HC Deb 10 December 1946 vol 431 cc983-94
Mr. Churchill

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any interim statement to make about Business?

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

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] May I assure the House that I was not seeking to make a joke? On Friday, we shall ask the House to agree to take the Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. This Bill is being presented today, and copies will shortly be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Churchill

I would like to put myself on the same footing. Neither courtesy nor discourtesy is rationed at the present time. I understand that conversations have taken place about this Bill which are likely to make its progress less difficult than was at one time assumed?

Mr. Morrison

I ought to say that it is quite exceptional for a Bill to be presented on a Tuesday and put down for Second Reading on the following Friday. I do not wish this to be held as a precedent against the Opposition, but it was convenient that conversations should take place between the Government and other parties, and that has necessarily delayed the printing of the Bill. We hope that it will be largely an agreed Measure. It was because we wished to handle it in a conciliatory way, that delay has been caused, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we regard the circumstances as exceptional. I would not, for that reason, quote this as an instance against the right hon. Gentleman on any future occasion.

Mr. Eden

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Thursday's Debate, which was announced yesterday? We are due to discuss the Army, with special reference to the Territorial Army. I should like your guidance as to whether we can discuss that subject on the assumption of the continuance of compulsory national service. Unless we can discuss it on such a basis, I find it difficult to see what can be the value of our discussions.

Mr. Speaker

I must confess that I do not quite know the answer. It is clear, as I told the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, that once we embark on the question of compulsory service, we are entering into legislation, and therefore out of Order. How to combine the two would seem to me to be a matter for consideration between the two Front Benches. Would it be possible to suggest that some Motion might be drafted?

Mr. Eden

I was going to suggest that a Motion should be put down. It would not be necessary, I suggest, to discuss the merits or otherwise of compulsory national service on Thursday, but unless there is an assumption, on which we can debate, I cannot see what value our discussions can have.

Mr. Morrison

I understood that the Debate was to be within the limitations, broadly, of the statement made by the Secretary of State for War. I think that is how it ought to be. It is a matter of the internal organisation of the Territorial Army, and I think it would be rather doubtful to anticipate legislation of which the Government have given notice. We had one discussion on conscription during the Debate on the Address. We shall have another on the Bill, which we are all looking forward to with great interest. But I think myself that it would be a mistake to bring in the issue a third time on a matter which really arises out of the internal organisation of the Territorial Army, according to the announcement of the Secretary of State for War

Mr. Eden

I do not think that is quite the issue. In so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have no desire to debate on Thursday the merits or otherwise of compulsory military service. I cannot see how, unless we assume the continuance of compulsory military service, or are given some other basis for our discussion, we can usefully debate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in making their argument—and others too, possibly— would be entitled to say that they had a right to argue the case on certain assumptions implicit in the announcement of legislation in the King's Speech. What is clear from Mr. Speaker's Ruling is that, if they mention legislation, or get on to the merits of legislation, they will be out of Order. I do not know, but I do not think that it would be convenient to put down a Motion

Mr. Churchill

Is it not rather unsatisfactory to approach a Debate of this kind without anybody seeming to know at what point the speakers will be pulled up? There is no question of partisanship, but we would like to know, when we are discussing the conditions of the Territorial Army, whether we are discussing those conditions with reference to the great new fact that there is to be a prolongation of compulsory military service. If that cannot be discussed, it would be like dis- cussing the affairs of a family without being allowed to mention either the husband or the wife. Are we to have an intelligent Debate and not one to be pulled up at each point? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is easily settled by putting down a Motion, instead of having a Debate on the Adjournment. There could be a Motion in the most general terms, to approve the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the Armed Forces, or to approve the policy laid down in the speech of the Secretary of State for War. Something of the most general character would suffice, but we must have a sensible Debate.

Mr. Scollan

If the Debate on Thursday is to be confined to the Territorial Army, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that discussion can possibly be confined to the limits of the Territorial Army as it existed up to 1939? Is it not obvious that many Members will stray on to the proposed new scheme outlined in the King's Speech and in the Prime Minister's statement? For that reason, may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the whole matter? Many of us are definitely opposed to conscription, and for that reason would take very grave exception to the matter being determined in a Debate of that kind.

Mr. Morrison

I am sure my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful. The Debate will be about the Army and the Territorial Army in relation to the announcement made by the Secretary of State for War. Quite frankly, we have had one Debate on conscription, and we are to have a Bill. Therefore, I really do not think it would be convenient to have a Motion upon the whole issue again, in such a short time. If I may suggest it—I may be wrong, but you, Mr. Speaker, will say whether I am out of Order or not—perhaps the difficulty could be got over in this way. It could be argued that in our view no Territorial Army can be successful, unless there are x hundred thousand members in it, and then argue, on that, what we want to do with that number of members.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have had an opportunity of discussing the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which drew attention to the inconvenience that arises out of the Rule that we cannot on the Adjournment Motion discuss matters which involve legislation; and whether the Government are making any recommendations in that regard?

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir, we have not.

Mr. James Callaghan

Will it not be a very ragged Debate on Thursday if we cannot get down to the essential point of how the Territorial Army is to do its job and that it can only do its job if there is a big flow into it of people who come under conscription? A second point I should like to put is that, in any case, a discussion on the constitution of the Territorial Army is going to be a very narrow Debate on a very arid subject. In those circumstances, would it not be possible to go into other matters of Army administration, which are of concern, such as conditions in India, leave in advance of Python and that sort of issue?

Mr. Morrison

On the last point, the subject will be the Army and the Territorial Army and, therefore, my hon. Friend would be in no difficulty, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in discussing matters of Army organisation. With regard to the earlier point, I still think that, subject again to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would be competent to argue that the Territorial Army should be of a certain strength, and if that strength were given that it should be disposed of and organised in a certain way. That would not, in itself, raise the issue either of conscription or legislation.

Mr. Churchill

On that point, may I say that the Territorial Army has hitherto been a volunteer force? In the future is it to be partly compulsory and partly volunteer? I understand that that is so. That is the entire point we wish to discuss. Is it not obvious that the mixture of the two will affect the whole constitution, internally, of the Territorial Army? How can we take part in a discussion if we run out of Order, every time an hon. Member happens to stray across this purely imaginary limit?

Mr. Morrison

If I had known that the Opposition wanted to discuss the issue of conscription, it might have been different. With great respect, I am not clear from what the right hon. Gentleman says whether it rather borders on that now. If that is so, we might have taken another view as to whether this day should be given or not. If I may say so—and again I may be wrong—there is involved not only the issue of legislation being debated on the Adjournment, but I am not sure whether the issue of anticipation does not also arise, as it has been announced in the King's Speech that a Compulsory Service Bill is to be introduced. On that point I am not quite sure.

Mr. Speaker

If I may suggest it to the House, it seems to me that there is not, after all, a great margin between the two views and as another week elapses before this Debate takes place—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it is on Thursday."] I am much obliged. There is however, an interval between now and the Debate, and perhaps consultations will take place. I had no notice that this matter was going to be raised today and, therefore, I was not able to look into the matter carefully. I do not know whether anything can be done between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Churchill

Perhaps it would be most convenient to discuss the matter through the usual channels. May I say, with great respect, that we have no wish to have a row about conscription or non-conscription, but we do wish the Debate on the Territorial Army to take place with regard to the actual facts upon which it would be reconstituted.

Mr. Morrison

As long as it is not taken that I am contemplating a Motion, I have no objection to discussion through the usual channels to try to find a way out of the difficulty. If we can, I, and I am sure, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, will be happy to cooperate.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman is not excluding the idea of a general Motion, which does enable the matter to be discussed in its entirety?

Mr. Morrison

I have to look beyond the general Motion to what would follow.

Mr. Churchill

I am sorry about that.

Mr. Morrison

So am I. As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to have in his mind all the elements of the House, as well as the official bodies.

Mr. Clement Davies

I should like to make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. While it is right and proper in ordinary circumstances that the general Business for the convenience of the House should be discussed through the usual channels, there are two questions obviously involved here. One, suggested by the Leader of the House, is the organisation of the Territorial Army, which is a very important matter. But underlying it there might be a discussion on a fundamental issue in which the whole Constitution of this country is involved, namely, conscription in time of peace. Therefore, I suggest that the right course to adopt, in view of the rule against anticipation, is to postpone the discussion until the Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Morrison

I, personally, have no objection to that course, but I have promised this discussion to the Opposition. Obviously, I cannot withdraw from that promise without the consent of the Opposition.

Mr. Gallacher

Will the Leader of the House keep an eye on the Debate which is to take place today, and in which there is a considerable demand for time on the part of those who wish to speak? In those circumstances will he consider suspending the Rule?

Mr. Morrison

I would prefer to do it on a Thursday on a Scottish Bill. Sometimes when the Rule is suspended on Thursdays, our Scottish colleagues are not all here to take part in the Division. I think that the well-known capacity of our Scots colleagues for economy in their speeches—which is very admirable—will get us through in the ordinary time tonight.

Mr. Gallacher

I must take exception to the remark of the Leader of the House. The Scottish Members have as good a record as any other Members of this House. In a Debate like this, when so many Members have so many matters to bring up in connection with their constituencies, the Leader of the House should be prepared where necessary to consider suspending the Rule.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

I would like to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, about a matter you mentioned a moment ago. I understood you to say that an arrangement might be made, through the usual channels with regard to the Debate on the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that all he desires to do is to discuss the subject on Thursday in the light of conscription—

Mr. Churchill

It is the only way it can be done.

Mr. Hopkin Morris

—and, therefore, anticipating what the decision of the House will be at a later stage. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give us some guidance as to whether that is in Order or not, if the usual channels come to an arrangement which prejudges a decision of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Intelligent anticipation is always in Order. The rule about anticipation only applies when a Bill has been produced. Then, of course, one may not anticipate what the result will be. Until that anticipation is in Order.

Mr. Churchill

One may not anticipate it on a Motion for the Adjournment, but if a definite Motion is put down this House can address itself to it.

Mr. Bowles

It is quite obvious that in a discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment any hon. Member can talk about anything, but he must not ask for legislation nor must he demand alterations to existing legislation. In the present instance he is entitled to assume that next year we shall have another Finance Act to raise taxes to pay for the Territorial Army. I do not see why, in a Debate on the reorganisation of the Territorial Army, there is anything wrong in assuming that certain laws will go on.

Mr. Rees-Williams

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no change in the suggestion of the Government on the Territorial Army from the position existing before the war, because in the last year before the war it was intended that it should be on a compulsory service basis. Surely we could discuss it on that basis, which exists at the moment and which existed about the time the Territorial Army was suspended?

Mr. Walkden

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will bear in mind the fundamental issue that there is a desire in a broad section of opinion inside the Labour Party that—apart from any conversations which may take place between the Front Benches—we should face up to the situation, "Shall there be conscription for the Territorial Army in peacetime or not? We should like to have it out with the Front Bench on Thursday.

Mr. Morrison

I always admire the North country frankness of my hon. Friend and respect it, but we have "had it out" once, and had a Division. It has yet to be "had out" again—

Mr. Walkden

On the Territorial Army.

Mr. Morrison

But the right hon. Gentleman says that sooner or later it will be related to that, and it will have to be argued out on the Bill. I should have thought that there was plenty to talk about in the organisation of the Army and the Territorial Army without getting into these deep waters on Thursday.

Mr. Churchill

If hon. Gentlemen are to get up in succession and endeavour to make speeches about the future life of the Territorial Army, and how it draws its strength and carries on its affairs, and at every moment when they refer to the fact, even by implication, that a system of compulsory service is to be enforced, they find themselves offending against the Rules of Order, then I say that the Debate is needlessly upset and interfered with by the decision. I hope we may have a discussion through the usual channels and that the Government will not close their minds to putting down some innocent Motion, which avoids the Rule which now covers Debates on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker

We have had a longish discussion, and there is another matter upon which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question.

Mr. Churchill

With very great respect, Sir, you imply that we have had enough, but in fact we have not had anything— or at least nothing has been reached so far that has in it the slightest meaning. I venture, Sir, to ask you whether you are now in a position to give a Ruling on the point which arose last week as to whether the question of the Roosevelt statue is one to which Ministerial responsibility can be assigned?

Mr. Speaker

I have given careful consideration to this matter. The question is whether the design of the statue to be erected can be discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. It is a fundamental rule governing Debates on the Adjournment that only such matters can be debated on this Motion as involve the responsibility of the Government, and I am advised that under the Act which was passed last Session the Minister has no responsibility for the design itself. There is, however, an Act of 1854 which places public statues within the Metropolitan Police district under the control of the Commissioners of Works and Buildings, and this Act states as follows: No public statue shall be erected in any public place without the written assent of the said Commissioners. I am advised that this Section applies to the Roosevelt Memorial Statue and that it could not be erected without the assent of the Minister of Works, whose responsibility extends to the design of the statue. I must rule, therefore, that the question of the design of the statue is in Order on the Motion for the Adjournment. At the same time, the House should remember that the conditions of this particular memorial are now regulated by Statute and that any proposal for varying them would involve legislation and cannot be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Churchill

I gather from your Ruling, Sir, that we should be entitled to discuss the question of the design of the Roosevelt statue on the Adjournment provided that nothing that we say indicates the need for further legislation. That being so, the responsibility of the Minister—if I interpret your meaning rightly, the Minister of Works—is not in dispute. He is undoubtedly responsible, and therefore I suppose that in a Debate on the Vote for the Minister of Works, the matter could be discussed in Supply, if the Opposition choose to ask for such a Vote. Is that so?

Mr. Speaker

Unquestionably: what is allowable on the Adjournment is, I think, allowable in Supply.

Mr. Churchill

Only more so, and in that case we should not be hampered by saying that we did not like this or that form. I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for your Ruling, and I venture to ask the Leader of the House whether, if an occasion should arise when the Opposition decide to ask for a Supply Day—

Hon. Members: Next Thursday.

Mr. Churchill

—on which the Vote of the Minister of Works will be set down, the Government will agree that this question, into which so many variants of opinion enter, could be decided by a free vote of the House.

Mr. Clement Davies

Before the Leader of the House replies, may I support what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and point out that as the work upon the present statue is proceeding, this matter is one of great urgency? Would the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House therefore consider allowing this Debate on Thursday, in place of that already proposed?

Mr. Morrison

With regard to what happens on Thursday, as I have already given the day to the Opposition I cannot take it away unless the Opposition think it would be nicer to discuss the Roosevelt statue instead of the Territorial Army. If they think so, that is all right, but I cannot coerce the Opposition. The day has been given, and it is for them to decide. I do not suppose that the statue will be started within the next few weeks, but I thought that the suggestion of the righ hon. Gentleman that this might be taken on a Supply Day. was a very admirable one. We should certainly be willing to cooperate to that end, but I am bound to say that at the end of the day the question whether this House of 640 hon. and worthy Members is necessarily an authoritative body on a matter of architectural beauty is for hon. Members to consider. I only recall that there was once a battle about a famous bridge in London, and I personally did not think that the House was a good judge of architectural merits.

Mr. Churchill

I was, and am still, a supporter and admirer of the bridge in question. I think it is an admirable monument to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will continue to be worthy of it. I would not venture to suggest that the Business for Thursday should he altered, but I am glad that it is agreed and covered by your authoritative Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this question is a matter of Ministerial responsibility and that if the House think fit they can discuss it and deal with it as they choose.