§ 2.48 p.m.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To request Her Majesty's Government, in view of the statements of the Minister of Defence in another place yesterday, immediately to lay a White Paper for Parliament covering the whole of their Defence policy, so as to give time for it to be studied before the debate on defence in this House on March 13 next.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, the statements made by my right honourable friend were in a very general form, and therefore I do not think it would serve a useful purpose to present them in a White Paper at this stage. My right honourable friend promised that further detailed proposals would be placed before Parliament in the summer. Apart from this, as I said in reply to a Question by the noble Earl last week, there have been no fundamental changes in our Defence policy, and therefore Her Majesty's Government see no need to add to the Statement on Defence, 1963, Command 1936, published on February 20.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that this only confirms our view of the growing contempt which the Government have for Parliament? It is happening in case after case. We are to have no Economic Survey this year: it is not necessary. Or are they short of white paper? We have had difficulties in many other directions, and here we now have a deliberate attempt, it seems to us, to evade proper cross-examination on the Defence policy of the Government, in that we have no real statement by the Minister of Defence and the Government come in at the last moment with completely new, detailed views about reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence with no prior notice or detailed White Paper. They did not treat Parliament like that in 1958. Why should they now? Why bring Parliament into contempt?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, nobody would be more critical or surprised than the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition if the Government brought in an entirely new Defence policy every year in the middle of February just because it happened to be the middle of February. Last year the Government produced a Defence White Paper looking forward over the next five years, and there have been no fundamental changes in the Government's policy since then. With regard to the second question, the question of the proposals which were outlined by my right honourable friend in another place yesterday, as I have said they were in very general form, and there is, of course, no reason why they should not be discussed—indeed there is every reason why they should be—and the Government will want to know the views of all Parties and organisations concerned, including your Lordships.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in view of the fact that the general proposals of the Minister of Defence given yesterday appeared in the Daily Express of yesterday morning, can the noble Lord say whether that report was "leaked" to that paper, or was it a question again that the security within the Defence Ministry is at stake?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am glad to say that I am not responsible for what appears in the Daily Express.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, surely it was the case that the Minister of Defence yesterday made a statement about the future organisation of the Defence Departments which he must have thought about before he made it. Was not Parliament entitled to know, in advance of that statement, the ideas of the Government, whether general or specific, so that honourable Members in another place could have been forewarned as to what was coming? And if your Lordships are going to have a debate within a fortnight, surely we ought to have information as to what the general statement of the Minister meant. Surely the Minister has not made a general statement without knowing how it is to be applied. Is it not the case that newspapers this morning are making a number of contradictory guesses as to what it all means?—and I do not blame them. 329 Surely my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that it is not treating Parliament with proper respect when the Government refuse to give information and now refuse to inform us on the application of the information that was given yesterday on a matter of vital national importance.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords before the noble Lord answers might I put this question? Is not this proliferation of White Papers a more or less recent development, and has it not traditionally been the practice of all Governments that great Government pronouncements of policy have in the past, and most conveniently, been made by statements either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister most directly concerned? Has there not frequently been criticism, not least from the other side of the House, that where a White Paper is put forward which contains more than the most jejune objective statements but no justification, that is an improper thing to put in a White Paper and ought to be in the ministerial statement?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask particularly that we first have an answer to my noble friend's question before the noble Lord considers the details of the speech just made?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. That seems to me an exact statement of the position. It seems to me—and I say it with great deference to the noble Earl, because he is a great expert—that it is rather novel to say it is improper for the Government to make an important statement to the House of Commons. I thought that was exactly what its purpose was. Certainly my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence thought that in a matter of this constitutional significance the House of Commons was the proper forum, and that he should make his statement on the Floor of that House. I am afraid that I do not quite see what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, or the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, have to complain about, since they have seen the statement which my right honourable friend made in another place yesterday and they have ample time to consider it and read it before the debate next week.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I would say at once, in reply to that, that the general statement—described as "general" by the First Lord himself—does not give anything like the details which ought to accompany the ground covered yesterday by the statement of the Minister of Defence. It ought to include an explanation of what it means in every respect to the three Service Departments. It is quite improper for him to have evaded his responsibilites to Parliament in the manner he has done. Nor do I accept at all that there has been no change from the policy of the last White Paper. There have been very considerable changes in the last twelve months. If the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, would have a look at what is going to be the future of the Royal Air Force as a result of the changes, perhaps that will help him.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think the noble Earl is mistaken on both counts. My right honourable friend made it quite clear yesterday that certain decisions, in principle about reorganisation of Defence, had been taken, and that later on in the summer further details would be given to Parliament. He was giving advance notice of what it was intended to do. Discussion will take place between now and the summer, when further details will be given.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to note—and perhaps other noble Lords may take notice—that, if this is to be the kind of practice adopted in the future by the Government, they must not complain if the next Government, when they come in, follow suit.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, does my noble friend not think that if all statements are to be made by White Paper and not in debate, then the country as a whole, and the Press, will discuss everything before Members of this House and the other have time to discuss it? If we continue a policy of simply putting out White Papers, or replies from the Opposition to the White Papers, shall we conduct Parliamentary work simply on a correspondence basis?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I think sometimes it is better to do it one way, and sometimes another.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, is it not a fact that for at least thirty years we have had Statements on Defence and that that practice was introduced just to avoid the very scrappy debates on Defence which we used to have when it was all purely departmental; and therefore we have been led to expect, in a Statement on Defence, a major statement on policy? It is rather an extraordinary thing that Members having a White Paper given to them by the Government on which to consider the debate should suddenly be met by something entirely different, of which no hint has been given. I suggest that that is contrary to the ordinary courtesy to Parliament.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not think so. The White Paper in 1962 looked forward five years. There has been no fundamental change in Defence policy since then. The only matter of real significance has been the Nassau Agreement, and there has been a White Paper on the Nassau Agreement; indeed there was a two-day debate on it in another place, although we did not have one in your Lordships' House.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, will the noble Lord say, if there is any validity in the points made in the two questions put to him from his own side, whether he will inquire as to how a statement made by the Minister of Defence yesterday was "leaked" to a newspaper which published that report practically exactly yesterday morning?
§ LORD CARRINGTONYes; I certainly will make inquiries.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, are we to understand that the Government came to a general conclusion about the future organisation of the Defence Ministry and other Departments without considering how they were going to implement it? Did the noble Lord not say that they have come only to a general conclusion, that the Minister made only a general statement, and that its application and details will be worked out later? Is it good government to come to a broad conclusion first and then find out how you are going to implement it afterwards?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should have thought that it was extremely courteous of my right honourable friend 332 the Minister of Defence, and deferential to Parliament, that he made the earliest possible announcement of his intentions to another place.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is not this just another example of what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury calls "shuffling along", instead of getting the job done?