§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to take any legal action against the Prime Minister on the ground that she encouraged the Chiefs of Staff to resign in the event of the Labour Party winning the general election.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers)My Lords, I assume the noble Lord's Question refers to an interview with the Prime Minister on 8th June 1987 on the BBC television programme "Panorama". Remarks made by the Prime Minister during that interview did not begin to constitute any encouragement to the Chiefs of Staff to resign.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I owe an apology to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. When I asked my first Question last Monday I omitted to welcome him to his new office, and I do so today unreservedly. Perhaps I may also add that many noble Lords and I personally will very much miss his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and that we hope that the present Lord Chancellor will possess a similar sense of humour to that to which we have become accustomed over the past few years. The noble and learned Lord said something which concerned some of us, on which we should like enlightenment and that was his comment that he had been briefed on the action and attitude—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I ask for comment from the noble and learned Lord that he had been briefed on different Members of this House, which sounds somewhat peculiar—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite correct in his reference to my Question—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I ask whether the noble and learned Lord is aware that the words spoken by the Prime Minister on the occasion to which he refers consisted of these words—I am reading because this is a quotation:
The chiefs of staff have to make up their own mind—each person is responsible for what he decides".That is fair. She went on to say:I know what I would do. I could not be responsible for the men under me in these circumstances"—that is, if there were a non-nuclear policy.It would not be fair to put them in the field if we did not have nuclear weapons—I know what I would do".Does the noble and learned Lord recall that during the 1920s Mr. Saklatvala, who was then the Member of Parliament for Battersea North, was tried, convicted and imprisoned for encouraging the Armed Forces to refuse to break a strike?
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House—
§ Lord Hatch of Lusby—what is the difference in principle between the case of Mr. Saklatvala and the case of the Prime Minister in 1987 as regards encouraging the Armed Forces to disobey the orders of the elected government?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I must say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for the kind words that he spoke. So far as concerns my being briefed, I think there would be no predecessor or successor of mine who would not be curious about the people he would be working with, and I was very well briefed. In regard to the noble Lord's last remarks quoting from a "Panorama" interview, I regret very much that the noble Lord left out the vital answer that the Prime Minister gave. He said:
I know what I would do",and stopped. The Prime Minister went on:But they are free to make their decision.I regret that that was not made clear.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that as a matter of order for the Order Paper this Question would have been a not very welcome one in any circumstances, but it would have been more formally correct if instead of the word "encouraged" there had been the word "invited"?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the noble Lord has perhaps rewritten something that is now part of history. But it was a Question which I must say I regretted had to be asked.
§ Lord MellishMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a very prominent and devout member of the Labour Party, made a speech in which he said that if the Labour Party's present defence policy 243 continues it will never get office again? Personally I support that. That being so, would it not be a good idea if the noble and learned Lord was good enough to get a copy of that speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and let the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, have it?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord is inviting me to do something which is not within my power. I somehow wish it were.
§ The Earl of LongfordMy Lords, all I would say about that speech, which was quite short and no worse than my usual efforts over 40 years, is that I asserted that the distinctive doctrine of the Labour Party is that everybody is of infinite value in this house of God. That was the point of the speech. The noble Lord seems to have missed that one.
§ Baroness NicolMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that though I regret the way in which this Question has been discussed, nevertheless I think that there is a question to be answered? Is the noble and learned Lord aware that a number of politically uncommitted people were worried by that interview, and by the tone in which the questions were answered? I think we would do well not to dismiss it too lightly.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, have we not had enough of it?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I have nothing but the transcript. I was fortunate enough to be abroad when it was broadcast.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord—
§ Lord Hatch of Lusby—was unfair to me. Will he accept from me that I deliberately quoted the beginning of that interview where the Prime Minister said:
The chiefs of staff have to make up their own mind—each person is responsible for what he decides"?That is exactly the same as the additional quotation which the noble and learned Lord gave. I was perfectly fair in this. But he has not answered my question as to what is the difference in principle between what the Prime Minister did in 1987 and what Mr. Saklatvala did in 1926, for which he was imprisoned.Is the implication of what the noble and learned Lord is saying that now all those who are opposed to nuclear weapons are entitled to do as the Prime Minister did, and to try to persuade members of the Armed Forces to resign from those forces or to disobey orders if they are ordered to use nuclear weapons? Are we entitled to the same rights as the Prime Minister?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the noble Lord read out an entirely different part of the right honourable lady's answer. What I complained of, and I maintain my complaint, is that he then said:
I know what I would do",but forgot to continue:But they are free to make their decision'",which was in—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords—
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me and not interrupt me? That was in an entirely different part of her long answer. So far as concerns any comparison, I doubt whether the noble Lord's view is shared by anybody in this noble Chamber.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords—
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, I am sorry. I do not think that the noble Lord saw me rise. I know that it is difficult not to see me sometimes, but I do not think that he saw me on this occasion. I hope that he will realise that he is testing the feelings of the House a very long way and that on the whole he has had a very good run. Many of us disapprove deeply of what he has tried to do but we have been at our most patient. I hope that he will realise that and will not proceed further with his question.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I accept what the noble Viscount says, but all I was doing was to point out that my second question had not been answered.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting and understanding what I said to him. I hope that he will not put any further glosses on that understanding.