§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMonday; Unemployment Insurance, Money Resolution, Committee stage.
Tuesday: Finance Bill, Committee [9th Allotted Day].
Unemployment Insurance Money Resolution, Report.
Wednesday: Finance Bill, Committee [10th Allotted Day].
Thursday: Supply [11th Allotted Day], Committee. The vote, I understand, will be announced later.
Friday: Unemployment Insurance (Borrowing Powers and Transitional Benefit) Bill, Second Reading.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the Prime Minister a further question about the proceedings upon the Finance Bill, because the arrangement he has just read 1948 out appears to me to be a very inconvenient one. If we are to take the remaining two Committee days on Tuesday and Wednesday, instead, as we had anticipated, of on Monday and Tuesday, I presume that we shall not get the Bill printed in its amended form until Friday. I do not know when the Prime Minister is thinking of taking the Report stage of the Bill, but I assume that he must take it on the following Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. If so, it means that we shall have to hand in all Amendments to the amended Bill for the Report stage on the same day on which we get the Bill reprinted. That seems to leave a totally inadequate time to prepare and to draft and to hand in the Amendments.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is not the intention to take the Report stage on Monday week, but I am now in the position that I must manipulate somehow or other the two Bills with dates at the end of each, and the only way by which they can get through by the statutory time is the arrangement incorporated in the answer which I have just given.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf the right hon. Gentleman is not taking the Report stage on Monday, I presume it is to be taken on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week, because there are three days. Is he proposing to take the Third Reading on the Friday? We shall not be able to get the Bill reprinted in time.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe have gone very carefully into that matter, and I am informed that the Bill can be printed for Friday.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINSurely, it is impossible to ask the House to take the Third Reading of the Bill on Friday, the Report stage of which may have only concluded between 10.30 and 11 o'clock on Thursday night, even if by keeping the printers up all night copies of the Bill in its amended form can be made available when the House comes down on Friday. I venture to say that such an outrage to the House has never been attempted before. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his proposals for business next week and proceed as he has done hitherto, with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill until it is completed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the right hon. Gentleman looks at the programme and considers it, he will find that it is a perfectly practical programme. It will be quite convenient to proceed with the whole of the programme.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI will put my point in a very simple question. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is for the convenience of the House that hon. Members should be asked to give the Third Reading to a Bill in the form which they see for the first time on the morning of the day on which they are asked to read it the Third time, especially when that day is a Friday on which the House meets at 11 o'clock and has to conclude its business at 4 o'clock?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI certainly assumed that the House was very familiar with this Bill and that there really would be no inconvenience whatever. The Bill will be reprinted after the Committee stage, and it will be reprinted after the Report stage, and the complete Bill will be in the hands of Members in the ordinary time before discussion.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINTo be asked to complete a Bill which hon. Members may have in their hands at 9 o'clock in the morning, is not treating the House fairly, and I protest most strongly against it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still reconsider the position. In the meantime, I want to ask him another question in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Money Resolution which he proposes to put down for Monday. Do the Government propose to make a full statement of their policy in presenting that Resolution to the House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe will take the very widest possible opportunity given to us on that Resolution to state what we are going to do. I understand that within the last few minutes a technical point has arisen. We wish the separate Bill, the anomalies Bill, should be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, and that means that the Bill will have to be introduced now, immediately the opportunity arises. It has been pointed out to me that that may act as a sort of block upon the width of the discussion on Monday. The Government have no intention whatever to do anything like that. We shall be only too glad if some arrangement can be 1950 made, either through the good will and the good offices of the Chair or otherwise, to enable the Debate on Monday to be as wide as possible.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINObviously, as you will not be in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we must consult the Chairman or obtain a Ruling from him as to what can be done in Committee. I think that the rule is perfectly plain. If the Bill is presented to-day, it will be impossible to discuss, on the Resolution on Monday, anything which is covered by the Bill. It will be impossible, therefore, for the Government to make a statement of their policy when asking the House for permission to borrow further money. Are we first to sanction the: borrowing of money and afterwards to hear for what purpose it is to be expended, or are we first to hear the policy of the Government and then decide what it is necessary to borrow? I suggest that the latter course is the only reasonable one and that it is another reason for not taking the Money Resolution of the Unemployment Insurance on Monday and for giving up that day to the continuation of the Finance Bill.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable that there should be a very wide discussion on Monday, because, obviously, we cannot discuss merely the question of borrowing except in reference to what is to be done with regard to the report of the Royal Commission. The Chair generally defers to the opinion of all sections of the House of Commons, and, if it were desired by all sections that there should be a very wide survey of the whole position, I should have thought that the Chair, following precedent, would permit it. I only suggest that as a possibility. It would be an advantage, undoubtedly, for the House to have not merely the Bill printed, but a discussion upon the Bill.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHear, hear!
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf we can get full particulars from the Government of what the Bill is, then on Monday I should think that, with the general consent of the House, we could survey the whole situation.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe position is as the right hon. Gentleman has 1951 stated it. The reason why we have been hurrying on with the Bill and why we intend to introduce it now is that the House may be in full possession of the policy of the Government regarding it before we discuss the Resolution on Monday.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe hope it will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. The Bill will be circulated as soon as the House authorises us to print it, but a technical point has arisen as to whether that will not have some sort of blocking effect. I want to make it perfectly plain that so far as we are concerned we desire the widest possible discussion on Monday, when we discuss the Resolution.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI submit that that really does not meet the case. Obviously, the proper course it to have the the Bill first and to consider the Money Resolution after the Bill, and not to vote the money first and to consider the Government's proposals afterwards. I think that all parties are agreed on that, the Prime Minister included. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests and what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) suggests is that, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, the party leaders in the House should come to an arrangement that well-known Rules of the House should be abrogated on this occasion, and that we should take the Resolution and discuss what is quite clearly forbidden by the ordinary Rules of the House. Any hon. Member can stop that discussion. The Chairman may feel unable to grant it. We all know that at different times we have been limited in Debates where there has been a general desire to have a full discussion, because the Chairman felt himself governed by the Rules of the House, and obliged to apply them. In any case, I submit that it is improper to take the Money Resolution on Monday. If we are not to have the Finance Bill on Monday, the Government ought to take their Bill dealing with unemployment insurance on Monday and make a full statement of their policy on it, and discussion could then take place. Discussions of the Resolution would follow upon and be guided by that.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWith respect, I say that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. If, as I gather from his words, he says that the Money Resolution refers to this Bill only——
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo.
§ The PRIME MINISTERVery well. The Money Resolution is required for a Bill which will provide solely for the continuation of unemployment benefit. A modification is going to be made upon that, and that is to be the subject of the Bill which we wish to introduce immediately. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is improper for leaders of the various parties in the House to come to an agreement that when a subject is brought before the House they will unite in requesting the Chair to stretch some of the Rules of the House in order to meet the convenience of the House, well, I am afraid that he and I have to plead guilty to many such transgressions. I have been party to such an arrangement before, and I am setting no precedent in confessing openly that we are willing to become a party to a similar transaction again.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI do not say that it is improper for leaders of parties to unite in making a request to the Chairman, but I say that it is wholly impossible for any agreement among leaders of parties to bind the Chairman of Committees and that I have known occasions, and doubtless the right hon. Gentleman has known them, when the Chairman has not been able to agree to what the representatives of the parties thought they might require. It is impossible to bind the Chairman in his absence or when he is not in the Chair. The Government are getting the whole business of the House into a perfectly unnecessary tangle because they will not take the straightforward course of going on with the Finance Bill on consecutive days and later, when they have concluded the Committee stage of the Finance Bill asking the House to give a Second Reading to the Unemployment Insurance Bill in which they propose to define the purposes for which the money sought in the Money Resolution will be expended, thereby taking the Money Resolution when we are in a position to say whether the money ought to be borrowed, if so, how much, and with the knowledge of the purposes for which it is required.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINWith regard to the Finance Bill, there is another Clause on the Order Paper to-day in the names of certain hon. Members of the Liberal party. It is clear that that Clause cannot be reached in time to give adequate discussion of it. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to put his own name to a Clause embodying the proposals of the Liberal party. If so, when will that Clause be put on the Order Paper, and will it be done in such a way as to ensure that adequate discussion will take place upon it. I think that was the understanding which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed, and I want to get it quite clear.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am sorry that I have had no notice of this question, and consequently no opportunity of consulting. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement regarding this point the other day. That statement holds good.
§ Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSONThe point is, when shall we see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Clause S Can the Prime Minister give us any idea on that matter? It is manifestly for the convenience of the whole Committee in considering the subject that, if possible, we should see that Clause before the week-end and that it should be put down to-morrow.
§ Sir ROBERT HORNEMay I ask whether or not the Government accept the Liberal Amendment?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMay I press the right hon. Gentleman to give us an answer to a very simple question? When shall we see the Amendment in the form which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to accept.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI understand that he has pledged himself to deal with the matter by action for which he himself is responsible. That Clause or Amendment will be put down in plenty of time for its consideration.