HC Deb 28 November 1946 vol 430 cc1787-95
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:

Monday, 2nd December—Second Reading of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Tuesday, 3rd December—Second Reading of the Trafalgar Estates Bill and consideration of the draft Unemployment Assistance and Supplementary Pension Regulations.

Wednesday and Thursday, 4th and 5th December—Committee stage of the Exchange Control Bill.

Friday, 6th December—Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Royal Marines Bill; and further consideration of the India (Governor's Allowances and Privileges) Order and the Burma (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order.

Mr. Churchill

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that insufficient time is given for consideration of the Bills between presentation and Second Reading? Take, for instance, the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, which was ordered to be printed on 20th November. It was available in the Vote Office on 22nd November, but the Second Reading is to be taken on Monday, 2nd December. That is to say, only 10 days have been allowed for consideration of this extremely complicated Bill, which affects a large part of the country. The Pensions (Increase) Bill was not presented until today, and is not yet available, but it is already announced that the Second Reading is to take place on Friday, 6th December, which gives only eight days in which to consider the Bill. Really, there must be some reasonable opportunity for Measures to be looked at after they are presented, before the House is forced to Debate them on Second Reading. What does the right hon. Gentleman say about all that?

Mr. Morrison

I would not wish to be unfair to the House, or not to give hon. Members proper opportunity of absorbing the contents of Bills before the Second Reading. I think, in principle, that is a perfectly sound argument, but in the case of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill, I do not think it is a very difficult Bill to follow. Moreover, by Monday, hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study it, not only during the whole of the week but over two weekends, last weekend and the coming weekend, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to take the view that the House will have had an opportunity of understanding the Bill. Also, in this case, there was an earlier Debate on the principle involved in the Bill, when the decision was reached not to reopen the Liverpool and Manchester Cotton Exchanges. With regard to the Pensions (Increase) Bill, that is a small uncontentious Measure which the Treasury have produced to assist certain officers and employees of the State. There is nothing very difficult about it, and I do not think there is anything contentious in it. I am told, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be in the Vote Office this afternoon.

Mr. Eden

I do not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman has said about this Measure but, of course, he will realise that we cannot judge, because we have not seen it. May I ask if there is any precedent for the House being asked to agree to the inclusion in the following week's Business of a Bill which has not yet been presented?

Mr. Morrison

I cannot say, because I do not know. I should be very surprised if there is not. There is a precedent for nearly everything that happens. After all, this Bill is not to be taken until to-morrow week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to accept my assurance that it is not a difficult Bill. It is, as I say, quite small and, I think, uncontentious.

Mr. Churchill

On the general question of a reasonable time being allowed between the presentation or First Reading of Bills and Second Reading, surely the right hon. Gentleman would wish to meet the views of those who have to consider these Measures, and give the House proper time in which to study them. A week or ten days is very little time in which to raise many technical matters. There is other business which is also important and which can be taken. It is not a case of adding to the volume but only of leaving a more decent interval between presentation and Second Reading. At the present time the First Reading is usually taken in a formal way. But if the Bill is to be put forward without people in the country having even had time to read it, and consider how their different interests and rights are affected, naturally the whole question of procedure may have to be considered from a much more detailed point of view. Undoubtedly, the course of public business is better accelerated by reasonable agreements through the usual channels.

Mr. Morrison

I do not resist what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Quite frankly, I think that in the cases to which he has called attention, the period is not unreasonable but I accept the doctrine of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I can assure him that we will do our best to act in accordance with the spirit of it.

Mr. Churchill

May it, therefore, be a matter which will be subject to discussion through the usual channels?

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking that we should be willing to defer the Second Reading of the Bills which I have mentioned in the statement on Business.

Mr. Sparks

Can my right hon. Friend inform the House when the Transport Bill is likely to be available; and could he also say when we may anticipate the Second Reading of that Bill?

Mr. Morrison

On the first point, it may be for the convenience of the House to know—doubtless many hon. Members already know—that copies of the Transport Bill are now available in the Vote Office. I am not in a position to say when the Second Reading will be taken. I think this is a case in which the Government must take special care to see that there is reasonable opportunity for hon. Members to study the Bill.

Mr. Churchill

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his admission that in the case of the two Bills I have mentioned—the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill and the Pensions (Increase) Bill —the Government have not taken special care to see that reasonable opportunity is given to Members—while making acknowledgment for that admission—I would seriously urge him not to press upon us the taking of these two Measures so soon after they have been introduced and laid before us. Of course, it is said that there are two weekends during which they can be, considered. But, considering that this affects many people outside this House, and that many bodies have to be called together and consulted, and that the weekend under present conditions is not an easy time for them to meet, it would be more reasonable to let the period extend to a fortnight or so. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that. Otherwise there are many formal parts in the procedure of the House which we shall be forced to examine from the point of view of making sure that things do not slip through too quickly.

Mr. Morrison

On the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am much obliged to him for telling us. We shall try to be ready for that eventuality. With great respect, I do not think that the time given is short. There are, as I say, two weekends and there is the whole week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite would not believe how much work some of us do at the weekend. The industry knew what was coming. They know the outline of the Bill, and I think they will be ready to make representations to hon. Members stating their point of view, and so on. I do not think this is an unreasonable period, and I am perfectly certain that there are plenty of precedents for a period such as ten days being allowed in connection with a Bill of this size.

Mr. Walter Fletcher

May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of his remark about the Cotton Bill not being complicated, whether he does not realise that, in fact, it is extremely complicated? It is not just a question of suppressing the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. This Bill brings forward an entirely new form of Government trading, and raises large questions of principle, and, therefore, the time given for its consideration seems to me to be utterly inadequate for the purpose.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman seems already to be fairly fully possessed of the contents of the Bill. I would only say that the arguments in the Debate might conceivably be complicated, because this is rather a subtle business and the House may find itself involved in a complicated argument. But the House is always happy when it gets into complications, and there is no grievance on that score. I do not pretend to be thoroughly expert about these things, but I feel that this is really a straightforward Bill, easy to understand. Even I understand it.

Mr. Churchill

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of taking the Second Reading of the Cotton Bill, and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, on Monday next, he should give time for the consideration of a Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) about the Roosevelt statue, which is really a matter on which the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views?

[That this House is of the opinion that the design proposed for the Memorial Statue of the late President Roosevelt is inadequate and unworthy; and urges His Majesty's Government to propose to the Pilgrim Society that the matter be reconsidered.]

Mr. Morrison

I am bound to say that it is a charming act of generosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Maldon. There are times when I would like to come to his rescue in the opposite direction. But I am afraid that, ingenious as that proposal is, it is not one which the Government can accept consistently with the proper management of its legislative programme.

Mr. Churchill

But the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this Motion about the Roosevelt statue is a Motion proposed by hon. Members of all parties. It is quite true that it originates with an hon. Member, or a quasi-Member, of the right hon. Gentleman's own party, but there is a very large body of opinion requiring an opportunity of discussing this matter.

Mr. Speaker

It appears to me that we are wandering all over the shop, and discussing the Cotton Bill, the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and then the Roosevelt statue. I think it is for the Government and not for the Opposition to state the Business for next week.

Mr. Churchill

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we always endeavour to show the utmost respect for the Chair, and I hope I shall not be thought lacking in that respect if I venture to say that, when the Government state the Business, it has always been the custom of this House that the Opposition is entitled to question it and criticise it.

Mr. Speaker

I have no doubt that the Opposition are perfectly entitled to question and criticise, and I do not complain of that. I only said that I did not think that it was the duty of the Opposition to suggest alternative Business. I think that is a very unusual procedure for this House.

Mr. Churchill

On that point, and with very great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that perhaps it would have been better if I had asked the question about facilities being given for the Motion put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Maldon, apart from the question of whether a proper interval for the discussion of Bills should be allowed. May I, therefore, put myself in line with your wishes on the matter, and not expose myself to any rebuke of being "all over the shop"? As we are to understand that the Government will not reconsider any extra time before the discussion of these Measures— the Cotton Bill and the Pensions Bill— will the Leader of the House inform me whether he will be able to give any opportunity for the discussion of the Motion, signed by Members of all parties, on the question of the Roosevelt statue, in respect of which we have had to legislate and provide finance from this House?

Mr. Morrison

If that matter was raised through the usual channels, we should be willing to consider the matter, and to try to sense the feeling of the House on whether it was thought appropriate that the House should have a discussion about it.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he does not think that it is quite possible for hon. Members of this House to understand the principles of a published Bill within eight or 10 days, and why the Leader of the Opposition should suggest that—

Mr. Speaker

That is quite a hypothetical question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

May I, Mr. Speaker, put a personal question, and ask for your decision on it, regarding the Trafalgar Estates Bill? May I ask whether, as a trustee of the Trafalgar Estates, and appointed as such by Parliament, it is your intention to preside in person over the Debate on a Bill which is designed to alter or revoke the terms of that trust?

Mr. Speaker

If the House chooses to remove me, or give anybody else power to remove me, surely I have no complaint. That only means that I do less work; that is all. After all, I am a trustee for the Chequers Estates, for the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, Royal College of Surgeons and the Duke of Wellington's estate, and I do not know what else. I do not think there is anything personal, but, of course, I must not express any opinion on the merits of the Bill. I cannot see, however, that there is anything personal involved if I preside over this Debate.

Mr. Morrison

I should have thought it would be the feeling of the House as a whole, that we should have the utmost confidence in your presiding over us, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are also trustees; they are parents of the Bill, and are, I imagine, in a much worse situation than you are.

Mr. Churchill

Might I say that, so far as my hon. Friends on this side of the House are concerned, we should have absolute confidence in your conduct of any Debate upon this subject, Mr. Speaker, and that you would not be influenced, in any opinion which it might be your duty to form, in consequence of your capacity as a member of the Trust?

Mr. Speaker

I may point out that I feel myself, in a way, in rather a different category from the other trustees. I am an official trustee, and the others are executive trustees, who can alter the law. I cannot. Therefore, I am removed from the discussion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was far from trying to suggest any censure in regard to the conduct of the Debate? Is it not a fact that I spoke to you about this matter yesterday, asking whether you would resent a question on it, and was told that you would be prepared to give an answer should I raise it?

Mr. Speaker

I say, quite frankly, that, if any remarks are made which may be hostile to the trustees, they clearly will not apply to me, because, as I say, I am not an executive trustee, but only a statutory one.

Mr. Pickthorn

I apologise for not having given notice of this point, but it only occurred to me in this form as the result of the answers given by you, Sir, and the Leader of the House. I fully understand and respect your position. Sir, if I may say so. But about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury—and I say this in no sort of criticism of them as persons—the question I wish to put is whether it would be in Order for trustees to impose legislation which can at least be argued to be contrary to the interest of the beneficiaries; and whether, therefore, it is in Order for those particular right hon. Gentlemen to back a Bill for this purpose?

Mr. Speaker

I should have thought that they were acting, not as trustees, but in their executive capacity as Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Churchill

Ought they not, therefore, in those circumstances, to divest themselves of their responsibilities as trustees, which can easily be done by an amending Act releasing them from those responsibilities, when they would be perfectly free to destroy the trust and not be hampered by the Commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal"?

Mr. Dalton

Without wishing, in advance, to deploy an argument on the Bill which it is proposed to read a Second time next Tuesday, I would draw attention to the fact that there is no proposal in the Bill to damage the beneficiaries under the trust. Indeed, it is designed—though this argument must wait until next week to be deployed in full—to benefit the— [Interruption]. But I have read the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes to enable estates, which may now not be freely dealt with, to be freely dealt with, and there is a prima faciecase for thinking that this will benefit the beneficiaries, and not otherwise.

Mr. Churchill

If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that there is no conflict between the parties concerned—between himself and the other trustees—and that there is agreement on the matter; and if he can further assure us that he has reconciled his fiduciary duties as a trustee, which are real, serious and living duties, with the other duties which he discharges as a Minister of the Crown, we should all feel much easier, but that matter may require looking into.

Mr. Janner

On the question of Business, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the very glaring flaws —which are generally appreciated—in the present rent control Acts he will consider the introduction of a small, non-contentious Measure to deal with the most flagrant of them? Does he realise that it is the desire of the House to do so? It would not take long to put through such a Measure.

Mr. Morrison

One of the most charming features of the House of Commons is its occasional innocence. The idea of a small, non-contentious Rent Restriction Bill is a good example of such innocence. I have been deceived quite often enough by Ministers about small and uncontentious Measures.