HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2183-91
Mr. Churchill

Has the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House any statement to make upon the Business when we resume?

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

Yes Sir. I am bound to say I was beginning to feel a little neglected.

Tuesday, 21st January.—Second Reading of the Statistics of Trade Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Wednesday, 22nd January.—Report and Third Reading of the Agricultural Wages Bill and Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill.

Thursday, 23rd January.—Committee and remaining stages of Pensions (Increase) Bill; Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] and Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords] and Motions to approve Purchase Tax (Exemptions) No. 6 and No. 7 Orders.

Friday, 24th January.—Second Reading of the Malta (Reconstruction) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Churchill

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an early Debate on foreign affairs when we return? Two days would be required for it. I feel that we ought to receive some account from the Foreign Secretary. There are many grave matters which require the attention of the House, and we certainly ask for a two-day Debate.

Mr. Morrison

We shall be willing to consider that through the usual channels. The House will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not yet back and we have to study his convenience. It is conceivable that some rearrangement of the Business which I have announced may be necessary, or an opportunity might come a little later. We should be willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels and we will consider it. I am not sure about two days but we will consider that.

Mr. Clement Davies

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to two notices of Motion standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself in reference to the Standing Order relating to the Committee stage of any Bill?

[That paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 46 be amended by leaving out from the word "to," in line 2, to the end of the paragraph, and inserting the words "a Committee of the whole House, unless the House on Motion otherwise order; and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time, may be made by any Member and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed busi- ness and, if such Motion be opposed, Mr. Speaker, after permitting a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes such Motion, respectively, shall, without further debate, put the question thereon; provided that no such Motion shall be made in respect of Bills for imposing taxes or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills, or in respect of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders."]

[That the order made by the House on 18th December, 1946, committing the Transport Bill to a Standing Committee of this House be read and discharged, and that the Transport Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.]

The proposal is that the first paragraph of Standing Order No. 46 should be amended so that ordinarily, instead of a Bill going to Standing Committee upstairs, it would be taken here in Committee of the Whole House. There is this addition, that there should be some guidance from the Minister as to the reasons which induce him to ask the House to take the Bill either in Standing Committee upstairs or here. We have no guidance at present. Might I also point out that this matter is urgent inasmuch as the House decided last night that the Transport Bill should not be taken on the Floor of the House but in a Standing Committee. Would it be possible to have these two Motions discussed at a very early date?

Mr. Morrison

I have seen these Motions. I am bound to say that I am getting a little worried about the increasingly reactionary tendencies of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Churchill

I thought the right hon. Gentleman had got them in his pocket.

Mr. Morrison

I am apprehensive that the Liberal Whip is putting them in the right hon. Gentleman's pocket. I think that will be a pity. I do not propose to give facilities for these Motions. I do not know —it will be for Mr. Speaker to rule—but the second one seems to me to be in direct conflict with the decision reached by the House last night. I should have thought it was out of Order. With regard to the first one, this Standing Order has existed for a long time. If we are now to get into a position in which it is to be presumed that the Committee stages of Bills have 10 be taken on the Floor of the House, and the Government have to make a case if they wish to send one to Stand- ing Committee upstairs, which would be subject to lengthy debate, I think it would be a very backward move. I propose to follow the views of the Liberal Government which invented the Standing Order.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he would give time for the matter to be debated and not to say what line he would take when the Debate came on.

Mr. Morrison

I think I have made it clear that I do not propose to give time for the matter to be debated.

Mr. Rankin

In view of the fact that the passenger plane proceeding this morning from Northolt to Glasgow and Aberdeen crashed after leaving the airport, and also, that these continuing mishaps are disturbing the minds of the travelling public, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to give some time for a Debate to inquire into the matter in the House? I am well aware that inquiries are proceeding with regard to previous happenings, but while the inquiries proceed the mishaps continue.

Mr. Speaker

I do not quite follow what connection this has with the question of Business to be taken when we reassemble.

Sir Arnold Gridley

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Electricity Bill is likely to be in the Vote Office, and if there is any possibility of its being taken in the second week after we reassemble?

Mr. Morrison

This must not be taken as quite certain, but I think it is almost certain that the Electricity Bill will be presented in dummy tomorrow. So will the Town and Country Planning Bill. The latter will be a very interesting Bill. It is intended that these Bills shall be published quite early in the New Year, well before the resumption of the House, so that hon. Members may have a chance to study them. I have announced the Business for the first week after we come back and I must reserve complete freedom to decide that one or other, or both, of these Bills, and the Agriculture Bill. may come on at any time thereafter.

Brigadier Head

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give time for a Debate on the Army, in place of the one which was recently postponed?

Mr. Morrison

That Debate was postponed because of a demand by the Opposition for two days for the India Debate. It could have been held if the India Debate had occupied only one day, but the Opposition preferred India. We did what they asked. It was convenient at that time. There was time available but the time has now gone, and I cannot automatically be held to the promise that the Army should be debated.

Mr. Churchill

Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise, most explicitly, that there would be two days for the Debate on India? What has that to do with the Army Debate? It is another question altogether. He promised—and it was admitted when we mentioned the matter —that there should be a two-day Debate on India. Why should that be brought up now, as an argument against a Debate on the Army, which the Government at that time considered so urgent?

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman is now trying to make me a victim of my own kindness and generosity. The Opposition wished to have two days for the Debate on India and two days were given. They had asked for an Army day, and it happened that time was available and was given to the India Debate. I am willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels, but I must make it clear that I can give no undertaking that time will now be available. There is a limited number of days, and when the Opposition have taken one specially, as they did for the India Debate—I may say, against the advice of the Government, and against the wishes of everybody except the Conservative Party —they cannot automatically preserve the right which they gave up.

Mr. Tiffany

May I ask the Leader of the House when the Agriculture Bill will be available?

Mr. Morrison

The Bill is in the Vote Office now.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay

In view of the request for a Debate on foreign affairs, is the Leader of the House aware that, yesterday, a most important announcement was made in an answer to a written Question about the authorisation of a loan of £10 million to Austria, and that some of us who did not get the opportunity to ask supplementary questions would like to be assured that there will be a discussion on it?

Mr. Morrison

I should have thought that it would be perfectly competent to raise it in the Debate—if it happens— on foreign affairs.

Mr. Churchill

May I give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House notice, for his convenience and his generosity, that, when Parliament reassembles, we shall ask him to afford us an opportunity for a Vote of Censure?

Mr. Morrison

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, as he is in such a courteous mood, would add to his courtesy by telling me what it is about? What are we to be censured for? [An HON. MEMBER: "Incompetence."] I should like to have notice of what it is about.

Mr. Churchill

I should not attempt to draft the Motion at this moment, but tyranny, conceit and incompetence would be the substance of it.

Mr. Speaker

I wonder if I might suggest to the House that we have a Royal Commission at 4.15 p.m., and that there are still two other items to be disposed of before we get on to the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Clement Davies rose—

Mr. Scollan

On a point of Order. You gave a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), with regard to giving a day for a discussion on civil aviation. I want to know how it was out of Order for him to ask the Leader of the House to grant a day to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker

I did not realise that the hon. Member was doing that. He seemed to me to be telling a long story about accidents.

Mr. Rankin

My point was whether, in view of the continuing mishaps in civil aviation, it is within the province of this House to have a day or part of a day to inquire into these matters.

Mr. Morrison

I think the best course my hon. Friend can take is to put down a question. If the reply is not satisfactory, he can then give notice that he will then raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment, but I do not think a case has been made out for special time.

Mr. Rankin

May I say that my reason for raising the matter here is because, five months ago, there was a disaster in the Kirkpatrick Hills, and that, in spite of pressure, we have still had no report upon it?

Mr. C. Davies

May I ask a question about the possibility of time for a discussion of the two Motions I have mentioned, because it is a vital matter for this House? I realise that a Standing Order has been in existence for a very long time, but this Government are now tending to send more and more important Bills, which, in the past, have been taken on the Floor of the House, to Standing Committees upstairs, and they are doing so without any explanation whatever. I should have thought it in the best interests of this House that this question should be discussed. May I, therefore, ask for further consideration of the request for time for a Debate on these Motions?

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir; certainly not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that the House has already debated the matter. Yes, months ago. The House has had a Debate on Procedure, and I made it abundantly clear to the House that the attitude of this Government was that Bills of this sort should go upstairs and that the only Bills which we bound ourselves to keep on the Floor of the House were Finance Bills and Bills of serious, fundamental, constitutional importance, which this Bill is not. It was also shown that the policy of this Government on this matter—and it was accepted by both sides of the House —was the policy of a number of Ministers who had collectively considered it, in the previous Government. The House accepted that, and the Government are not willing to move from their position.

Mr. Churchill

Are there any precedents at all for the major Bills of the Session being sent upstairs to a Standing Committee? I am not aware that that matter was ever discussed. The right hon. Gentleman refers to precedents in former Liberal Administrations, but I am quite certain, without reflecting in any way upon a decision of this House, that major Bills should be discussed in the House, where everyone can have a chance of taking part in the Committee stage.

Mr. Morrison

Everybody will have a chance on the Report stage. I said that the Standing Order if I remember rightly —and I may be wrong, but I do not think so—was brought about by a Liberal Government. How far they took advantage of it, I do not know. This Government are bringing in more major Bills. That was the idea of this Government, and the idea of the electorate, and this is one of the means whereby this socially necessary legislative programme can be brought about. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince me that we are even doing things for which there is no precedent, I tell him that that does not frighten me in the least. It is one of the things for which this Government exist.

Mr. Pickthorn

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement about what he made abundantly clear on an earlier occasion, rest upon the assumption that the word "constitutional" can have only the meaning which his convenience attaches to it?

Mr. Morrison

I have done my best to be a student of constitutional history and constitutional matters, and I would say, for example, that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, which gave the Executive wide powers to legislate by delegated powers, was a Bill of a constitutional character. We took it on the Floor of the House. This Bill, which merely determines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Merely."]—Yes, merely determines who is going to own and manage the transport undertakings of this country, has nothing whatever to do with the British Constitution, or the British way of life.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is not the new practice of taking major Bills, which used to be taken on the Floor of the House, in Committee upstairs, the result of the acceptance by this House of the unanimous Report of a Select Committee on Procedure, of which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was a Member?

Mr. Morrison

My memory of that is not so clear, and I would not commit myself, but I am bound to say that I have a hazy recollection of it just as my hon. Friend has a precise recollection. So I really think the Leader of the Liberal Party is in the soup.

Mr. Speaker

I think we should be getting on.

Mr. Churchill

May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is of very great importance, and one on which a large number of hon. Gentlemen feel strongly?

Mr. Speaker

All the same, it is developing into an irregular Debate, covering the Second Reading of a Bill which was passed yesterday and now, apparently, two Motions which appear on the Order Paper.