BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 5 December 1946)

§ Mr. Churchill
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement on the Business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

§ Mr. Churchill
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position with regard to the Transport Bill, circulated on 28th November, and containing 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules? Do the Government propose to take the Second Reading of that Bill before Christmas?

§ Mr. Morrison
Yes, Sir, we do.

§ Mr. Churchill
Has the right hon. Gentleman accepted the position that at least three days should be given to the Second Reading Debate on this most complicated Bill?

Hon. Members
Four days.

§ Mr. Churchill
At least three days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not a matter of importance? I thought that the party opposite attached great importance to Government legislation. This Bill is, presumably, the major Bill of the Session. Is it intended to send it to a Standing Committee?

§ Mr. Morrison
If I may say so, these questions are premature. I am dealing with the Business for next week, and it is not usual to deal with the question of where Bills should go for the Committee stage until Second Reading. I have said nothing, so far, with regard to the time to be taken for the Second Reading Debate, and if that question is to be raised, it had better be raised through the usual channels. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "at least three days," I think he is going too far.

§ Mr. Churchill
When I said "at least three days" I was thinking that two days would be totally-inadequate. I do not think it is quite right to give indications across the House of the kind of trends of discussion which are likely to take place through the usual channels, but there is no reason why the House should be kept entirely out of it. In regard to this most important Transport Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that if it is sent to Committee upstairs, only about half the Members who really have a right and a duty, and a need to speak on it, will be able to take any part until it reaches the Report stage.

§ Mr. Morrison
I have not said anything about this Bill. It really is most unusual at this stage to announce whether a Bill is to go upstairs, or is to be taken on the Floor of the House. Many important Bills have gone upstairs, and some have been taken here. We will consider that in due course and come to a conclusion about it. It is unusual to give such early notice of whether or not a Bill is to go upstairs.

§ Mr. Churchill
Is it not right to give some indication and warning? Of course, we quite understand the overwhelming power which the right hon. Gentleman wields; we are only anxious to know, as far as we can beforehand, in what direction it is going to be exercised, and with what severity, in order that we may endeavour to accommodate ourselves to it.

§ Mr. Ronald Chamberlain
I am sorry to press the Leader of the House again on the subject of the statement on war damage compensation, which we have been expecting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st August, foreshadowed a statement "during October," and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should say whether the Chancellor meant October, 1946, or not.

§ Mr. Morrison
My right hon. Friend expects to be able to make a statement before we rise for Christmas. No doubt a suitable Question will be put on the Order Paper.

§ Major Guy Lloyd
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allocation of only one day to the important National Health Service (Scotland) Bill will cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland; and will 512 he not consider allowing another day's Debate on a subject about which Scottish people feel very strongly indeed?

§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the fact that many Scottish Members will wish to speak on the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the Rule?

§ Mr. Morrison
Broadly, this Bill follow; the same principles as the English Bill, in which 500 odd Members were concerned, and I do not think it is, therefore, unreasonable that the Second Reading Debate on the Scottish Bill should take a somewhat shorter time.

§ Mr. Edelman
Will the Leader of the House provide time in the near future for a Debate on the zonal fusion in Germany?

§ Mr. Morrison
Not at the moment, I am afraid. It may be that on the return of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary some Debate may take place, but I cannot give an undertaking at the moment. We will, of course, consider representations through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Churchill
Is it not necessary to provide, before Christmas, for a Debate on foreign affairs? Are we not to receive an account of the mission of the Foreign Secretary to America? We understood that there was to be a full Debate of two days on foreign affairs, and we have not pressed the matter in the interval. What is the idea of the Government about a Debate on foreign affairs before we separate for the Christmas Recess?

§ Mr. Morrison
I do not know the date on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be back. I am very doubtful whether he will be back in time, and whether, if he does get back, he will have time to prepare for an important Debate of this kind. Be that as it may, I cannot accept the doctrine that after every international conference—and there is a fair number of them nowadays—we must have a two days' Debate. If we do that, the House will not be able to get through its work. If representations are made through the usual channels, I will consider them, but I cannot give an undertaking in respect of having a Debate on this side of Christmas. I think it important, however, to make it clear that these international conferences come and go with some frequency, and that if we are 513 to get through our programme, we cannot possibly accept the doctrine that after every conference there must be a two days', or a one day, Debate.

§ Mr. Churchill
We are to have a separate discussion about Germany, I understand. Is not that so?

§ Mr. Morrison
Quite likely.

§ Mr. Churchill
Then, surely, there must also be a discussion about the general position in regard to foreign affairs. These are exceptional times, and all our fortunes depend on what is settled in these matters. The House takes a great interest in foreign affairs, and follows them closely. Cannot we have an assurance that, if the Foreign Secretary returns, we shall have an opportunity of discussing these matters before Christmas?

§ Mr. Morrison
No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman is now going still further. He is now claiming one day for a Debate on Germany and, therefore, two days for a general Debate on foreign affairs. This doctrine of using up Parliamentary time to the injury of a vital and socially necessary legislative programme, is one which we cannot accept. I do not know when my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary is corning back, but I think Members on all sides of the House would agree that, in view of the strain of the work and the negotiations he has had to conduct in the United States, it would be unfair to commit him to a Debate almost immediately after his return.

§ Mr. Churchill
May I ask now, whether there is to be a statement on India in the near future and whether the Thursday and Friday next week are being reserved for that purpose? If a statement were made, it would be necessary to have a full Debate on the subject, or rather, it may be necessary to have a full Debate.

§ Mr. Morrison
Now the right hon. Gentleman has thought of another subject which, also, is of importance. I quite agree with him. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers are engaged in discussions with representatives of India. It is possible that, arising out of those discussions, a statement may require to be made, and possibly it would be right—I cannot say—that a Debate 514 should ensue. That is one of the reasons why, with the knowledge of the Opposition, we left some elasticity about the Business for next Thursday or Friday, since other matters may arise.

§ Mr. Churchill
Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should have a statement on India, and immediately proceed to debate it at length? There must be some opportunity to consider it. I suggest that at least two days for a Debate on India will be required, and that there ought to be an interval between the Government's statement and such a Debate.

§ Mr. Morrison
I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await the statement. It depends upon its nature. I wish to indicate once more that the right hon. Gentleman has a habit of thinking of all the subjects he can, and then demanding at least two days' Debate on each. This is a Parliament which has to do a job of work, as well as engage in general Debates, and it is going to do its job. Therefore, it is a little unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to get up on a Thursday and think of all the subjects he can, and then proceed to demand at least two days for a Debate on each one.

§ Mr. Churchill
I naturally thought that these great topics were worthy of the attention of the House, especially when the Government seem to have so much time on their hands that they were able to waste a whole day stealing £5,000 a year from Lord Nelson.

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
We are getting a little wide. We are dealing with the Business for next week.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson
Cannot the Leader of the House tell us now that there will be a statement on India on Monday next, as this matter is of vital importance and of great interest to the whole world?

§ Mr. Morrison
How can I? Discussions are being conducted by the Prime Minister and others, and it is obvious that I cannot give an undertaking about a statement, until we know how things are going.

§ Mr. Nicholson
If the right hon. Gentleman has followed the situation at all, he must know that the crux of the whole situation is whether the Constituent 515 Assembly meets on Monday or not. The House has the right to demand a statement on the progress of the negotiations by next Monday at the latest.

§ Mr. Morrison
It is a matter for consideration whether there will be anything useful to say. That is for the Government to consider and decide. If we are not careful, we shall be drifting into statements every day of the week.

§ Mr. Warbey
Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an opportunity in the near future for a Debate on Austria? The Report of the Select Committee on Estimates has been before Members for two or three weeks, and there is a danger that because of the blaze of publicity which is being focused on Germany we may lose sight of the position in Austria.

§ Mr. Morrison
I cannot give an undertaking about a separate Debate on Austria.

§ Sir Arnold Gridley
Reverting to the Transport Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House if he is aware that this Bill affects not only the transport industry, but every other industry in the country? Is he further aware that industry generally wants further time to consider a huge Measure of this sort, before the Second Reading is taken, so as to enable various industries to make their representations to the elected Members of this House?

§ Mr. Morrison
I agree that one of the purposes of this Bill is to benefit all other industries in the country by giving them increased efficiency in transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Bill has been available for some time. [HON. MEMBERS: "A week."] It is not to be taken next week. It cannot, therefore, be taken earlier than the week after, and I think that is ample time, in which to study a Bill of this kind.

§ Mr. Driberg
Since there are two days vacant next week is my right hon. Friend able to give any time for discussion of a Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of 170 hon. Members, on the question of the Roosevelt Memorial statue?

§ Mr. Morrison
I am not at all sure that the House would find it urgent or useful to debate that Motion or whether we could come to a collective decision about it. I know that my hon. Friend has joined up with Members in all parts of the House, in this matter, and I know that there are views in all parts of the House about it. But, if I am not mistaken, the two vacant days next week will soon be gobbled up.

§ Mr. Churchill
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will indulge me by expressing the hope that some opportunity will be given for discussing this question of the Roosevelt statue, and particularly the standing as against the sitting position?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not quite sure that that would be in Order. There is no Government responsibility for that matter.

Sir John Mellon
With regard to the Transport Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider the propriety of sending this Bill, in the first instance, to a Select Committee, followed by a recommittal to a Committee of the Whole House, in order that there may be an opportunity for interests affected attending and giving evidence, since the Government, by introducing this Bill in its present form, have deprived them of the normal right of Private Bill procedure?

§ Mr. Morrison
This is not a Private Bill; it is not even a Hybrid Bill. This is a Public Bill and it ought to be a Public Bill. The suggestion on Parliamentary procedure about this Bill which the hon. Gentleman has made, is very quaint. I have no doubt that all the interests concerned feel sure that they will be able to find channels through which their views can be expressed.

§ Earl Winterton
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a Ruling on a matter to which you have just referred? Do I understand that your view, given in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, is that the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and others, is out of Order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am rather doubtful about that. I was surprised to see it on the Order Paper. It only asks the Gov- 517 ernment to approach The Pilgrims, which I think is rather an odd thing to ask the Government to do. There is no responsibility whatever on the Government about the position of the statue.

§ Mr. Churchill
Surely, Mr. Speaker, His Majesty's Government passed a Bill through the House appropriating public ground and public funds in connection with this matter. Can it be then argued that the House has no further right to discuss the matter, even if they view with distaste the particular measures which are being taken to give effect to the legislation? May I, with great respect, ask, "Was not this Measure passed unanimously by the House?'' We were invited to pass it by the Prime Minister, and can it therefore be said that, the very day-after, no one has a right to say another word about what is to happen?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not sure exactly what the position is, but I know that the Bill has nothing to do with the position of the statue. That is the point upon which there is controversy. A Society raised the money to put up the statue. I cannot say without looking into the matter, but I am very doubtful whether this Motion is in Order, because the position of the statue is not the responsibility of the Government.

§ Mr. Churchill
May the Government be allowed to say what their attitude is on the subject? You, Sir, I understand, are a member of the committee which has chosen this statue. I should not like to involve myself in any argument with the. Chair on any question about artistic propriety.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
So far as I know, this is a highly contentious and very artistic matter, and I am not in a position to announce the collective view of His Majesty's Government upon it.

§ Mr. Driberg
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that, since Parliament has approved the Measure dealing with the site, the statue itself is in such close and integral relationship with the general layout of the site that it is natural and proper that this House should also take an interest in it?

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be arguable, but as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, I am in a somewhat difficult position. I must, however, point out 518 that the statue, and the position of the statue, are matters which have nothing to do with the Government. They have no responsibility.

§ Mr. Churchill
In a matter of this kind, when we are proceeding on a basis of unanimity, and as the statue would not be put up if the House had not passed the Bill, is it not right that some interchange of ideas should take place between Members of the House on both sides, and that the opinions and views of a large number of people should not be impinged upon in a harsh manner; and should we not be permitted to discuss this matter upon the Adjournment for the Recess?

§ Mr. Speaker
We are not allowed to discuss matters for which there is no Government responsibility. I must try to stick to the Rules of this House. I am quite prepared to give the matter my consideration, but this has suddenly been raised at the last minute. I have had no notice of it. I will certainly look into the matter. I merely gave the first impression which came to my mind that the position of the statue is not the Government's responsibility. If I am asked to give a Ruling next week, I am quite prepared to do so.

§ Mr. Churchill
May I extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my thanks for the promise which you have made to give further consideration to the point of Order which has been raised?

§ Mr. Gallacher
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, instead of our valuable time being wasted, it might be possible for those who feel deeply on this question to meet the committee responsible and get two statues, one standing and one sitting?

§ Earl Winterton
Would you, Sir, when you give consideration to this matter, consider it in relation to the Debate which took place the other day on the Adjournment, on children's cinema clubs? The Government have no responsibility for them; no grant is given towards them, and yet you permitted a Debate on that subject on the Adjournment. Will you consider that in relation to this matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
I suppose that I did permit the Debate. I do not remember anything about it. I do not think that I was in the Chair at the time.

§ Earl Winterton
May I respectfully say, Sir, that you were in the Chair when the Debate took place last week, and may I very respectfully submit that that should be considered in connection with your Ruling on this other matter?

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Home Office has certain very definite responsibilities with regard to the licensing of cinemas and the people who are admitted to them?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is really the answer, and therefore I need not consider it, in relation to this other matter.

§ Mr. Churchill
Have not the Government, in view of the Bill which they have passed, a very definite responsibility for the condition of Grosvenor Square?

§ Mr. Speaker
I believe that they will have responsibility for Grosvenor Square, but not for the statues in it.