July 24, 2013

PRIME MINISTER’S QUESTIONS: FINEST HOUR 124, AUTUMN 2004

EDITED AND ANNOTATED BY PAUL H. COURTENAY

===================

Question Time is that period in the Parliamentary week where Members are allowed to ask the Prime Minister any question, governed only by decorum and the judgment of the Speaker as to whether they are genuinely asking questions or (as is commonly the case) giving a speech. Churchill was a master of Question Time, as Paul Courtenay demonstrates.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

On 18 March 1943 a Member asked for a statement on the practice of Government departments employing historians to write the war histories of the departments. WSC: “Experience has shown the need for having available a record of the development of war-time administration of Government departments, and that such a record cannot be adequately compiled if it is left entirely until the end of hostilities.”

A Member asked whether, in the histories of these Government departments, “a few interpolations” from outside sources would be allowed. WSC: “There is no reason why persons in unofficial positions should not compile histories of their own activities during the war, and I trust I may be given the opportunity of making some interpolations of my own.”

A Member asked whether the PM was himself compiling notes “for the great benefit of us all in the future?” WSC: “My time is wholly given to the State.”

SUBMARINE SHELTERS

On 15 April 1943 a Member asked what damage had been done to submarine shelters at Lorient and St. Nazaire by the recent intensive bombing. WSC: “Some damage has been done to the shelters, but serious damage was not expected. The object of the attacks was to cause dislocation to the repair, transport and power facilities offered by these bases to U-boats. In this respect a considerable measure of success has been achieved.”

HOW MANY FRONTS?

On 30 March 1943 a Member asked on how many fronts His Majesty’s land, sea and air forces were engaged or in position. WSC: “…three fronts—in North Africa, in Burma and in the South-West Pacific. It would not be in the public interest to state on what other fronts they are now in position….the term ‘front’ is hardly appropriate.His Majesty’s ships have to operate continuously on all the oceans of the globe. The areas in which our air forces are engaged may be defined as follows:Western Europe, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, India, and Burma, the Pacific.”

Replying to another Member, who asked that the use of “that very misleading phrase ‘Second Front'” should be discontinued, the PM said: “No, Sir; I do not want to discourage the use of it, because our good friends, fighting so hard, know very well what they mean by it.” [See also the “Second Front” debate on pages 31-37. —Ed.]

RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD

On 31 March 1943 a Member asked whether the PM’s attention had been drawn to the fact that Statutory Rule and Order No. 2533 of 1942 was made under the Defence Regulations when similar powers had been provided for such an Order under the Road Traffic Act 1930, and whether he would give an assurance that Orders made under the Defence Regulations would not in future be used for purposes of indirectly increasing penalties in cases where the law was not otherwise changed.

WSC: “…the Road Traffic Act 1930 was designed for the regulation of traffic in peace-time in the interests of public safety and the prevention of damage to road surfaces, and it would have been inappropriate to use it to meet a war-time need for which it was never intended. The sole purpose of the Order to which my hon. Friend refers is to conserve rubber as a measure of war economy, and as such it is appropriate that it should be made under the Defence Regulations. The suggestion in the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.”

U-BOAT WAR

On 13 April 1943 a Member drew attention to Col. Knox, the United States Secretary of the Navy, who had stated that shipping losses in March exceeded those in February, adding that there was “considerable disquiet” about this statement. WSC: “I agree with Colonel Knox that the results of U-boat warfare are serious, as they always must be. His statement, however, refers to a limited period following one in which sinkings were comparatively small. Viewing the battle against the U-boats as a whole, I can repeat my previous assurance that we are more than holding our own. I do not want to give exact information, which would be of great advantage to the enemy…”

The Member then drew attention to a statement by the Minister of Aircraft Production that “we have not mastered the U-boat.” WSC: “The actual significance of the word ‘master’ is, of course, open to discussion. I should prefer my phrase ‘more than holding our own.”