§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEIt may be for the convenience of the House that I should put a Question to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington)—whether he can give the House any further information as to the course it is proposed to take with regard to Public Business? We have been a little bewildered of late by the Notices which have appeared on the Paper and disappeared. But, as far as I understand the course proposed is to take the Peace Preservation Bill as the First Order of the Day, under the Order of precedence of the 26th of January, and which I understand you, Sir, consider to be still in force; and that the noble Lord intends, before the Motion on that subject is proposed, to ask the House to declare that the Bill is urgent, and that the House shall vote Public Business to be urgent. So far the course is clear. We are most anxious to assist the Government in the difficulties in which they find themselves; but we are also anxious for further in form action as to the statement which I understand was made last night, when I was, unfortunately, not present, with regard to the course proposed to be taken during the progress of the Bill for which we are asked to vote urgency. I understand that urgency is not to be continuous urgency, but to be of an intermittent character; that there will be opportunities occasionally, by interrupting its progress, of taking certain Government Business, 1958 but not private Members' Business. I understand that in those cases in which the progress of the Bill would be so interrupted, it is intended that the House should be consulted, and should express its opinion whether the Bill should be so interrupted. I wish to ask, therefore, whether that be so, and whether Members will be afforded a convenient opportunity of voting "Aye" or "No" upon the suspension, or whether it will be considered a sufficient redemption of the pledge if an opportunity is afforded only at the end of an evening's Sitting, when perhaps not more than 50 or 60 Members are present? I should also be glad to know whether Notice, and, if so, what Notice, will be given in the event of the House being asked to suspend proceedings on the Bill, and especially whether we shall be asked to do so during the next day or two? I imagined, from something I saw reported of what passed last night, that it was intended to suspend the proceedings on Thursday next. If so, it would be convenient and only fair to the House that we should be informed of the intention of the Government before being asked to take such measures.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, I stated yesterday, as well as I was able, the class of Business which it might be necessary to interpose before the conclusion of the Peace Preservation Bill. I stated also the reasons why it was necessary that a certain class of Supply should be disposed of before a date not very distant. But I hope, if this Bill does not consume a greater portion of the time of the House than it ought to consume, it will not be necessary that any frequent interruptions to the progress of the Bill should be made. At all events, at present it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to interpose any Business whatever except the Order for Supply, for the purpose of taking the Army Estimates. I stated yesterday that it was extremely desirable that my right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of making a statement upon several very important questions connected with Army organization. We shall, therefore, propose that the House do adjourn the debate upon the Peace Preservation Bill about 9 o'clock on Thursday night, for the purpose of taking up the Order of Supply. But as, after what took place last night, I am 1959 afraid it is not by any means certain that my right hon. Friend will be able to go at once into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I will state to the House the course he intends to pursue. It would not, I believe, be regular—at all events, it would be unusual—if my right hon. Friend were to enter into any detailed statements on the subject of the Estimates with the Speaker in the Chair. My right hon. Friend therefore does not propose to take that course; but he does propose, on moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, to make some important statements, not connected in the least degree with the details of the Estimates, but which he thinks it very desirable that the House should have an opportunity of considering before giving a vote on the Army Estimates. That statement, not connected with the details of the Estimates, he proposes to make on Thursday next at 9 o'clock. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, should it unfortunately be necessary to interpose any other Business during the progress of the Peace Preservation Bill, that as ample Notice as possible should be given, and that the intention of the Government should be communicated to the House at the opening of the Sitting on the previous day. I should not wish to be understood as giving a positive pledge on the subject, because I can conceive that occasions may arise when it would not be convenient to be bound by a hard-and-fast rule. For instance, if a stage of the Peace Preservation Bill were concluded earlier than was expected, it might be desirable that some Business might be interposed next day, if the subsequent stage might be likely to take up a long time. But I quite agree that it is desirable that the most ample Notice should be given from day to day as to the progress of the Bill.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to ask a Question as to the course to be pursued by the Secretary of State for War on Thursday next. That course will be of a novel character, of a character which has been commented on unfavourably on former occasions even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In a similar case in 1877 the right hon. Gentleman rested his objection to the course which the late Government proposed to follow with respect to the Education Estimates, partly on the ground that no Notice was given—in the present 1960 instance Notice has been given—partly on the ground that Motions might be made with the Speaker in the Chair which it would not be possible to discuss when the House was in Committee. From the explanation given by the noble Lord as to the statements to be made on Thursday, and with the understanding that we are not to be asked to pass any Vote on that occasion, I think the second objection will not so fully apply as it would to cases in ordinary circumstances. I think, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the House will not be unwilling to agree to the course proposed, with the object of enabling the Secretary of State for War to make a statement which is important outside, beyond, and apart from the mere question of the Estimates. Is it not that which is meant?
§ MR. CHILDERSI wish to confirm entirely the description of what I wish to state on Thursday given by my noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I shall limit myself, if the House allow me to make the statement on Thursday, to the large question of Army Organization and other questions of that character, and if, by accident, I should mention anything which may relate to details of the Estimates, I shall not take advantage of it, but shall be careful, when I come to move the Vote, to state clearly the financial questions with which the Estimates are concerned.
§ MR. J. E. YORKEAs we are now about to enter into a state of what my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote) calls "intermittent urgency," I wish to ask you, Sir, how we are to judge of the period at which this urgency would intervene. I shall be glad if you are able to say when a Bill which is urgent may be interrupted.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the House agree to a Resolution of Urgency, the urgency would only apply so long as the matter declared by a Minister of the Crown to be urgent was before the House.
COLONEL STANLEYwished to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman who proposed to make a statement to the House on Thursday, with the Speaker in the Chair, would avoid, as far as possible, matters which were properly dealt with under the head of Charge, and would be good enough to intimate that in moving his Estimates he would not commit those who wished to reply.
§ MR. CHILDERSI am quite aware of the objection of my right hon. and gallant Friend; but I thought I had just now explained to the House that if it should so happen in the course of my explanation of those large questions to which I shall refer that I should touch on matters of figures, I shall take care that in moving the Estimates nothing shall be omitted that is usually stated by the Secretary of State for War.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished the question to be perfectly clear before giving his vote. They assumed for the moment that urgency was voted at the request of the noble Lord, and that the Government wished to take Monday for the purpose of Supply. What the House wished to be informed upon was, whether, in case Monday was given to Supply, it would be absolutely free from the Rule of Urgency?
§ MR. SPEAKERMonday will be free from the Rule of Urgency, unless a Bill declared to be urgent is before the House.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANThe noble Lord has given Notice of his intention to move—
That the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is urgent, and that the state of Public Business is urgent.I want to know from you, Sir, in what way the urgency is to apply. In the first part of the Resolution a particular Bill is declared to be urgent; but in the latter part, Public Business, in an unlimited sense, is declared urgent, and would apply to the Motions of private Members, as well as to all other Business of the House. I respectfully ask your direction upon this point, whether a Motion, "That the state of Public Business is urgent," does not cover all the Public Business that is before the House, as well as the Peace Preservation Bill?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI wish to know, if we go into Committee of Supply, whether the noble Lord will move that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent? You have ruled that Supply is not urgent; and, in order to re-establish urgency, would it not require another Resolution when the Peace Preservation Bill is taken up again?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEOn the same point, in reference to the 1962 answer you have been good enough to give my right hon. Friend near me (Sir E. Assheton Cross), when you stated that urgency will not apply in cases of Supply on Monday unless an urgent Bill were before the House, I wish to know whether, supposing that the first Order of the Day is Supply, and the second the Peace Preservation Bill, would it, in such a case, be before the House, and urgency apply to it, notwithstanding the fact that Supply stood before it; or would urgency apply to the whole of the proceedings of that evening?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Rule relating to urgency would apply when the urgent Bill is actually under discussion. If the House passes from the consideration of an urgent Bill to another matter that is not urgent, the Rules of Urgency will not apply. With regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), I have to state that the Rules of Urgency apply to the Bill or measure declared urgent in the manner prescribed by the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the 3rd of February.
§ MR. O'DONNELLrose and cries of "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
§ MR. O'DONNELLI have a Question to ask, and I have risen two or three times to ask it. I wish to know from the noble Lord if what he proposes is, that where an urgency Bill is before the House, and has been declared urgent by a majority of three to one, it may be set aside in favour of non-urgent Business by a mere ordinary majority? In that case I should certainly oppose.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIt is not possible for me to answer the Question. As I understand the Rule, an urgency Bill may be set aside by an ordinary Motion; but it is not for me to say what majority would be necessary.
§ MR. CALLANI would ask Mr. Speaker, as the chief authority of this House, to answer the Question which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has put to the noble Marquess. I wish to know whether the Business which this House, by a majority of three to one, has declared to be urgent, can be set aside by an ordinary majority?
§ MR. SPEAKERIt can only be set aside in the manner prescribed by the 1963 Resolution of the House of the 3rd of February—that is to say, by a declaration from myself, that the urgency has ceased, or by a vote of the House taken in the ordinary way.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETI wish to put a Question to the noble Marquess, which it may be convenient for him to answer. Is it his intention, on Thursday, to move the postponement of the debate on the Arms Bill, with a view of taking up Supply at 9 o'clock? I want to know whether the House will have an opportunity of deciding upon that question by a formal Motion being made to that effect at half-past 4.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIt is not for me to interpret the Rules of the House; but I believe it would bo absolutely irregular to move at half-past 4 o'clock that a debate on any subject be adjourned at any particular hour. It can only be done on a Motion at the time when the House can decide on the question. I have now, Sir, to state, as a Minister of the Crown, that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay, and to move that the state of Public Business is urgent.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the state of Public Business is urgent."—(The Marqueas of Hartington.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 395; Noes 37: Majority 358—.(Div. List, No. 99.)