UPROAR IN COMMONS

Chronicle (Levin), 14 March 1947, Page 5

UPROAR IN COMMONS

(Special Correspondent.)

Scene Fo1!qw3 Minister's . Accusation ATTACK ON OPPOSITJON

LONDON, Mar. 12. The seciond day of the big House o. Commons debate on Britain 's economi. position found members in a disappoint ed mood. This was chiefly becauie onf eiglit of the 110 back-benchers who ha. intimated to the Speaker that. t'he wanted to take part had caught his ey and been able to speak. The mood found expression wlien si: Labour members voted against th Government on a motion that the dc bate should be adjourned until todai One suggestion had been that the dc bate should continue for a week, bu the Lord Privv Seal (Mr. Arthu Greenwood), "repelling imaginary hosts with his right ann", declared that no more time could be gi'ven. The cairn atmosphere in whicli thc House had listened to various spea)ter& was rudely shatteiecl in the closing stages last night when the Minister o. Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander), attac^ ing the Dpposition for talking "thi: old piffle and poppycock", declareq that Britain had heen led into war by the Conservative Pafty. Uproar i'ol lowed and resulted in what was described as the angriest scene of this Parliament. Mr.. Alexander also had a bruslt witi. a Labour back-bencher, Air. L. Cal laghan, wlio made a forceful criticis... of the Governnient 's policy » on th armed forces. " lf we had a courageous Minister o Defence,'' lie declared, "he would g> to Cabinet and udvise tliat, vvhile tiie. were risks, they should reduce th armed forces in order to get men bac into civilian life. The Minister o Defence is wroug. He is cripplin, Britain 's economic recoverv by maui tainiug such forces and letting men ou in dribblets under the pressure o public opinion. " Mr. Alexander replied: " It is eisential that the fruit of seven years intensive war efl'ort should not now b tlirown away by tlie illconsidered jetti soning of defence responsibilities. " He addcd: "We shall have to cou tinue to meet our commitments, botl current and loug-term. L hope ver\ much that, in regard to current com mitiuents, there may be developmcnt to ennblc His to reduce slightly th strengtli of the armed forces as a present estimated." He added that the Government 's es pert advisers could not at present se what were the answers to the method.of future warfare, but the Governmeiu was determinod to make whatever cou tribution might lie called for to maki collective security an eft'ective instrn ment of peace. He was convinced tha general agreements on disannamen would iiot'be." sccuVed OYI- disarmamen merely by uuilateral action. More will be lieard ' on the subjec when the Army Estimates are debate on Tliursday. The sharpest criticism of the Goveru meut during the debate so far ha eome from Mr. Cleiuent Davies, th * Lilieral Leader, who cliarged Bi Stafford Cripps with adding not h ing t the Wlvite Paper, which, he chiimed had been anticipated in nearly ever\ thing bv the Coalition Wliite Paper o 1944. Mr. Davies argued that the probleni of transition had been toroneen an analysed at that time, so that th Government was left with no cxcuse fo having sat down until "creepin paralysis" and "catastrophe" ha overtaken the country. Tio declared that tlie Government Ua.' no plan, because the ilinisters were to> immevsed in legislation to attend t administration. He called for i balanced Budget by reduced expendi ture and a eut in, tlie armed. forces Wliy, lie asked, should America' an«| thDominions cnt their forces and*" no Britain? The Conservatives cheered his earlie. remarks and several Labour member his latter eomment. At the end of the second day th» general opinion seems to be that th Government has not gone much bc yond the survev in the White Paper. The Times eominents that th debate has shed little light so far 011 tlv more important issues of planning.