§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the matter of measures relating to the defence of the United Kingdom any consultation has taken 839 place between the Government and leaders of the Opposition.
§ Lord BESWICKNone, my Lords, apart from the usual exchanges which take place between the Government and the Opposition in the normal course of Parliamentary business.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is there not some information, which it is not desirable to make public, which ought to be conveyed to leaders and members of the Opposition in the interests of military security? Is my noble friend aware that this was customary in the past? For example, when the late Mr. Churchill was Prime Minister after 1951 he called together, in special circumstances, certain leaders and members of the Opposition—Privy Councillors, in particular—who had taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, in order to disclose information which could not be made public. Is it not desirable that this should continue?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I think that my noble friend's memory, which is a very long one, is slightly at fault. There was an occasion in 1949 when leaders of the then Opposition met with the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and an occasion in 1954 when Sir Winston Churchill offered the same facilities to the Opposition leaders, but on that occasion the offer was not taken up. Certainly, if Opposition leaders today asked for a briefing or a presentation such a request would be sympathetically considered. I might add that the Defence Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee in another place has arrangements under which classified information is made available.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that his memory is a little faulty? Certainly it is not as good as mine, because I recall being invited by the late Mr. Churchill to attend a meeting of Defence Ministers, ex-Defence Ministers and Secretaries of State for War. I attended the meeting myself--in fact, more than one meeting—when we discussed military measures which it was desirable should not be made public. Is he aware that this was not in 1949 with Lord Attlee—that was natural at the time—or in 1954, but immediately after Mr. Churchill had resumed Office after 840 1951? May I also ask whether it would not be desirable in the international situation, and a great deal of confusion about our military strength, that we might appoint something in the nature of an all-Party defence committee to deal with defence matters or, at any rate, to ascertain exactly what is behind much of the military estimates?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, so far as the record is concerned, I am afraid I do not rely on my memory; I am reading from the book. On 16th December 1948, Mr. Churchill asked Mr. Attlee whether he would be prepared to receive a deputation on defence matters. Mr. Attlee agreed in principle. Meetings were held on 13th July, 20th July and 20th October 1949. In 1950, Mr. Churchill asked Mr. Attlee for a secret session on defence. Mr. Attlee refused but suggested that the confidential defence discussions might be resumed. In the House of Commons on 1st December 1954, Mr. Churchill made an offer to have talks with the Opposition on defence matters. Mr. Attlee replied that he preferred to allow the matter to rest until after the Service Estimates had been discussed. According to the records—which may be wrong; and my noble friend's memory may be right—nothing further was done at that stage.
§ Lord MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, and other questions he has asked recently, is the conception that while we have Party Government, and that is right, in times of crisis the essential unity of Britain is something extremely important?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I know my noble friend feels that, and of course I absolutely agree. Both he and I in another place pressed for an all-Party committee in which all matters could be discussed openly. I think it was possibly in response to the sort of pressure that has been made that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committte now have classified information available to them.
§ Lord CLITHEROEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before the 1914 war regular consultations used to take place?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, my book does not go back as far as that.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware—in fact, I know that he is—that in matters of defence Oppositions get out of date more quickly than on any other subject, because of the classified area of the subject? Generally speaking, would he not agree that when these meetings take place, if they do, there is advantage not just to the Opposition but also to the Government for it certainly helps informed debate.
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is right. As I have said, I am equally sure that a request from the Opposition leaders would be very sympathetically considered.
§ Lord LEE of NEWTONMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the late Sir Winston Churchill resolved the problem by asking for a secret session; and when it was refused he "spied strangers", cleared the whole of the Gallery and had his secret session anyway?
§ Lord BOURNEMy Lords, does the noble Lord realise that this subject has been raised earlier? During the first four years when I spoke on defence matters, I suggested an Armed Forces committee, as they have in America; and it was always turned down by the Government?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Lord means by an "Armed Forces committee". I have given details of the Parliamentary Sub-Committee to which classified information is now being made available. I have also said that arrangements have been made in the past, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell reminded me, although there was a difference about the dates; and for the future I have said that if there were a request from the leaders of the Opposition for a presentation it would be sympathetically considered. In reply to my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton, I fear that on the occasions to which he referred I was not engaged in Parliamentary business but was otherwise occupied.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that secret sessions occurred frequently during the period 842 of the last war? That is quite a different matter and quite irrelevant to the Question that I asked. May I have an assurance—for this is a serious matter—in view of some doubts and disquiet about our military strength, that it is desirable that frequent consultations should occur between the Government and responsibly leaders of the Opposition, so that there is satisfaction that, in the circumstances, our security is regarded as effective as it is possible to be? Would that not be a desirable thing to do?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I do not necessarily accept the implications of the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question; and as to the second part I think I have answered it. But if he taxes his memory further, he will probably recall that there were reasons at the time (and my noble friend was then spokesman for the Opposition in the 1950s) which it was thought were valid, which precluded the Opposition then asking for information. I think that the idea then was that it might limit defence. I have said, and I emphasise that if any request is now made it will be sympathetically considered.
§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, am I right in thinking that there is a traditional practice whereby the Prime Minister keeps the Leader of the Opposition, both of them being sworn to the Privy Council, cognisant of any major policy matters in foreign affairs or defence, particularly if any emergency arises?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is right.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware there is no barrier that has been erected which prevents the Leader of the Opposition, if he feels so disposed, from having consultations with the Prime Minister as such? I have seen this in action and I know it to be true.
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, my noble friend expresses it more clearly than I was able to do.