HC Deb 12 November 1942 vol 385 cc61-85
Sir S. Cripps

I beg to move, That during the present Session—

  1. (1) Government business shall have precedence at every sitting;
  2. (2) The following provisions shall have effect as respects public Bills:—
    1. (a) no Bills other than Government Bills shall be introduced;
    2. (b) whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules (whether they are to be moved in Committee or on Report) received by the Clerks at the Table at any time not later than 4.30 p.m. on the last day of adjournment may be accepted by them as if the House was sitting;
    3. (c) notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before a Bill has been read a second time;
    4. (d) a new clause may be moved on Report without notice, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 37.
  3. (3) A Motion by a Minister of the Crown under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 1 may be made without notice, and may be made at any time after the commencement of public business as well at at the commencement of public business;
  4. (4) Whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of questions received by the Clerks at the Table at any time not later than 4.30 p.m. on the last day of adjournment may be accepted—
    1. (a) if received before 4.30 p.m. on the penultimate day of adjournment, as if they had been given on that day at a time when the House was sitting, and
    2. (b) if received thereafter, as if they had been given on the last day of adjournment at a time when the House was sitting.
For the purposes of this Order the expression 'day of adjournment' means a day on which the House is not sitting, not being a Saturday or Sunday. I informed the House yesterday of the Government's intention to move a Motion to take the whole time of the House for Government Business and to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only during the present Session. I then gave an explanation of the reasons. I do not intend to repeat those reasons now, but I would remind the House of one passage, where I said: It will be generally agreed that, as a first consideration, our deliberations must be concentrated on those matters or Measures which are vitally connected with the effective prosecution of the war; nevertheless, we have now reached a stage at which it may be necessary for Parliament to consider legislation arising from or out of conditions created by the war on which there is a general measure of agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1942; col. 40, Vol. 385.] In asking Private Members to forgo their rights to bring forward Bills or Motions, we are following the precedents of the last three Sessions and also of the last war. While the present circumstances of agreement between the major parties in the House last it has been necessary to adopt a slightly different procedure as regards the allocation of the time of the House. It has, as I believe, resulted in a very great opportunity for Private Members to raise points of importance and of criticism which they desire to bring forward. If any hon. Member would examine the course of Business for the last Session, as I have examined it, he would find that a very large amount of the time of the House was occupied in discussing questions initiated by Private Members in one way or another. For instance, there were large periods of time during the Debate on the Address and upon other matters, and a great variety of subjects had been raised by way of Motions and in other manners for which the Government had been able to give time. This practice, by which the Government allocate time to matters which a considerable group of Members desire to discuss, has proved itself superior to any system by which any single Member has a right to monopolise the time of the House on a matter which is not perhaps generally accepted as being of first-class importance and which also might arouse acute political controversy. There were many opportunities during the last Session for such Debates of general interest, quite apart from those which arose in the normal course of Business and the Government have afforded special facilities for critical Debates.

We undertake to continue this practice and this arrangement in the coming Session and to give opportunities for Debates on subjects of general interest so far as we are able to discern the general interest of the House, having regard, of course, only to the passage of urgent and essential Government Business. The right of hon. Members to criticise the Government remains, I am glad to say, completely unimpaired by this Motion. The experience of the last Session has made it clear, and the assurance which I now have given in regard to the coining Session will also, I hope, make it clear, that the Government desire to give every opportunity for hon. Members to exercise their undoubted rights to debate and criticise the actions of the Government on all important aspects of policy.

It has been suggested in some quarters that possibly a special day might be set aside for Private Members' Business in addition to the days on which we sit. This matter has already received the careful consideration of the Government, but they see great difficulties in any such arrangement. First, there is the difficulty I have already mentioned of the subject matter raising controversial issues of a kind which might divide the unity of the House, and, second, there is the difficulty that the responsibility on such occasions of maintaining a House lies upon the Private Member and not upon the Government.

The remaining provisions of the Motion continue the arrangements which were in operation last Session in regard to the handing-in of Amendments to Bills and notices of Questions on days when the House is not sitting, the handing-in of Amendments to Bills before the Second Reading, and the dispensing with the usual notice for new Clauses to be moved on the Report stage. We are also asking the House to continue the powers by which the suspension of the Rule may be moved without notice. This power, as a matter of fact, was used on only a very few occasions during the last Session. The Government do not intend that there should be any general practice of moving such a Motion without giving due notice to Members of the House. It is impossible, of course, to foresee the course of events during the coming Session with any great degree of accuracy, but we feel that the Government should have this power which experience has shown to be necessary either to meet the general convenience of the House or to obtain the passage of essential Government Business.

Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)

Arising out of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about Business, I should like to ask the Government to give consideration to the question of Orders in Council. They are at present merely put upon the Order Paper, and it is almost impossible for Members to keep touch with the implications of those Orders. Would it be possible when Orders are put upon the Paper to give some brief information about their implications? If this is not done, the only remedy which appears open to Members is to put down Prayers against the Orders so that they can be kept in touch to some extent with their effect.

Mr. Speaker

It does not seem that that point arises on this Motion.

Captain C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to move, in line 2, at the end, to insert: except that after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-three, the House shall sit on a fourth sitting day each week for the consideration of private Members Motions. There is no doubt that during the last few months—perhaps I might say during the last two years—the prestige of Parliament throughout the country has fallen—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. I feel that this may be attributed to a variety of reasons. The national Press have from time to time drawn attention to the small number of Members in the Chamber during Debates. The recent rebuke administered by the Leader of the House to hon. Members last Session and the publicity which was given to that rebuke prompted political correspondents to criticise with caustic comment the apparent laziness of hon. Members and the lack of interest which they take in war-time Debates. I believe that one of the main reasons that has induced criticism is that many of the pre-war privileges of Private Members have been taken from them by the Government. For many months now Private Members have only been permitted to discuss those Resolutions and Measures which the Government, in their wisdom, have thought fit for debate, unless, as the Leader of the House rightly said, pressure has been brought to bear by a large body of Members, acting through the usual channels, to show that there was a general desire for a Debate on a particular problem. This system of collective bargaining has from time to time proved successful, but it takes weeks to organise, and it means a great deal of work for the Private Member who wishes to bring some Motion before the House. He has to go round and canvass Members in the Lobbies, in the smoking-rooms, and elsewhere, in order to get support of his Motion; he has to explain the reasons for it to a great number of people, and I feel that it would be admitted that it is a tedious and protracted method and does not go far in affording to hon. Members the pre-war privileges which they enjoyed. In the recent Debate on Service pay and allowances there was no discussion upon the Motion which was on the Order Paper, and the Debate which we had eventually took place on the Supplementary Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000 for the continuance of the war. If we had wanted to show our disapproval of the Government's proposals it would have been necessary for us to have voted against that Supplementary Vote of Credit, which would have been ridiculous, because the defeat of the Government on such an occasion might definitely have held up the prosecution of the war.

Let us consider what other opportunities Private Members have for raising matters which they feel are of importance and worthy of the consideration of this House. A Private Member may ask a Question, and in the event of the reply being unsatisfactory he may give notice that he intends to avail himself of the opportunity of raising the subject on the Adjournment at an early date. There are three main disadvantages, as I see it, of ventilating problems on the Adjournment. In the first place, no general notification is given to hon. Members of the day, subject matter, and time when that Debate will take place on the Adjournment. Secondly, I believe that I am right in saying that no subject may be raised then which involves legislation. Thirdly, under the Rules of Procedure no opportunity is given to the House to express its opinion on the subject by Vote or a Division in the Lobby. I think this is a most unsatisfactory way in which to conduct our Business. We have long and airy discussions but no decisions, and I believe that when history comes to be written this Parliament will be known not only as the "Long Parliament," but as the "Adjournment Parliament," because so much has been discussed on the Adjournment.

In pre-war times Private Members had two days a week allotted to them. On Wednesdays we had Private Members' Motions and on Fridays Private Members' Bills. The hon. Members who, with myself, support this Amendment have given the present procedure our close attention and study, and we believe that much of the confidence in Parliament will be re-established throughout the country if Private Members once again cease to be regarded as robots and are given a more positive voice in the counsels of Government. We hope that in the new Session which is now opening the Government will see fit to accede to our request and permit perhaps one day a week, or even one day a fortnight, to be regarded as Private Members' day. We do, of course, appreciate that there were many grounds for criticism in the pre-war system, and it may be considered desirable to modify it in some way or other in certain respects. As regards Private Members' Motions, it has occurred to me that rather than introduce those Motions as the result of a ballot it might be possible for any hon. Member to put down any Motion which he pleases on the Order Paper and then at a later date for the House to vote the order of priority in which those Motions should be discussed. It has been said that this method would not give to Members of minority parties the same opportunities as Members of majority parties, but I do not believe that altogether matters, because in these days we are all trying to win the war; and there should be no party political controversy such as existed in pre-war days.

I hope that the Government will not regard my suggestion as an unfriendly one. I believe it would be to the advantage of the House as a whole and of the country if Private Members were given the time that I suggest. It might be possible for a fourth Sitting Day to be set aside for a trial period—a trial for a month would mean only four days. If it were found to be a success, then let us continue it, but if it were not, let us wash out the idea. Some hon. Members may say that pre-war the attendance on Private Members' days was very bad, but again I do not think that is very important. There have been occasions on which three-line Whips have been issued on Private Members' days, and there was one occasion, in 1922, I believe, when the Coalition Govt. were brought down as a direct result of a private Members' Motion. Those Debates held on private Members' days were very fully reported in the Press, and there is no doubt that the country showed considerable interest in the topics discussed. They were the topics which men liked to discuss at their own firesides, and which meant a very great deal in their lives. They were not necessarily matters of supreme national importance. Lastly, people may say that the time given to hon. Members will foe used by unscrupulous Members—I do not believe there are any—in order to embarrass the Government. Again, I do not believe that is so, because I believe that we here all appreciate the very heavy responsibilities which rest upon us as representatives of the people.

Group-Captain Wright (Birmingham, Erdington)

In a very few sentences I wish to second the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor).

As he has said, there is no doubt that it is exceedingly difficult for a back bencher, and particularly a back bencher of the majority party, to get an opportunity of bringing forward those subjects which he would like to have discussed. I can speak with some feeling, because recently I had the experience of gaining my point and getting a Debate upon family allowances. It took me something like 12 months to get the matter debated on the Floor of the House. The greatest difficulty is encountered in going through all that sort of procedure to-day, particularly when most of us are taking an active part in some national work outside our Parliamentary work.

The Leader of the House raised two main objections to Private Members' time. He said that there might be discussions in the House on matters which were so controversial that they were better left alone at the present time. That seems to be an extraordinary outlook in a democratic country. Such matters are, in fact, being discussed in the Press, by the Church and by political parties in the constituencies—everywhere, except in this House of Commons. There is no question about it whatever, the prestige of this House, and particularly of the back benchers, is going down—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and it is because we are so completely muzzled in this House. There is no better proof of my statement than the way in which the prestige of the Members of another place is going up. They are able to have these discussions at various times, and those discussions in another place have undoubtedly created a great deal of interest. People are asking why we are not discussing these matters ourselves. The issue is entirely in our hands. We can have the time if we want it, and if the House does not get it it is our own fault. There is no reason why those of us who feel strongly on the matter should not get up and say so.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood (Wakefield)

I find the speeches which have been made by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen most unconvincing. I stoutly resist the view that the prestige of this House is going down. That is not the case. I can find no better method of adding to that decline, if such there be, than for the House of Commons to descend on a fourth Sitting Day to the level of a Sunday school debating society. [Interruption.] Well, of any other small debating society. What hon. and gallant Gentlemen are asking for is not merely for the restoration of the peace-time rights of Private Members but actually for an enlargement of their scope to a most astonishing degree. I have been a Private Member more often than not for a fairly long period of years, and I have found the rights of Private Members in peace-time fully ample to protect them and give them the freedom to which they are entitled. In war-time the situation is somewhat different.

The underlying assumption is that Private Members will get a greater opportunity of talking on the things they want to talk about if we return to the Ballot. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor) happens to be one of the lucky persons, because he won the Ballot twice in one Session. He is looking forward to a restoration of those happy opportunities. I have been a Member of the House for about 20 years, and I have never been lucky in the Ballot once, although I have very rarely missed a Ballot. Let it not be assumed that if we restored the Ballot, Private Members would add to their powers and opportunities in this House. I can assure hon. Members that it does not work out in that way. I imagine that more speeches have been made on subjects near and dear to the hearts of Members on Motions that have not been balloted for than on occasions of Debate on balloted Motions.

I admit that the question is one of some difficulty, but I shall support the Motion, because I think the experience of the past year has shown that we are now beginning to get a House of Commons technique which is suitable to war-time conditions. It is not easy to talk in wartime, but it is true to say that more time has been spent on the initiative of non-members of the Government in the last Session than by the Government themselves on their own. In these circumstances we cannot complain. So long as the pledge of the Leader of the House, which he gave at full length just now, is maintained, and Members will have the opportunity, if there be a demand, for a Debate on particular issues, I think the situation ought to be regarded as adequately met.

Mr. William Brown (Rugby)

The Amendment is moved in order to serve two purposes. One is to improve the prestige of the House of Commons in the eyes of the country, and the second is to increase the power of the Private Member over Parliamentary Business. If I believed that either purpose would be served by the Amendment, I would support it, but I doubt very much whether the Amendment serves either purpose. In those circumstances I shall vote for the Motion. I agree whole-heartedly with the mover of the Motion, but I dissent from the view expressed from the other Front Bench about the public status of Parliament. In my view there has been a calamitous decline in the public status of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Since you came here?"] Since I have been here there has been some improvement. I should deny emphatically that the decline in the public prestige of Parliament derives from the absence of Private Members' days. If it did, the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment would have made their case, but if it is not so, the case is not made out, and therefore I shall support the Motion.

I have had experience of a good many Private Members' days in this House, and I have found three things to quarrel with in them. The first is that in various parts of the House there is no more freedom for the Private Member to move the Motion that he wants than there is when Government Business is on the stocks. For example, on the Opposition side of the House there was a standing stock of Resolutions in relation to Private Members' days drawn up by the party executive, and the Member successful in the Ballot was expected to draw from it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the same on the other side."] If that is so, it really illustrates that what I am saying has a general and not merely a particular application. The second difficulty was that the party Whips were put on upon Private Members' days almost as frequently as they were on the days of Government Business.

The third difficulty was that when the Private Member managed, by some stroke of good fortune, to get a Motion through, it by no means followed that any Government action would result. I remember a Private Member's Motion in this House which determined that there should be equal pay between men and women in the Civil Service. That was passed five or six years ago, but from that day to this no action whatever has, followed to implement the view expressed by hon. Members.

Dr. Edith Summerskill (Fulham, West)

Shame.

Mr. Brown

I too think that it is a shame. The idea that, if we had a fourth day for Private Members' Business, the back bencher would thereby become more important, is one that we should look at before accepting. I ask myself what it is that is wrong with Parliament. I may be in a minority in this-House on this issue, but, believe me, I am not in a minority in the country. The real trouble with the House at the present time, and which is not remedied either by the Motion or by the Amendment—

Mr. Speaker

If it is not in Order on the Motion, nor on the Amendment, I hope the hon. Member will not refer to it.

Mr. Brown

It may very well be that when I make my point it will be out of Order, but perhaps I may be allowed to say what it is before being ruled out of Order.

Mr. Speaker

I based my Ruling upon intelligent anticipation of what the hon. Member's remarks were leading to.

Mr. Brown

It is not for me to deny the right of the Speaker to anticipate or to reflect on his intelligence in anticipation, but I still consider that I might be allowed to make my point before being ruled out of Order. The real difficulty is the absence, since a Coalition Gover- nment was formed, of a recognised Opposition in this House.

Mr. Speaker

That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Brown

Am I not in Order in stating why neither the Motion nor the Amendment meets the needs of the case?

Mr. Speaker

The only question before the House is the Amendment now under discussion.

Mr. Brown

The Amendment is under discussion. May I not give my reasons why it does not meet the case?

Mr. Speaker

If they are relevant.

Mr. Brown

I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I am bound to say that I think the proceedings of the House of Commons—

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Speaker

I shall have to ask the hon. Member to resume his seat if he continues to argue this matter with me.

Mr. Brown

I shall be very willing to resume my seat if I am not allowed to make observations which are strictly relevant.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member had better resume his seat.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

I rise in order to voice the feelings of a large number of back benchers in this House, especially those who belong to the majority party, that under the procedure of the House it is extremely difficult for them to get an opportunity of making speeches upon subjects which interest them. I do not support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, because I do not believe it would be effective for the purpose which he has in mind. I entirely disagree with the remarks made by certain hon. Members that the prestige of this House has recently fallen. On the contrary, there have been a number of cases recently in which newspapers of very varied kinds have expressed the opinion that this House, during the war, has expressed views upon matters which have been prominent in the mind of the people of this country, that the Debates in this House have been upon topical subjects, and that on the whole the House as a whole has faithfully represented the point of view of the country, that of giving support to the Government and at the same time expressing its uneasiness on some matters of administration.

I was fortunate on two occasions in the Ballot to bring private Motions before this House. The disadvantage of that procedure is that whoever happens to be the Member who draws the lucky number is able to choose what the matter to be discussed shall be. Under the present informal procedure which has grown up it is possible for any group of Members in this House, whether sitting on this side or the other, to make informal representations through the usual channels that there are certain matters which they feel ought to be discussed, and I think that thanks to the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, and also the Patronage Secretary, have on almost every occasion responded to the requests which have been made and have been supported by a substantial body of opinion in this House, the Government have provided time for those matters to be discussed. I can mention about six Debates which have taken place during the last three or four months on matters like Service pay and allowances, matters like family allowances, matters like old age pensions, and also the question of wage policy. I therefore feel that the House would be ill-advised in giving up a day to Private Members' Motions, which would mean that so much of the time would be at the mercy of whatever Member happened to be fortunate in a Ballot. I believe the present procedure is on the whole more satisfactory from the point of view of the majority of the Members of the House. But I do hope my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the Amendment which has been moved represents the view of a large number of back benchers that it is necessary that the hours of meeting and the procedure of this House shall be further modified in order to make certain that back bench Members, especially those who belong to the Conservative Party, shall have greater opportunities than they have had during the war of addressing the House.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

I will not discuss' whether the prestige of Parliament has gone up or down, though I think on the whole Parliament has maintained its prestige during the time of war considerably higher than has been the case in previous wars or was thought possible when the war started. To the Mover of this Amendment I would say that I am certain he does not want to see the decline of Parliament. I think one of the worst things he could do would be to carry his Amendment. I have been here for 20 years, taking an average part in the proceedings. I used to attend regularly on Private Members' days. I think that to repeat in war those days of peace would be a tragedy. What happened then was that sometimes we had a good attendance at 11 o'clock, but by 1 o'clock the House had vanished. Trains started to move North, and the Debate was usually left to the two or three Members living in London, plus the Scotsmen, who could not get a train earlier. That was frequently so unless—and I make no criticism of this; I think it was right—it was a case affecting miners, such as the regulation of hours. Then the miners' representatives stayed, together with most of us who, while not having actual mining status, had mining connections which made it our duty also to stay. The Government, too, although it was a Private Members' day, kept their supporters; and it really became an additional Government day. I think that for us to meet to discuss some small matter with 20 or 30 Members present, and the other 600 absent, would be the worst thing that could happen to the House of Commons.

Frankly, I would not attend on a fourth day. I travel home to my division each week-end. I do not think that is discreditable. I get home at about 11 o' Clock on the day after the last Sitting Day. I am not going to get home at 11 o' Clock on the day following a fourth Sitting Day, when the best day of the week for discussing local affairs is gone. I value Private Members' time, and I have been associated with every step to defend it. I was very angry once in this House when on an Adjournment the day was practically taken up by front benchers on both sides. That is indefensible—indefensible in peace-time, and still more indefensible now, when time is so limited. The Government were responsible for that. Their spokesmen insisted that day on speaking at a particular time, which meant that the front benchers on the opposite side wanted to speak at a particular time too; and after they had all spoken nobody else got a chance. Ministers are important, and nobody wishes to lessen their importance; but if they were unable to be present at any other time, they could have left the responsibility to their deputies, who are quite efficient. While I support the Motion, and while the Motion will be carried, let me say to the Government that they should remember that Adjournment days are the back benchers' days, and that it is unfair for front benchers on either side to take up the time. While we will carry this Motion, the Government should consider the position. I might draw a place in the Ballot to-day, for something which seems important at the moment, but next month, when I am called to speak, the thing may have no importance at all. It is events, and not the Ballot, which decide the importance of the subject. Therefore, if events call for a late sitting or for an alteration in the arrangements, the Government must respond to the feeling of the House. If the Government will give me any assurance on that point, I will accept the Motion on the Paper. I think we tend too often to become ashamed of our calling. I occasionally hear cheek and ignorance on the B.B.C. from people who sneer at the House of Commons. I think that, on the whole, Parliament has no need to belittle itself.

Sir Joseph Nall (Manchester, Hulme)

I wish to support what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I am sure that if the Amendment is rejected, it will not be because any Member grudges the time that he is required to spend here. I am sure that most Members are quite prepared to attend on a fourth or a fifth or a sixth Sitting Day if the public interest requires it. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment object to the work which is entailed in gathering support for any question which they wish to raise. I do not think that any Member is entitled to suppose that because he puts his name to a Motion on the Paper it must thereby command a full attendance of the House. If he is unable to collect sufficient support, he should be satisfied that he is not justified in wasting the time of the House on something which other Members do not consider important. If we must meet on a fourth or a fifth or a sixth day, all that is necessary is that Members should be so informed.

Sir S. Cripps

I certainly do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor) that there has been a decline in either the status or the prestige of the House of Commons. I think that in very difficult circumstances this House has maintained the respect not only of the country but of the world at large. I would like to repeat the words used by His Majesty in his Gracious Speech on the Prorogation: You have carried on your task through times of difficulty and of stress as Members of a free Parliament and, by your unswerving determination to maintain those free institutions which have been built up in this our country, you have given an example to all the world of the value and strength of our Democracy. I do not in the least regret that this Amendment was moved, because I am only too anxious, in the position I have the honour to hold, that we should do everything we can to improve our procedure and to get the maximum amount of useful Debate on subjects of importance; but I feel that the general sense of the House is that the present system is, on the whole, satisfactory. Experience shows that matters which are of general interest, even to a group of Members, have time given for them by the Government and are debated. The alternative which is suggested is that individual Members should take a 50-to-one chance of raising some point which they think might interest the House. They have already opportunities, on the Adjournment and on other occasions, of raising urgent matters of public importance; and these opportunities have been fully used in the past Session. There is certainly no reason why we should not sit on a further day in any week if Business is forthcoming which the House can usefully discuss. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will agree that the Government have extended the time of Sittings whenever there has been any general desire among Members. So long as I have the honour to hold the position that I now hold in the House, I shall do my utmost to see that Private Members are given the fullest possible opportunity of raising questions which they believe to be of importance, and that nothing is done to curtail the Sittings of this House if it can usefully help in the primary object which we all have in mind, the winning of the war and the reconstruction of the country after the war. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. and gallant Member will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, so that we can proceed to pass the substantive Motion.

Captain Taylor

In view of what the Leader of the House has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Sir Douglas Hacking (Chorley)

My hon. and gallant Friend has withdrawn his Amendment because, although there is a great deal of substance in what he said, nevertheless it is clear that the House is not in complete sympathy with him. I want to return for a few moments to the original Motion appearing on the Order Paper and especially to refer to the pledge that was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House yesterday and repeated to-day. There is a difference between the pledge that was given 12 months ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and that given yesterday and repeated to-day. It is a subtle difference—a difference possibly that Members of the House do not fully realise. The status quo 12 months ago regarding this Debate was that no legislation should be introduced unless in exceptional cases and with general agreement, the status quo being no legislation. Now under the present pledge I note with interest that my right hon. and learned Friend said that legislation will be introduced if there is a general measure of agreement, the status quo being the positive introduction of legislation. The Government then have weakened in their pledge. I personally would have preferred the old wording, but I ask myself why this change has been necessitated. It is true that my right hon. and learned, Friend gave some measure of explanation He said that it might be necessary—these are not his exact words, but I hope that they do not misrepresent what he said—to deal now with the conditions which might arise after the war as a result of the war. That under the old pledge could have been dealt with by agreement, but there is a direct indication now that legislation will be introduced by the Government not dealing directly with the successful prosecution of the war, but which will have a measure of support. The words that are actually used by my right hon. and learned Friend—and like you, Mr. Speaker, for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy—are: We have now reached a stage at which it may be necessary for Parliament to consider legislation arising from or out of conditions created by the war on which there is a general measure of agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1942; col. 40, Vol. 385.] I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to go into a little more detail as to what he means by "a general measure of agreement." How much opposition has to show itself in this House before we reach that stage when there is, in the opinion of the Government, a general measure of agreement? I, as is known probably by my right hon. and learned Friend, am interested in a Bill—

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member is seeking to deal with legislation, which would be more suitably raised on the Address. It is hardly appropriate on the particular Motion now before the House.

Sir D. Hacking

Of course, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I must appeal to you because this is the first speech that I have made in this House during the last six years, and possibly as a result of that I have become a little rusty. If I may give my argument to you, with the greatest respect, I do not want to give up my rights in respect of Private Members' legislation unless I know what I am going to receive in exchange. That is the reason why I wish to be permitted to make this appeal to the Government. I do not say that I would vote against this Motion, but I am not prepared to give up my rights unless I know what I am going to get in exchange.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member is in Order to refer to his rights, but he should not enter into detail.

Sir D. Hacking

I do not intend to go into any detail at all, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will give some more direct indication as to the volume of opposition which would be necessary, in his opinion, if legislation were considered to be contentious. I would make the offer to him that as far as this Bill, which I cannot mention, is concerned, I would be quite prepared to accept a prior inquiry. I will not proceed further with that argument, because I see that you have your eye upon me. But I do make my appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend. I ask him whether or not he will give a closer definition of what is meant in his pledge and also whether he will give me any indication as to whether the particular Measure to which I have referred would be ruled out by the pledge he has given to the House?

Squadron-Leader Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

I wish to support the mild protest in the question addressed to the Leader of the House with regard to the rights of Private Members if this Motion is carried to-day. I, like most Members of this House, have willingly agreed to give the Government the whole of Private Members' time during the past three years, because we were told that it was necessary that these steps should be taken for the prosecution of the war. We also gave our time and support for this Motion because we had the definite assurance of the Prime Minister, originally reaffirmed at the beginning of the last Session and the Session before, that if Private Members' gave up their time no Private Members' legislation would be introduced in this House during the Session. As the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) has stated, that pledge has been weakened, and a great many of us want to know the type of legislation which the Government might consider necessary to introduce to which there was not serious opposition. For instance, if it has to do with the prosecution of the war, we would not object to that, but what is alarming to some of us is the fact that during last Session a member of the Government threatened this House with legislation which we considered to be highly controversial, which we have assured the Government is highly controversial and which we have assured the Government that at least 150 Members are prepared to oppose and have signified their intention of opposing. We want to know if legislation of that kind is introduced into this House by the Government whether it is to be considered highly controversial or not or whether they are to ride roughshod over the feelings of Members of this House and people in the country and force Measures through. If so, I want to warn the Leader of the House and the Govern- ment that it will meet with the strongest possible opposition and that we shall fight such Measures tooth and nail.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

The Leader of the House has given us certain assurances, but I am a bit doubtful about them because of the position in the House of the Scottish Members. We have many Scottish questions which are somewhat different from English questions, and if all the time is to be taken by the Government, it might put us into a difficult position. If I could get an assurance from the Leader of the House that certain provisions would be made for dealing with Scottish questions and for giving Scottish Members an opportunity of raising points particularly affecting Scotland—if, for instance, he would give us an assurance that in this Session the Government will introduce a Bill giving us Home Rule for Scotland—then I would be quite willing to agree to this Motion. I certainly think that that is the minimum we Scottish members should accept from the Government, and I therefore ask the Leader of the House if he could indicate that the Government propose to give Scotland an opportunity of managing their own affairs free from the interference of England.

Major Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth)

In peace-time I think the two days a week which, at certain times of the year, were given up to the consideration of Private Members' Motions and Bills were extremely valuable. I myself have had the good fortune to introduce two Bills into the House under this arrangement. Bills which became law, and I much regret the taking-up by the Government of that time, but at the moment I am entirely in favour of the Government taking over all Private Members' time in order that the House may discuss Government matters directly connected with the prosecution of the war. But in giving this concession I think Members are entitled to ask for what purposes the time which is being taken from them is to be devoted. Therefore, I would like to support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Squadron-Leader Macdonald). I agree with nearly all Members in this House in realising that during the war, when our object is to win it, we should avoid all disunity and controversy as much as we possibly can, and I therefore welcome the arrangement about by-elections in the country. But there are two forms of controversy which should be considered. It is possible that the Government may introduce Measures, directly connected with the prosecution of the war, which may provoke differences of opinion. That is one thing, and it is inevitable. All of us have different views on such questions as strategy, supply and other matters, but when it comes to the introduction of Measures not directly connected with the carrying-on of the war it is a different matter altogether. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight has referred to the threat of the introduction of one particular Measure which a very large number of Members in this House very greatly dislike. It may be very naughty of Members to dislike it, but the fact is that they do, and their views are shared by a large number of people in this country.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

What is the Measure?

Major Petherick

It is connected with the catering trade. It is possible, though unlikely, that the Government might introduce a Measure which commended itself strongly to Members of my party, and with which I should probably readily agree, but which would also provoke considerable opposition from members of the Labour Party. In such circumstances I think the Government would be quite wrong to pursue that matter, for the very good reason that controversy would be aroused, and, therefore, I urge on the Government and the Lord Privy Seal to make it very clear that in the Measures which are introduced, and which are not directly connected with the carrying-on of the war, they will be careful to see that they are Measures which will command general agreement. General agreement, as I understand it, means perhaps not virtual unanimity but nearly so. I ask the Lord Privy Seal to consider what has been said, and I hope he can give the House an assurance that Measures likely to arouse really serious controversy will not be brought in during the period of the war.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I desire to say a word or two on the aspect of this; Motion which has been debated by the last three or four speakers on the initiation, I think, of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking), whose experience of this House and of the management of Government Business entitles him to be heard on such a question. I want to express the hope that the Government will not be intimidated by the efforts that have been made to frighten them in the speeches to which we have just listened. Nobody believes for a moment that in this House as at present constituted there could be carried Measures which cut deeply to the root of our social organisation or institutions, much as many of us would like to see such Measures carried. On the other hand, if seems to be clearly recognised that there is an obligation and a responsibility upon the Government if they are given, as they are asking in this Motion, the whole of the time of the House, to bring in Measures of two kinds: first, those that are directly related to the efficient prosecution of the war, and, secondly, matters which, although they may not be directly connected with the prosecution of the war, arise so inescapably out of war conditions as to make it absolutely necessary, if our national effort is not to be dissipated, that they should be dealt with with courage, imagination and tenacity against any kind of opposition from any quarter.

The House has known in the past one or two occasions when the Government, having made up their mind on a policy, having declared that policy to the House and having secured for it the support of a large majority of the House, have in the end run away from their own considered decision, as the result of an engineered and noisy opposition coming mainly from the back benchers behind them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley asked to be enlightened. He wanted to know how much mischief he was required to make in order to persuade the Government not to go on with Measures which the Government think necessary. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will tell the right hon. Gentleman that he does not intend to yield to any mischief of that kind, and that, however noisy and insistent some Members may be, the Government, having once made up their mind that a Measure is necessary for the prosecution of the war, or that a Measure arises so inevitably out of war conditions as to require immediate handling, will carry on with the policy which they deem to be necessary, whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley and his friends may threaten or may do.

Sir S. Cripps

As I am sure many hon. Members are anxious to resume the Debate on the Address, I venture to intervene at this stage in order to answer the questions which have been put to me. The statement which I made yesterday and part of which I have repeated, makes it quite clear, I think, that there has been an alteration in the views of His Majesty's Government as regards the necessities for legislation. The phrase has been used: Nevertheless we have now reached a stage at which it may be necessary for Parliament to consider legislation arising from or out of conditions created by the war on which there is a general measure of agreement. The first category of legislation contemplated is indicated in the earlier words: As a first consideration our deliberations must be concentrated on matters or Measures which are vitally connected with the effective prosecution of the war. Nowadays when war has become total there are a great many matters which, in former years, would not have been considered to be directly connected with the war, but which are now so connected. I do not wish to speak about any particular matters, which would not be in Order, but I can well conceive of many matters which might be brought forward and which some persons might not, at first blush, consider to be directly connected with the war but which are, in reality, so connected. Secondly, as regards the question of a general measure of agreement, there are, of course, those in this House and elsewhere who wish for no changes which would affect the post-war situation in this country. There are also those who would like changes which would make a very great and profound effect in this country after the war. In a condition of unity and compromise, obviously neither side can wholly get its own way. It is a very difficult balance to hold, but it is the function of His Majesty's Government to hold that balance, and therefore they must retain the power to decide whether any paritcular Measure falls within the latter words of the definition which has been used with regard to the legislation that is to be brought forward. However, the House will observe that that definition was followed by a further phrase: I must say, however, that the times are clearly inappropriate to bring forward legislation of a character which is likely to arouse serious controversy between the political parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1942; cols. 40 and 41, Vol. 385.] It is obviously essential that we should maintain unity between the political parties in order that we may go forward united in the struggle. That is an indication, I think, of what the Government have in mind when they use the phrase "general measure of agreement," but in each individual case it must be for the Government to decide first, whether a Measure is, in their view, connected with the effective prosecution of the war, or, if it is not, whether it is a Measure which in the belief of the Government it is necessary to bring before the House because there is that general measure of agreement on which action can satisfactorily be based. I hope that with that further explanation the House will now be prepared to pass this Motion.

Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for one assurance? The governing words in the statement which he has just made are "general measure of agreement." He said that it might well happen that the Government would wish to introduce legislation which, at first blush, appeared controversial but which subsequently, upon closer examination—

Sir S. Cripps

Perhaps I may be allowed to correct my hon. Friend. That is not quite what I said. I said legislation which at first blush might not appear to be connected directly with the war.

Sir J. Mellor

I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's correction. At any rate the reference is to legislation concerning which there might be some doubt whether it fell within or without the Government's pledge. The assurance I desire is that if the Government introduce legislation which they conceive to be perfectly reasonable and within the terms of this undertaking, and if it is subsequently found that the view of the House or of an appreciable section of the House is very different, the Government will, in those circumstances, not be deterred by any consideration of prestige from withdrawing such legislation.

Sir S. Cripps

If the Government decide that legislation is necessary and bring it before the House, the Government will naturally desire to get the House to pass that legislation.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)

May we be assured by the Leader of the House that he has no intention, by means of legislation, of scrambling the eggs so that they cannot be unscrambled?

Sir S. Cripps

There are some who might say that the war has already done so.

Sir Richard Acland (Barnstaple)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consider saying, frankly, to the House that the Government will introduce whatever Measures they consider necessary for the successful prosecution of the war and for arranging, as far as may be in advance, that we move smoothly into the era of peace whenever that may be, and, then, if the House does not seem to approve of those Measures and if the Government feel that the people do approve of them, that they will appeal to the people over the heads of the House?

Sir S. Cripps

I do not think it is desirable that I should further elaborate the statement which I have made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered: That during the present Session—

  1. (1) Government business shall have precedence at every sitting;
  2. (2) The following provisions shall have effect as respects public Bills:—
    1. (a) no Bills other than Government Bills shall be introduced;
    2. (b) whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules (whether they are to be moved in Committee or on Report) received by the Clerks at the Table at any time not later than 4.30 p.m. on the last day of adjournment may be accepted by them as if the House was sitting;
    3. (c) notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before a Bill has been read a second time;
    4. (d) a new clause may be moved on Report without notice, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 37.
  3. (3) A Motion by a Minister of the Crown under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 1 may be made without notice, and 85 may be made at any time after the commencement of public business as well as at the commencement of public business;
  4. (4) Whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of questions received by the Clerks at the Table at any time not later than 4.30 p.m. on the last day of adjournment may be accepted—
    1. (a) if received before 4.30 p.m. on the penultimate day of adjournment, as if they had been given on that day at a time when the House was sitting, and
    2. (b) if received thereafter, as if they had been given on the last day of adjournment at a time when the House was sitting.
For the purposes of this Order the expression 'day of adjournment' means a day on which the House is not sitting, not being a Saturday or Sunday.