§ Captain CrookshankMay I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the Business for next week?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)Perhaps the House will forgive me if I refer first to the Business for this week. As the House is aware, a Debate on India will take place today and will continue tomorrow. We hope to conclude the Debate on India to-morrow at about 2.30 p.m., in order to allow time for the Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.
With regard to next week, the Business will be as follows:
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 16th, 17th and 18th December—Second Reading of the Transport Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday, 19th December—Report and Third Reading of the Exchange Control Bill.
Friday, 20th December—Adjournment for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 21st January, 1947.
During the week we hope to take the Committee and remaining stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, and to consider the Motion relating to transport facilities for hon. Members and others when the House sits late and normal services are not available.
§ Captain CrookshankI take it that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Motion about transport is not necessarily an agreed one and that there may be considerable Debate upon it. May I also ask him whether I am right in assuming that the Committee stage of the Transport Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?
§ Mr. MorrisonWith regard to transport facilities, I understand that there may be certain class conflicts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is a certain amount of conflict between hon. Members who have not private cars and those who have. If there is discussion about that, it must proceed, but we take the view that if the House is sitting late, and normal transport has finished, it is not improper that Government and public authority should try to help hon. Members to get home. In any case they will have to pay the appropriate fare. Still, if there is to be debate, there will have to be debate. With regard to the Transport Bill, it is unusual for us to anticipate, by indicating whether a Bill will be taken on the Floor or upstairs. However, we are very near the event now and since this is a Bill of some importance, I think it right to tell the House that we propose to take the Bill upstairs in Standing Committee.
§ Mr. PickthornMay I ask the Lord President whether any one has ever doubted that to deprive all His Majesty's subjects of all uncontrolled right to transport themselves goods was to cut at the roots of liberty and of the Constitution?
§ Mr. PickthornWait a minute. Secondly, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers his principle that every Bill which could be said to contain serious constitutional implication? would be taken upon the Floor?
§ Mr. MorrisonThis modest Transport Bill does not involve any serious constitutional principles at all. It merely deals with the question of whether transport undertakings are to be owned by a public corporation promoted by the State, or by private capitalists running them for their own profit. That is all, and it is not a matter of serious constitutional principle It is a mere matter of expediency—which is the best way to run the transport system 1340 of the country. Really, the hon. Gentle man who represents Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) should not get so excited about it. Cambridge University ought to have a real professor of public administration.
§ Mr. ChurchillI apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not being in my place earlier and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that I was not here when the question of Business was raised, but I had some other preoccupations in view of the Debate which is about to begin. May I ask, in view of this very grave announcement, whether the Transport Bill does not affect the right of every person to move himself or his goods, unless it be upon his own feet; and does it not go to the very heart of the life of the whole nation? Is the right hon Gentleman going to deprive the House of the opportunity of considering this on the Floor by relegating it to a Standing Committee; and does he really think that progress of public business will be accelerated thereby, or that the passage of this Bill will be made more acceptable to the country as a whole?
§ Mr. MorrisonWith regard to the progress of public business, I am perfectly sure it will be accelerated. I have no doubt about it. With regard to the other point, it is not a question of the liberty of the individual as to how far he walks or rides. The question is how best he can ride, and we believe he can best ride by our methods as opposed to the old.
§ Mr. ChurchillThe right hon. Gentleman was very careful in his announcement to make sure that that issue is not fairly debated in the House of Commons and on the Floor May I enter at this stage my protest on behalf of the Opposition a: this abuse of the use of Standing Committees upstairs, and of the withholding from the House, and from all the hon. Members in the House not represented on the Standing Committee, of the right to take part in a Debate which is on the principal Bill of the Session and intimately involves the whole life of the country?
§ Mr. MorrisonI will take special note of the right hon. Gentleman's protest. I would only say that this procedure of Standing Committees upstairs was very wisely and sensibly invented by a Liberal Government of which he was a Member, and we are following in their footsteps—
§ Mr. ChurchillThat procedure is very grossly and excessively abused by a Socialist Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member. It is monstrous.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think I ought to point out to the House that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly in Order when he made his protest against this procedure. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but we are not really entitled to discuss this matter at length. After all, the Motion which will eventually be put before the House is one which must be put without Question or Debate. We cannot, therefore, anticipate it by a Debate now, and by questions on Business. This is a matter which would be perfectly in Order and very relevant on the Second Reading Debate, when the point can be made and stressed, and it can be pointed out before the Division that it is a serious matter. I, therefore, give that warning to hon. Members.
§ Major Guy LloydI desire to raise another point, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the announcement that the Transport Bill will be taken next week Will the Government not give consideration to the grave anxieties of the public with regard to other much more important questions— foreign affairs, Palestine, and so on? Why must the Government ignore these clamorous demands, and press on with purely Socialistic Measures?
§ Mr. MorrisonWe are not ignoring other matters. As a matter of fact, this Bill will have been before the public and the House for some time. The Bill was presented on 27th November, and copies have been available since 29th November. Therefore, the Bill has been in the hands of hon. Members and before the country for two clear weeks, which I really do not think is treating the situation at all badly.
§ Major Legge-BourkeMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the Government have decided to take the Transport Bill next week, they now consider that the chaos in British transport is at present greater than the chaos in Palestine, where the lives of British soldiers are being lost?
§ Mr. MorrisonIf I may say so, I think that is a far flight of imagination. This country's transport must be organised and 1342 taken care of. In the meantime, I quite agree that the Government has a duty to attach itself to and concentrate on problems in connection with Palestine. Both things are being done.
§ Mr. StokesMay I ask the Leader of the House whether he has yet had time to consider the representations that have been made through the usual channels with regard to the order of Questions and whether he realises that before this Session, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answered Questions every day? The situation has since been changed and the Chancellor of the Duchy has answered Questions only once a week. After Christmas we may find ourselves in the ridiculous position that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give verbal answers to Questions about Austria or Germany until the middle of February. Can it not be arranged for the Chancellor of the Duchy to answer Questions on two days a week instead of one?
§ Mr. MorrisonI think it was clearly the opinion of the House that when the Chancellor of the Duchy was replying every day it was blocking Questions which had been put down to other Ministers. Therefore, we made it once a week. As far as I remember, the Questions of the Chancellor of the Duchy have usually been reached, and the same will be true when we come back.
§ Mr. StokesMay I point out that that is not the case? If the right hon. Gentleman studies the order of batting, he will find that the Chancellor of the Duchy will not get an innings until the end of February. Can he not arrange it so that the Chancellor of the Duchy would answer Questions on two days a week?
§ Mr. MorrisonI sympathise with my hon. Friend because I know of the deep and very sincere interest which he takes in these matters—
§ Mr. James HudsonThere are many more hon. Members who do
§ Mr. Morrison—but the tact is that there are other hon. Members who take an equally sincere interest in other matters. If we put the Chancellor of the Duchy in a special position, other hon. Members who want to put Questions to other Ministers will not be able to do so.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay I give the right hon. Gentleman preliminary notice that if he persists in his intention to send the major Bills of the Session up to Standing Committees, the Opposition will consider requesting time for discussing the whole matter on a Vote of Censure when we return after the Christmas Recess?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIn view of the fact that last week the right hon. Gentleman admitted the desirability of a Debate upon important questions affecting the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman say why that Debate should not be given equal importance next week, with the Transport Bill?
§ Mr. MorrisonBecause the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition thought, despite the warnings of the Government, that an immediate Debate on India was more important than a Debate on the Army.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterArising out of that answer, the right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I was putting to him the question whether that important subject and the Army could not be debated next week in preference to the Transport Bill?
§ Mr. MorrisonAll the Opposition is doing is trying to evade, postpone and obstruct the socialisation of industry. —[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Churchill rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot listen to both right hon. Gentlemen at the same time. I think we should wait to hear what the Lord President of the Council has to say.
§ Mr. ChurchillOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask you whether the preferring of a charge of obstruction, in those very words, is not well known to be out of Order according to the Rules of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is within the Rules of the House. I have had that question raised before. I cannot think why the impression got abroad that the word "obstruction" is one not to be used. It is a Parliamentary charge which can be made, and I have often taken part in such discussions myself. In Erskine May it is laid down that it is a Parliamentary expression.
§ Mr. MorrisonIf I may now, Mr. Speaker, conclude the second half of my answer—indeed, the second half of my sentence—it is this. We think Chat this Bill for the socialisation of transport is, on balance, more urgent than a discussion about the Territorial Army.
§ Mr. ChurchillThank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling upon the subject, and I apologise to the House for being in error. For a great many years while I have been in this House that was considered to be the Rule, and as it has become changed in the course of time, I regret that I have not kept myself up to date.
§ Earl WintertonOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough further to explain your Ruling and to say whether it is laid down that it is perfectly in Order to accuse an hon. Member or a party of obstruction? May I respectfully call your attention to the fact that, again and again, in the course of the last 20 years when such a charge has been made, either the higher or the lower Chair has ruled it out of Order?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt occurs on page 432 of Erskine May. It comes in under (n). Before the noble Lord rose on a point of Order, I was going to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for withdrawing so courteously.
§ Lieut.-Commander Gurney BraithwaiteMay I ask the Leader of the House a question on the Exchange Control Bill which is announced to be taken next Thursday? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the Committee stage, the Government promised reconsideration of a large number of matters, on the strength of which many Amendments put down by us were withdrawn? In view of that fact, is he satisfied that one day is sufficient for what is bound to be a lengthy Report stage; and will it allow adequate time for the Third Reading to be taken at a reasonable hour?
§ Mr. MorrisonThe hon. and gallant Gentleman may be assured that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give sympathetic consideration to the points that arose on the Committee stage, and upon which he promised further consideration. But three days were given to the Committee stage of the Bill, which was completed on Monday, and we did not think it unreasonable that the House should be 1345 asked to take the Report stage and the Third Reading on Thursday. I hope it will so work out.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteAt whatever hour it may be?
§ Mr. MorrisonWe shall smell the atmosphere in the meantime and see whether it is necessary to suspend the Rule.
§ Mr. McGheeMay I ask the Leader of the House when the Bill on compensation and betterment will be published?
§ Mr. MorrisonThat Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech; it is under consideration, and I hope it will be available in the not distant future.