public that the Navy have got exactly and precisely the planes which they asked for.
Whose is the responsibility in this matter? The First Lord would put responsibility upon the nation. The nation most gladly pays every penny that it is asked to pay, and the workers in our aircraft factories are only discontented because they are not allowed to work as they would wish to work on efficient aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm. Whose is the responsibility? Surely the responsibility can only rest upon the shoulders of those whom the country trusts with political responsibility for these matters. This matter of providing the Fleet Air Arm with the most modern planes that can be got is the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Minister of Aircraft Production. It is not a responsibility which they can shelve. But that matter we are not allowed to debate here in public. I would only say in conclusion that when I was reading about Pitt the other night, I read that when he was Prime Minister there was an outbreak of very curious political societies in this country. One of those societies which was brought to the notice of Pitt made a practice at their meetings of wearing muzzles and conversing with each other by signs. That may have amused Pitt, but I do not think he can ever have envisaged a time when members of one of the Houses of Parliament would voluntarily accept that method of conducting their most important debates.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, I propose to occupy only a very short time, but as one who is entirely independent in this matter, who has no relation with the Government and no feelings on any particular aspect of the matter which is proposed to be debated, I should like to make some observations which I think may be worth your Lordships' consideration. The truth is this debate has suddenly assumed a very curious position. I 637 thought we were going to debate the question whether on the whole such a Motion as the one on the Paper is one that could be debated to the full in public without any harm to the war effort or any comfort given to the enemy, but it now appears that a much wider matter is involved. The noble Lord who has just spoken, besides making part of the speech which he would have made if he had had the opportunity of making his speech in public, has also thought fit to accuse the Government of bunking discussion. The noble Lord who leads the Labour Party has said the Government were not willing to face public discussion on this matter and the noble Lord who has just spoken said that the object of the Motion to hold the debate in private was to save the face of the Government.
I do not know what your Lordships think on that matter, but for my part I think that if these charges were true the proper course would be to get rid of this Government. I do not believe, if the Government are afraid to face a Motion here simply because they want to save their own skins, that they ought to be any longer in charge of the Government of this country. It may be there are some people who take that view, but I venture to think it is not the opinion of your Lordships' House. What is it that we are discussing here, or ought to be discussing here? It is suggested that debates ought to be in public. Everybody thinks that as a general view and on almost every occasion debates here ought to be in public and the conduct of the Government should be open to public criticism. It is really, you may say, the life blood of a democracy that the Government should be open to criticism on practically every occasion. But does anybody here think that there is no exception to that rule? The noble Lord who has just spoken seems to think that because as a rule there should be public discussion therefore on no occasion is there to be private discussion. For example, if it is a question of discussing whether a particular action shall be taken of a military character and where it should be taken, and what forces should be employed in taking that military action, nobody, of course, not even noble Lords who want to get rid of this Government, would, say that that ought to be discussed in public.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMThere I cannot agree. There are matters which can be discussed in private which it would be most undesirable to discuss in public, for the reason I have mentioned, that it is not in the public interest. It is admitted that there is an exception. How far does it go? Surely it goes as far as this, that if a debate is likely to lead to the disclosure of facts which it is much better should be for the present concealed then it is better to have the debate in private or, as an alternative, not at all. The next logical question is who is to determine that matter. It cannot be the noble Lord who moves the Motion because he knows quite well what he is going to say and that he is not going to say anything which will either encourage the enemy or do any harm to the war effort of this country. But having made this speech he cannot tell where the matter is going to stop. He may make a criticism of the conduct of the war by the Government or a criticism of the conduct of the Minister of Production which would not do any harm to the war effort, but it is the answer to the criticism which may assist the enemy in some way which he cannot possibly avoid. I admit that the noble Lord has a very clear and perfectly logical answer to that. He says we should debate in public and as soon as some point comes up which the member of the Government who has to reply, or some other person, thinks is going to lead to some disclosure which is quite wrong, then we should go into Secret Session.
I ask your Lordships to consider how often that would take place in the course of a debate, whether every ten minutes or so somebody would be rising from his feet and asking the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, whether in his opinion—and his opinion would not of course be final—the matter would not be better discussed in private. He might say "Yes" and then we could have a debate to decide the point. Then, if we decided to go into Secret Session, we could hear something, and perhaps in another five minutes we should return to Public Session. Then, before long, the noble Lord who had moved the Motion, or perhaps some other noble Lord—which would be much more likely—would say something which again was trenching on debatable ground, and we should again have to adopt this ridiculous matter of 639 splitting the debate into public and private matters which would lead to I do not know how great an inconvenience to your Lordships' House. That would be an intolerable way of conducting a debate. I submit to your Lordships that a far better way is to determine the matter once and for all, and, in determining it, I suggest that it would be most wise that the Government, if they command the confidence of the House, should have very great weight given to the views which they express in the matter.
I am not one of those people who think that this Government, or any Government, is always right. I am not prepared to say that in the half dozen or more instances in which there has been a secret debate in recent days in this House, the Government acted rightly in every case. That is not my position at all. I am dealing only with the present Motion before the House. Discussion on Lord Winster's Motion, as anybody can realize, may trench upon secret matters of great importance to the enemy, and I can quite easily see that a partial defence to charges which the noble Lord may make would be most unsatisfactory, and that a complete defence might involve the disclosure of secrets. In those circumstances I submit to your Lordships that our proper course is, in this instance at any rate, to trust the Government and to agree with the Motion which has been proposed.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, if I may be allowed to do so I would like very briefly to put before the House an expression of my own feeling on a question of this kind. I think that other members of the House may feel as I do. I do not see how if the Government, with the full responsibility of a Government, say that this discussion should take place in private, it is possible, apart from very extreme cases, for the House to refuse to agree. At the same time it does seem to me a little unsatisfactory that the Government, merely on their own responsibility and without any guarantees that they are looking at the matter from a proper point of view in every respect, should be able to come down and extinguish public discussion on any subject they wish. I cannot help thinking that that is art unsatisfactory 640 position. I should be very glad to hear from the Government—if they thought there was anything in the suggestion—that they would consider whether some sort of procedure might be instituted to ensure some kind of guarantee being given that a request for private discussion of particular matters was not merely the result of Departmental pressure.
I have never yet come across a Government Department that did not think that any discussion of any of its activities ought not to take place in public. I may be thought to be going rather far but that has been my experience over what, I am sorry to say, has been a considerable period of public life. Therefore, I suggest that there is, and must be, in the minds of every one of us some doubt as to whether a demand for a private discussion has really been considered apart from the mere Departmental pressure for privacy that will always be applied. I do not know if anything can be done on the lines I have suggested, and I am not making any definite proposals, but I should be very glad to hear from the Government that they will be prepared to consider whether there is not some kind of procedure which will create a guarantee against undue pressure for private discussion in these matters.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I had not the advantage of hearing the original speech made by the noble Viscount or the greater part of the speech made by the Leader of the House on the position. But what has just fallen from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, impels me to say that I think there is much force in the point which he raises, that it is unfortunate that the Government should appear to be able to compel a discussion to be conducted in private without having any knowledge of the view that the House as a whole may take on a particular point. I would ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, therefore, to consider whether it would not be possible, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has suggested, to have some form of procedure, possibly by way of notice or of consultation with other responsible members of your Lordships' House, before it is decided to hold a discussion of this kind in secret. I quite see one difficulty which arises from the fact that in your Lordships' House there is 641 nobody, like Mr. Speaker in another place, who is able to give a final verdict on questions of order.
In this particular case the Motion on the Paper deals with the Ministry of Aircraft Production. But from some of the observations which fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Winster, it is quite evident that the discussion might cover a far wider field than that of aircraft production only, and might very easily turn into a debate on a question, or on a number of questions, of policy, affecting the air service generally. This, I can well believe, would make the Government reply more difficult. But, in the meantime, I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to consider if it is possible to proceed to some degree on the lines which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has just suggested.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes, but I feel bound to associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Winster as to holding this debate in secret. When we have the spectacle of the First Lord of the Admiralty going to the nation and asking the nation to support him in obtaining the proper aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm—the branch of the air service for which he is responsible—surely it is evident that it is coming to a grave condition. How is the nation to support the First Lord if it is not allowed any information on the subject? If the Government do not give the information, and if those who wish to bring the information to its notice are not allowed to do so, the nation cannot make up its mind. When you have the head of one of the great Departments of State asking the nation to support it, because apparently it cannot get on without support, and then we find the Government suggesting that the debate should take place in Secret Session, I suggest that there can be no greater criticism of the Government. We should be allowed to debate the question publicly and see whether there is anything in it. I do not think it would take long to prove that we ought to have better aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm, and that something ought to be done, after three and a half years of war, to equip more satisfactorily the least-well-equipped branch of His Majesty's Forces.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I think that we have had an interesting and important discussion, because this is clearly a question which has been causing a good deal of anxiety to your Lordships for some time past. I am very sorry that noble Lords—or some noble Lords, at any rate—were not convinced by what I said as to the necessity for a debate in Secret Session to-day. Before I go on to deal with the main issues which have been raised, I should like to make an explanation for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who apparently thought that I had been guilty of a certain discourtesy to him in this matter. It is true that I did not communicate with him until a late date, but that was because I had not heard, until the day on which I spoke to him, that he had put down his Motion for a named day. Directly I heard that it was down for a named day I communicated with him, and said that I was afraid that on that day I should have to move that the debate be held in Secret Session. I do not think that I allowed more than an hour to pass between receiving the information and attempting to get in touch with the noble Lord. My difficulty was that I could not find him, and for twenty-four hours I was pursuing him round London and the neighbourhood and unable to get in touch with him. I do not think that the Government can be held responsible for that. He suggested that I asked to see him in order to impose a kind of censorship. The very opposite was my purpose. It was the view of the Government, having in mind the wide terms of his Motion, that it would have to be discussed in Secret Session. I was anxious to avoid this if possible, and my object in asking the noble Lord to get in touch with me was to try to find some means by which the debate could be held in public. I hope, therefore, that he will not regard me as guilty of an attempt to gag him, because my object was exactly the opposite.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, was perhaps a little ungenerous in what he said this afternoon, because I had exactly the same experience with him not long ago. He put down a. Motion on security arrangements for convoys and for merchant shipping generally. That was a subject which obviously raised questions of security. However, I knew that your Lordships do not like Secret Sessions, and so I got in touch with the 643 noble Earl, and he gave me the assurance that he did not wish to bring in anything which would raise security issues, and therefore the debate was in fact held in public. I am not certain that some rather unfortunate things were not said in public, but at any rate the Government did do their utmost to see that the debate was not held in Secret Session.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNENot at all; I do not for a moment suggest it. I was only saying that I thought that certain things were said in that debate, perhaps inevitably, which gave rise to anxieties which eventually turned out to be unjustified; but at any rate the Government did their very utmost to see that that subject was discussed in public, which was the desire of the Government and, I am sure, of this House.
I could not help thinking, as I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Addison, that they were over-suspicious. Their suggestion, so far as I understood it, was that the Government had put down this Motion to-day because we could not face the storm of criticism which was coming against us, and so we were indulging in a rather shady sort of expedient to prevent the public hearing about the appalling things that we had done. That seemed to be the suggestion of the noble Lords. Do they really believe this? I do not for a moment think that they do; but, if they do, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who made a very wise speech, is certainly right in saying that they ought to turn us out. But they do not really think this. It is difficult to speak in public about what happens in Secret Sessions, but I do not think that any experience your Lordships have had has gone to show that the Government have been convicted of ill deeds on those occasions. On the contrary, if on occasion the Goverment welcome a Secret Session it is because it gives us an opportunity to put forward our full case, and not because we have anything to hide.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, put forward two alternative possibilities to a 644 Secret Session. The first was that debate should be held in public, and that the Government should give their reply, if they thought that it contained matters which would give information to the enemy, in Secret Session. That seems to me a dreadful form of procedure. Both the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, made tremendous play with the right of the public to know the facts, but what would the public learn in that way? They would hear one half the case and not the other half. They would, I am sure, hear an admirable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Winster, but they would hear nothing of the Government reply, and none of the facts in full. They would learn much less than if the whole debate was in public. The other alternative, as I understood it, was that the debate should be held in public, and that noble Lords should accept the fact that they would get a very inadequate reply. That is a possible alternative, but from the point of view of the British public I do not think that it is very much more satisfactory. A number of very trenchant questions would be put, causing great anxiety, and no answer could be given by the Government. It is not a question of the Government trying to be in a safe situation; the point is that that procedure would not be much use from the point of view of the British public.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has had great experience of Departmental administration, and so have I. Can be recall a case in which the Government had an adequate reply and could not make it in public? I cannot.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, I think that I could recall any number of such cases. It is rather difficult for me to quote in Public Session cases where an adequate reply was given in Secret Session, but I should be delighted to tell the noble Lord afterwards of numbers of them. Even in peace-time, the main anxiety of anyone who is Secretary of State or Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, will bear me out in this—is that he can never give the full case in public.
§ LORD ADDISONI said "adequate."
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThat is the reason, no doubt for the very unfortunate exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and myself at the time when I was at the Foreign Office to which he has referred. The effect of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Addison and Lord Winster, to-day, was that they stand on the right of any noble Lord to insist on a public discussion in war-time of any subject that he wishes, and they say that that is democracy. I think that one or both noble Lords used the expression that all public debate in this country is at present gagged.
§ LORD ADDISONNo.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI think that the word "gagged" was used, perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. Surely, no one could maintain that position. On the contrary, I should have thought that the free exercise of British institutions during the last three years, under conditions abnormal and dangerous in the extreme, has been the admiration of the world. Never before has there been such a record as this country has shown in the last three years. We have achieved a feat which I think would have been impossible in any other country in similar circumstances. During tins period of three years, your Lordships' House has steadily risen in public estimation, not because of Secret Sessions but because of Public Sessions. That should be an answer to those noble Lords who say that all expression of opinion at the present time is gagged.
§ LORD ADDISONWe never said so, or even suggested it.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNECertainly the noble Lord, Lord Winster, indicated that the situation was becoming impossible, since when any question of importance was raised the Government put down a Motion for a Secret Session. That is what I would call gagging free opinion if it was true; but it is surely not true, and the records of this House will show that it is not true. Now I believe passionately—and I think all your Lordships do—in the merits of Parliamentary democracy. I think it is the wisest and most stable system which has yet been devised by the wit of man. But it does depend upon a due sense of responsibility on the part of those who operate it, and 646 I cannot but feel that noble Lords who press for public discussion on every subject in war-time are not showing the due sense of responsibility which they should. If his Majesty's Government acceded to any request which is made to them—and a request is made in every case where a Motion for a Secret Session is put down; not in some only, but in every single case when a Motion for a Secret Session is put down there is opposition from some noble Lords opposite—if the Government acceded to the request and said things which should not be said, it would not only injure the national interest but it would inflict a severe blow on the authority of Parliament itself. My noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood was, I think, worried because he felt that some of these decisions on the question of Secret Sessions were really Departmental decisions.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODI do not want to put it as high as that, but I think my noble friend will agree that it does raise a great deal of doubt and discussion in the public mind, and if it were possible to find some way of alleviating that doubt I think it would be as well.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI was going to say that this is clearly a very important point. I think noble Lords know that no decision of this kind is taken except after discussion with the responsible Ministers concerned, but it may be that there is something further that can be done to make certain that no frivolous Motion for a Secret Session is introduced, and I shall be very glad if noble Lords will allow me to consider that. If we can devise any machinery we will. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said he had heard my arguments several times. I can assure him that that does not mean that they are not good arguments. We fully appreciate noble Lords' dislike of Secret Sessions as a general principle, and I shall be very glad to look into the machinery to try and find if some arrangement satisfactory to all noble Lords can be made, but I am afraid His Majesty's Government must press this Motion to-day.
§ LORD WINSTERBefore the noble Viscount concludes, will be deal with the point that this matter was debated in another place in public on a Motion just as wide as the Motion standing in my name?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThat is a new point to me, and I would like to look into it. But in this particular case the noble Lord was good enough to let me—or rather my noble friend Lord Sherwood—see what he was going to say, and I think he will agree that while there are things in it which it would be completely discreet for him to say, yet they are things to which it would be very difficult for the Government to give any satisfactory answer in public. I do not know the practice in another place, but it may be that those who raise the Motion there got an answer not entirely satisfactory to them.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.