HC Deb 11 April 1946 vol 421 cc2104-11
Mr. Churchill

Will the Leader of the House state the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 15th April—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, 1946.

Tuesday, 16th April—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, 1946, and to take the Motion to approve the Herring Industry Amendment Scheme.

Wednesday, 17th April—Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, and Motions to approve outstanding Import Duties Orders.

Thursday, 18th April—It is proposed to meet at 11a.m., and Questions will be taken until 12 noon.

Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 30th April.

On Tuesday or on Wednesday we shall ask the House to consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill and to other Bills

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made representations some time ago, and urged that we should postpone the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill until after Easter, in order to give hon. Members more time to consult local authorities and other interests. Further representations were made, and the Government decided to meet the request, but we felt that we could only do so on the understanding that the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill were not thereby prejudiced. We intended to take the Second Reading before the Easter Recess in order to allow as much time as possible for the Committee stage, and with a view to completing the remaining stages in the House by the end of July. From the consultations which have taken place, it is understood that this arrangement will not be prejudiced by delaying the Second Reading. The House will realise that these factors had to weigh with the Government in deciding upon postponement. I thought it right to mention this, and hope that the proposed arrangement will meet the general convenience of the House.

Mr. Churchill

We are obliged to the Leader of the House for the announcement he has made as to the postponement of the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill until after Easter. It must be remembered that in this Bill there are great differences of opinion, but there is also a much larger common ground of agreement on measures which were contemplated, and even advanced a considerable distance, during the life of the Coalition Government. Therefore, I trust this Business will not suffer because of the postponement until after Easter.

With regard to the addendum to the right hon. Gentleman's notice of Business for next week about considering Amendments which may be received from another place on the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill and some other Bills, we have not yet received the Amendments from another place. We do not know what their scope is. They may be numerous, and in some cases of obvious importance, and I hope that the Leader of the House will not endeavour to reach any conclusion upon them until he sees what the Amendments are. I do not know that they could be fitted in at the end of these busy days in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope that we shall not come to any decision on them until we see exactly what points are raised in each case.

Mr. Morrison

With regard to the Health Bill, I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise that there have been material changes in policy under this Government, and it is fair that there should be discussion. We hope that under the arrangement envisaged, we shall get a conclusion, wisely or unwisely, by the time indicated. With regard to the Measures coming from another place, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill especially is a Bill of some urgency, as it is related to housing development. I am informed that the Government will find it necessary to propose Amendments to the Bill in another place, but I am advised that a number of these Amendments are of a drafting character. It is our desire to consider any Amendments to this Bill and to other Bills which may be received from another place in order that the Bills may receive the Royal Assent before the Easter Adjournment. Quite often there is not much time to consider Amendments from another place which have come down shortly before a Recess, but we shall try to give the House as much time as is possible for the consideration of any such Amendments. We hope that it will be possible to obtain them on Tuesday or Wednesday, as I have announced in the Business statement. We must see the full extent of the Amendments when they are received. I hope that we shall receive any Amendments to Bills from another place on Monday.

Mr. W. J. Brown

How soon after Easter do the Government think they can afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Motion, signed by approximately 200 Member of the House, which is on the Order Paper, dealing with the question of counting unestablished service towards pension in the Civil Service?

[That the whole question of the counting of unestablished service for Civil Service tensions should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.]

Mr. Morrison

I see no prospect of time being available for that Motion.

Mr. Brown

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an issue which cannot be referred to any other kind of machinery than this House, and that if 200 Members of the House cannot get time for a Debate on the conditions of service of their own employees, something is radically wrong? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that, with a view to giving us a day after Easter?

Mr. Morrison

I still take the view that there will not be time available. I appreciate that the hon. Member made elaborate efforts, by circularisation of forms ready to be signed by hon. Members—

Hon. MEMBERS

Why not?

Mr. Morrison

I recognise that 200 Members signed them, but I am quite free to judge, and have a right to judge, as to the relative importance I must attach to these efforts at plebiscites in the House.

Mr. Bowles

With reference to the Business for next Thursday, in view of the fact that the first hour is being devoted to Questions, will the House rise at 4.30 p.m. or 5.30 p.m.?

Mr. Morrison

The House will adjourn at 5 o'clock.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of the many Questions which have been put down week after week, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before the Easter Recess on the reintroduction of the Criminal justice Bill?

Mr. Morrison

It is obviously out of the question for that Bill to be introduced this Session.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite

Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate at this stage whether it is intended to take the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill on the Floor of the House, in view of the large number of representations which have reached hon. Members on the subject? May I urge upon him the desirability of taking it on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Morrison

That is a point usually dealt with when we reach the Second Reading of a Bill.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Reverting to the question of the Motion on Civil Service pensions, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recognises that a refusal by the Government to provide time for a Motion signed by 200 Members of Parliament, whose signatures have been perfectly legitimately obtained, on an issue which every Member of the House knows is years old, cannot but have the most unfortunate effect upon the whole of the public services, when it is seen how much time the Government can afford to other matters of much less significance?

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but I am perfectly entitled to have my view as to the relative importance I attach to spontaneous pressure on the part of Members of Parliament, and activities of this sort, where elaborate circularisation is persisted in, and signatures obtained, which I am bound to say I do not think is a healthy Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Churchill

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the old freedoms of the House of Commons, the right of Members to associate with each other and to gather together for collective representation, should he disparaged and swept away, in the terms which he has used today?

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time in his life, has got it all wrong [Interruption.] I do not know what is the matter with the Opposition today.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman ought to look in the looking-glass.

Mr. Morrison

Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to make such steps as they think wise, but the Government must be free, and must be entitled to judge between one form of expressing the opinion of the House and another.

Mr. Churchill

If as many as 200 Members sign a document or petition, or agree upon a policy, that is not a reason for adopting the policy, but it is considerable reason for seeking some opportunity to enable the matter to be ventilated.

Mr. Morrison

I do not agree with the the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] He is reducing Parliamentary procedure to an automatic machine. If he thinks that some interest—and this is an interest—which by efforts, carefully organised and planned, can get the signatures of 200 Members of Parliament, is automatically going to command a Parliamentary day, I do not agree with him. I think we must judge these cases on their merits as they come along.

Mr. Churchill

I never suggested that the process should be automatic, although I may point out that the question of moving the Adjournment on urgent matters of public importance is decided by an automatic operation of 40 Members standing up in their place.

Mr. Morrison

Not very automatic.

Mr. Churchill

Surely it should be weighed by the Government and every effort should be made to meet the wish of the House to discuss questions which arouse great public interest. I am not dealing with the merits at all. I might differ altogether from the views put forward; but, from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, if there is a general desire to debate anything in this House, or if a large majority wish a matter to be debated, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to do his utmost to accommodate them.

Sir G. Fox

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what steps can be taken to ensure that next week Ministers are here at Question Time, following the experience of today when there was no Minister in attendance to answer Question No. 89?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that we got through the Questions quickly today. No doubt the Minister will be here next Thursday.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett

On the Business for next Monday, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your Ruling as to whether the first Notice of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, stand-in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr Leslie Hale), to call attention to the need for pensions for parents, is in Order, as the subject matter covered by it does not appear to be included in the Army Estimates?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) is out of Order. The provision, which the hon. Member advocates, of basic pensions or allowances payable to the parents of unmarried members of His Majesty's Army who lost their lives on active service during the recent war is not capable of being brought under Vote 14, which relates to pensions for disability incurred during peacetime service, Dr, so far as I can see, under any other Vote of the Army Estimates. But it does relate to a Vote in the Civil Estimates—that of the Ministry of Pensions. Under Standing Order No. 16 an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply must relate to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Committee of Supply. I must therefore rule that the hon. Member's Motion, which relates to the Civil Esti- mates, is out of Order on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.

Mr. Bowles

I do not see the hon. Member for Oldham in his place. He is probably in the best position, Mr. Speaker, to argue against your Ruling—which I do not doubt is quite right—but I would like to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) gave notice to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) that the point was going to be raised.

Mr. Speaker

That is not for me. I was asked a question and I have given a Ruling. The hon. Member will be able to make representations if he disagrees.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I gather from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that although this Motion would be out of Order on the Army Estimates, it would have been in Order on the Civil Estimates. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that the matter is obviously cognate to matters raised in the Army Estimates, he could arrange for Civil Estimates, or at any rate that particular one, to be taken on the same day.

Mr. Speaker

The Question will be that I do leave the Chair. We cannot take another Question on the same day as the Army Estimates.

Mr. Clement Davies

On a point of Order. Arising out of the answers given by the Leader of the House, which seem to involve the curtailment of individual liberty of Members of this House, is there any way in which this House can reestablish individual rights to bring matters to the attention of the House, other than the way which we have suggested?

Mr. Speaker

I did not quite follow that question.

Mr. Davies

Two hundred individual Members have put a Motion on the Paper. The Leader of the House said that no time could be given for discussion of the Motion. Is there no other way in which what is desired by 200 Members may be discussed by the House?

Mr. Speaker

That is rather a difficult question for me to answer. Motions are put on the Order Paper and the responsibility must lie upon the Government to give time. Hon. Members may object and may put down Motions objecting, but the responsibility remains with the Government for giving or refusing time. No doubt there are chances on Supply and on other occasions of raising the matter again.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not the case that if the hon. and learned Member wants to raise it, he can move the Adjournment of the House, if his 200 Members stand up, and then the matter can be decided?

Mr. Speaker

In that case it must definitely be a matter of urgent public importance. I do not think this quite comes in that category.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Is it not the case that when Private Members' time was very largely withdrawn in the House, we were assured by the Government of the day that if there were any issues which any large section of the House desired to have discussed in this place, then the Government would take the necessary steps to give us time? If 200 Members of Parliament cannot discuss the treatment of their own servants in the public service because the Government will neither give Private Members' time nor Governmental time to it, then what remedy have these men but to strike? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

It seems to me that when one talks about the remedy of the strike, one is very far from a point of Order.

Mr. James Callaghan

In view of the time taken up by Questions on next week's Business, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether there is any chance of extending Question time?

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker?