ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

HC Deb 13 August 1947 vol 441 cc2423-79

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising this Day, do adjourn till Monday, 20th October."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

I beg to move, to leave out from "till", to the end of the Question, and to add: "Tuesday, 16th September."

This is a manuscript Amendment. I feel the more emboldened in this course by events which occurred in another place yesterday. It would not be in Order to quote those events, but I think it would be a fair summary if I were to say that when in another place a number of noble Lords thought it desirable that the House should meet earlier, the Lord Chancellor, at least, did not show himself in any way hostile to the proposal. I hope—in fact, I feel sure—that there will not be any differences among the Government on this point. We know there never are any differences among the Government, and I feel sure, therefore, that we can count on the Lord President to be at least as forthcoming as was the Lord Chancellor in another place. If he feels able to meet us in the same spirit and temper, we shall have made remarkable progress.

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

The right hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that it is another place.

Mr. Eden

It is the same Government, or it ought to be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) must not interrupt, because I have noted a vote which he gave a little time ago. He voted against adjourning for six weeks in the year in which we were winning the war, so he had better be careful not to vote in favour of adjourning for 10 weeks on this occasion.

I want to ask the House to consider our position and to examine the reasons why, in all seriousness, we on this side of the House urge the recall of the House on the date which I have mentioned, namely, 16th September. Nobody will deny—unhappily, nobody can deny—that this country is in a balance of payments crisis, and, according to the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us yesterday, the American loan will have run out before the House re-assembles, if it does re-assemble on the date suggested in October. There will then be a yawning gap, with little except our reserves of gold and free exchange available to bridge that gap; and, we are all agreed, as the Chancellor told us the other day, that we must not fritter away those last reserves.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: What do the Government propose to do to meet this situation—the final exhaustion of the American Loan—which will arise before this House resumes, on the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself? We do not know what the Government propose to do. All that we have been told so far is that there are to be some cuts in imports, cuts which may, perhaps, reduce this yawning gap by—shall we say?—a third, probably more nearly a quarter. We have also been told there is to be some increase in exports, but not, I should imagine, before we return in October. That increase in exports can only come about at a considerably later date. The Government have not claimed it will be sooner than that.

So we are in the position that we are to adjourn in the certain knowledge that the American loan will run out before we resume, and with no information from the Government as to what they propose to do in these conditions. I say deliberately that such a situation is quite unprecedented. What we are asked to do is to adjourn when the Government have no plan—to adjourn, if you will, to enable the Government to seek for a plan; in other words, to adjourn to enable the Government to do something which they ought to have begun to do a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman feels any doubt as to the justice of these observations, let him re-read—because I am sure he must have read it before—the letter in the "Daily Herald" of last Friday signed by 19 of his own supporters on the back benches.

Mr. H. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman must be in a bad way if he has to quote them in support.

Mr. Eden

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should say that.

Mr. Morrison

Why not quote 19 Tory Members?

Mr. Eden

I am speaking for the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. I am drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he could not speak for the views of those behind him on this occasion. I hope that is quite clear. It seems to me that some of the arguments there adduced are worthy of consideration. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is what we feel about the present situation, and about the decision to adjourn for so long a period, when the Government have not only shown a lack of foresight but have already shown a stubborn unwillingness to face the facts which were apparent to any person of average intelligence without any of the Government's special sources of information. That was true of the fuel crisis last winter, and it is true also of the balance of payments crisis with which we are confronted now.

I am going to quote just one other witness in my support for saying that this Adjournment is too long. I say that we cannot leave the Government in sole charge for this long period in view of the extent to which they have misjudged the situation up to date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in this House in the spring said this: Questions have been raised also about the overseas balances in regard to which I would refer those who have spoken, particularly those who have spoken in terms of great gloom, to a very clear and cogent article, which I read this morning in the 'Daily Herald' by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay). I am sure that any hon. Member who has not read his 'Daily Herald' this morning, would profit by reading, at any rate, this article."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1068–9.] I turned up the article. My reason for quoting it in this connection is to show how impossible it is to leave the Government in sole charge of our affairs for two and a half months when they can so misread the situation as also does this article. This is what the hon. Member for North Battersea wrote: I have heard talk lately about the alleged rapid rate at which the American loan is being used up. The talk is grossly exaggerated. The loan is, in fact, being used more slowly than we expected it would. Therefore, do not be misled by the alarmists who argue from nightmares rather than from facts and figures. They say that the American loan—they usually forget the Canadian loan—will be used up by next winter. The truth is, I repeat, that the two loans are likely to last for about two years from now. That was the article which the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few short months ago commended with the warmest commendation to the House.

Dr. Haden Guest (Islington, North)

On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if matters of this kind are pursued, will not the Debate range very widely indeed beyond the Question before us, which is the date of the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker

This is one of the Debates which it is very difficult to control, because, after all, there may be hundreds of reasons for limiting the Adjournment, and hon. Members must be allowed to state them.

Mr. Eden

I hoped I had made my argument clear. The reason why I quoted this article and its commendation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to show how impossible it is to place any confidence in the forecasts of His Majesty's present advisers about the state of the balance of payments or anything else in our economic position. That being the position, I do not feel, and my hon. and right hon. Friends do not feel, that it is possible to adjourn this House for a period of 10 weeks. If the Government had a plan, a plan endorsed by the House and endorsed by the nation, which they were to work, it would be a different state of affairs which could be examined accordingly. We have, however, now come to a most remarkable point, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all men, could so completely misread the situation so short a time ago.

Mr. Frank McLeavy (Bradford, East)

Was the article to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in the "Daily Herald" in February?

Mr. Eden

March.

Mr. McLeavy

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House when the increase of prices started—the ramp in America? Would it not be true to say that the statements in the article were perfectly true at that particular time when it was published?

Mr. Eden

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed. The rise in prices has been going on for the last two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would add this—I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it is quite correct—that the rise in prices was actually steeper just about the time that this article was written. At any rate, I do not think there is anybody who now says—is there anybody who now says?—that in March it was impossible to foresee what was going to happen now. If so, why did the article rebuke us for the warnings we uttered?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Heywood and Radcliffe)

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the rise in prices became particularly steep at the time when the United States Government decided to adopt the policy which the Conservatives were advocating in this country?

Mr. Eden

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make that point. I am simply dealing with the facts, and the facts are that, as recently as last March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer commended an article which completely misread the situation.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

It is perfectly true that the increase of prices started earlier, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only between two and three months since President Truman made a speech regarding the recent very considerable increase of prices?

Mr. Eden

I am perfectly aware of the President's speeches, and I am aware that there has been a rise in prices. But are hon. Gentlemen really going to tell me that in March this year it was impossible for the Government, with all their knowledge of the facts, to foresee that there was going to be a rise in prices? If they are going to tell me that, I say that no Government of this country have ever made so pitiable an excuse to the House of Commons.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Since the right hon. Gentleman did quote an article of mine, perhaps I may just say this. What I said in that article was, that at the existing rate of dollar drawings the American and Canadian loans would together last to a certain date; and let me say that it was perfectly correct at that time. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at "The Economist" of 5th April he will see that they made exactly the same calculation.

Mr. Eden

I am not in any way criticising the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I am not. Perhaps the House would be patient and allow me to develop my argument; I have given way several times already. I am not complaining of the hon. Member's statement, any more than I should complain if I or any other hon. Member on this side of the House, with our sources of public information, had happened to misread the situation. What I am complaining of is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is the one man who ought to know better, who has the sources of information available at the Treasury, and who must know about the trends of prices and what they are likely to be in the immediate future—should so utterly have misread the situation a few months ago. That is what I complain of. If hon. Members opposite find that satisfactory, then I make them a present of that satisfaction. I can only say that to me it seems a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I apologise to the House that I should be taking a little longer than I intended——

Mr. H. Morrison

The right hon. Member went rather far from the point.

Mr. Eden

I was pushed farther. I like to give way to hon. Members opposite, for if they wish to make a contribution that is what the House is for. I said that Parliament has been given no explanation about what will happen in October, or what will be the various measures to increase our exports, which is to be one of the methods of bridging this gap. Therefore, I say that the suggestion that Parliament should adjourn for so long in these circumstances is unacceptable to us.

I want to put to the House two or three questions which have still not been answered, which should, I think, convince any hon. Member that we cannot disperse for so long a time. We have not yet been told—as was evidenced at Question Time today in regard to the Severn Bridge—what reduction the Government propose to make in the present estimates of capital expenditure. What are they to be? Presumably, during the Recess some form of answer will be worked out to that question, but I say the House should be available to receive that answer and to discuss it. What steps will be taken to meet the current inflationary pressure, which has been referred to by the Chancellor, and the certainty of greater inflation when the loan runs out before we meet again, and to deal with the effect of further cuts in consumer goods when they make themselves felt? What will be done about that? Again, we have not yet been told the answer to that question. All the Chancellor did was to pose the problem, but to provide no solution. What is to be decided about the coal production programme? Are the Government still persisting with the extra half-hour a day, or are they now thinking of the 11-day fortnight? Which is it to be? Those are matters which the House must be told. Or, is there some other plan? On all these issues we are still without information.

What is the Government's intention in respect of the direction of labour? Do they intend to apply the Control of Engagements Order? When and how do they intend to apply direction of labour, and what will the penalty be? Those are questions of the greatest moment to every one of us, and I say it is unreasonable that the House should adjourn for 10 weeks while the Government make up their minds on these issues, without our being informed what the decisions are. The country has not been given, neither through the House of Commons or through the Prime Minister's broadcast, any effective account of how the present difficulties of our balance of payments are to be surmounted. That is hardly disputed anywhere. Every day evidence grows that the Government have, in fact, neither plan nor policy.

I just want to say a few words about the actual date we have chosen.

Mr. H. Morrison

Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says that. I was about to try to explain the merits of this particular date, which I am sure he would like to hear. I know as we all know that the House has had a gruelling Session, and that all hon. Members, including Ministers, are tired. That is accepted. We on this side of the House naturally think that perhaps the time of the Session might have been better devoted to examination of some of the problems by which we are now in danger of being overwhelmed, rather than to other matters, but it would be out of Order to go into that now. I concede at once that the Session has been a long one, and I also concede that the House must adjourn for a while. We do not propose in our suggestion that the House should sit for long when it resumes in September, but we do ask that at that date we should meet to review the situation, and to satisfy ourselves that the Government have, at long last, got a plan by then to meet the situation.

It is, I repeat, the absence of a Government plan or a Government policy which makes the present course inevitable. If the Government had a plan, endorsed by the House and the nation, we should feel differently; but they have no such plan. Today, they ask for a blank cheque in respect of policy for the next two and a half months, just as yesterday they were asking for a blank cheque in respect of our liberties for the next three years. No House of Commons should grant either of those things to the present administration, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members of this House cannot be content to be absent spectators while the Government do the splits over an ever-widening abyss. That is the situation which is developing before us. The situation which now confronts this country is, we would all agree, one of the utmost gravity. In many respects I think many of us are more concerned with the present situation than we were even in the darkest days of 1940. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in those conditions the House has no right to take a long Adjournment. The request that we make is a modest and a reasonable one, and I trust the Government will accept it in that sense. If they accept it they will show themselves sensible of the task that confronts them, and sensible of their responsibilities both to this House and to the nation.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

Had times been normal, undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House of Commons would have been entitled to a rather long rest. We have had one of the most strenuous Sessions that this House has ever had, and undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House are tired, But times are not normal. In fact, everybody has been admitting—the Prime Minister, hon. Members, and others elsewhere—that we are face to face with one of the most critical, if not the most critical, economic situation this country has ever faced; yet we are now proposing to adjourn for the long period of 10 weeks.

Before passing to other matters, I wish to point out the very serious psychological effect which that is bound to have upon the people of the country, upon the constituents of every one of us. The fact that this critical situation has been growing, has not only been known to the people but advertised on the walls by the Government for quite a long period. The nation has been told: "We Work or Want." It has been my fate, time and time again since 1939, living in the very serious days we have passed through since that year, to ask the Government not to adjourn this House for as long as they have done. Events are moving so rapidly nowadays—and they have been moving particularly rapidly during the last six months, as everyone admits—that they are not only marching along, but actually hurtling along. It is difficult for anyone to prophesy not merely what the position may be in a month's time, but what it may be in about a week's time. I would recall to the House that on 7th May, 1940, the Government of that day proposed to adjourn, with the consent of all sides at that time, and I then had to move an Amendment that the House should not adjourn because of the seriousness of the situation. It turned out that I was right, because the very day after the House adjourned Holland and Belgium were put completely and absolutely under the heel of Germany. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Did you know about that?"] I do not know why the hon. Member laughs.

Mr. William Adams (Hammersmith, South)

I can tell the right hon. and learned Member. He said that he had moved that the House should not adjourn in 1940. Is he doing so now, because if not, his argument falls to the ground?

Mr. Davies

The hon. Member was not following what I said. I was saying that events are moving so rapidly that it is completely wrong to ask the House to go away for such a long period as 10 weeks, Hon. Members ask why we should adjourn for even a month. If I disagree at all with the Amendment, it is that even one month is far too long a period. However, it is far better than an Adjournment for twice as long.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman overlooking the fact that Parliament can, if necessary, be easily recalled?

Mr. Eden

Only by the Government.

Mr. Davies

I am glad that that question has been asked. Under a Sessional Order made at the beginning of the Session—and we could not foresee last November that the Government would be sending the House away at such a critical moment as this—the Government provided that Parliament could not be recalled except on the initiative of the Government. If there had not been this change in procedure, I should have moved an Amendment, which is on the Order Paper, asking that not only shall the initiative be in the hands of the Government, but also in the hands of 40 Members on sending a written request to Mr. Speaker for the recall of Parliament. Unfortunately, I cannot have that matter debated before the House adjourns.

Events are moving extraordinarily rapidly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) quoted what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last March, but only a month ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us that the amount of drawings on dollars was perfectly normal. What is more, if the reports in the newspapers this morning are correct, the report from Paris ought to be ready by 1st September, as the conference is aiming to complete its work by that date. That report will have to be considered by His Majesty's Government. Not only will they have to consider it, but they will have to come to a quick decision, and that decision will affect not only the people of this country, but the people of Europe as a whole. That being so, their decision ought to be discussed in the forum of the House of Commons, and should not be kept locked in their breast until we return at the end of October. We have been without a plan and without a policy to deal with this economic situation. That has been admitted even by the Prime Minister when he last made a speech in the House. We want to know and discuss the Government's plans to deal with the situation, and I ask the Government to give a fixed date when their plans and policy will be ready, and the measures they propose to enforce under the Bill, now in another place, to deal with the labour situation, the material situation and capital expenditure.

The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) got very excited about the Severn Bridge, but when the Government have to take action in that matter, he will be away in Cardiff. He will not even know about the decision which has been taken, and he will be unable to ask any questions. The decisions the Government will be taking will affect individuals, industries, businesses and everything else, and I say to the Government that it is absolutely wrong in these circum-stances to ask us to go away for such an extended period. If agreed to this September date, we could reassemble and then discuss whether there should be a further Adjournment. The Government having announced to the House their decisions, the House could then discuss them, and then, if necessary, we could adjourn for another week or so. I say again, that it is far too long to postpone the decisions which will have to be taken and the discussions on those decisions which ought to take place.

12.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

I regard this issue the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In my view, as Members of Parliament we were elected to look after and safeguard the interests of our constituents and the nation. One of the main and proper functions of Parliament is to keep an eye on the Executive, and that function becomes even more vital when half the Executive, to quote from an apt description in the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, is flaccid and frightened, and the other half is frightened and frenzied. If we were to comply with the Motion on the Order Paper, we should be abdicating our duties as Members of Parliament and deserting our country and our constituents in the moment of their greatest crisis.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Can the hon. and gallant Member tell the House how many times in the last Parliament he voted against similar proposals to recall Parliament?

Sir T. Moore

That is one of the usual irrelevant interjections made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, we are dealing with the situation which exists today, and not with a situation which existed five or seven years ago. I was saying that we are deserting our people in the hour of their greatest crisis. But the trouble, the tragedy is that our people have ceased to believe that there is a crisis. Why should they believe it, since although the Government were assisted by the entire Press of the nation during the past few weeks, they so fumbled and fiddled with the issue that the people have now sunk back into the pathetic apathy they were bludgeoned into during six years of war and two years of Socialism?

Are they to be blamed? They looked for a clarion call, they waited for an inspired voice, but they were denied even a noble enterprise, and all they got was fiddling, tinkering and vacuity. What were we told a few days ago as the inspiration on which we should take off our coats, and get down to saving the nation? We were told that the Government had decided to fix a target for the steel output. I think the country was justified in viewing that suggestion with a certain amount of cynicism when they remembered the targets for coal and for houses which have been long since discredited. Then, of course, we had that noble exhortation of the Prime Minister to women to come back into industry—to forsake their washtubs, their queues and their housework—and all this at the same time as the miners were enjoying a five-day week and children were being kept an extra year at school in spite of the fact that we are short of the schools, teachers and text-books to teach them with.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going even wider than usual.

Sir T. Moore

I will come back to the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite never like to hear the truth, and as far as possible they deliberately close their ears to any exposures of the vacuity and fatuity of the Government from this side. I should like to ask the Leader of the House what the Government are going to do in the Recess. What are they going to do about production? As my right hon. Friend has said, they have no plan and have advanced no justification for the Recess. No doubt as he said, they are tired——

Mr. Speaker

What the Government are going to do during the Recess is not really a question which is applicable to this Debate. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) gave certain questions which he thought ought to be answered on 16th September, but he did not ask what the Government were to do during the Recess. He merely wished to indicate certain questions which he was prepared to ask at that date.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You say that what the Government may do during the Recess is not appropriate to this Debate, but if they were to regulate labour during the Recess would that not be a reason for this House being recalled on 16th September?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter in which it is for me to say "yes" or "no," but that was not the question which the hon. and gallant Member was asking. He was asking the broad question what the Government were going to do during the Recess and was not referring to a specific action. That more or less specific question was included by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in a general question.

Sir T. Moore

My point was that I would feel happier in allowing the Government to have this Recess if I knew that they were going to use it wisely, but they have given us no indication that they are going to use it at all. If, on this question of production, they would tell us even today that they have a plan for definitely increasing production instead of merely fixing vain targets, circumstances would be quite different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said in a very notable and distinguished book called "The Rise and Fall of the ex-Socialist Government "—which you can buy at any good bookshop—owing to the attitude of the Government now there are only two means by which, during the Recess or any other time, they can increase production. Those means are the carrot or the stick. By the Bill which is now awaiting Royal Assent the Government have thrown over the carrot and the encouragement of incentive, and are using the method of the stick. If they go on as they are going it will be the stick of unemployment and hunger.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going all over the place, so to speak, and he must get back more or less to the question of the date when we are to return. I must say that I do not think that this is an occasion when those who were unfortunate enough not to catch my eye during the recent Debate should attempt to make the speeches which they wanted to make on that occasion.

Sir T. Moore

I would say, "touché," but believe me, Sir, I had a much more powerful speech to make than this, but my recognition of the possibility of being called to Order guided me in cutting out a great portion of it. In response to your request I will conclude my remarks by saying that no one willingly hands over a high-powered and, therefore, dangerous motorcar to an epileptic. Certainly, no one would travel in it, but what are we doing? We are doing exactly that today. During the past few days we have given a powerful instrument to an incompetent and inept Government and, therefore, the whole future of this country is now in danger because it has been left in their hands without the criticism or safeguard of Parliament for the next ten weeks.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)

Knowing Parliamentary procedure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was able this morning to ramble over a great field of Government activities, occasionally bringing in the date 16th September, but I want to suggest to the House that the reasons he put forward for our coming back on 16th September were far better reasons for not adjourning at all. There is, therefore, a degree of humbug—I do not know whether that is a Parliamentary expression but if it were I should say that it was humbug——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say it, because it is un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)

Further to that Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, has it not in fact been ruled that "humbug" is a Parliamentary expression.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am now giving a Ruling that it is not Parliamentary, and that that will have to stand as far as this Debate is concerned.

Mr. G. Thomas

I think I can help by saying that I will not speak my thoughts aloud. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression this morning that he was seeking another stick with which to beat the Government—that it was not a question of the Adjournment at all but merely another excuse to try to create some feeling that the Government, and in particular this Front Bench, were not doing their duty by having a break at the present time. There seems to be a mistaken idea opposite, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party—who has now been joined by one other Member of his party——

Mr. C. Davies

That is cheap.

Mr. Thomas

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is cheap. This morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hysterical and foolish in the line that he took. I know Wales, I know Welshmen when they are excited, and we had an excitable Welshman there who was carried away with some deep feeling that somehow or another he had to hit at this side. He reminded me of the fact that before I came to this House I was a schoolmaster, and that it used to be my task on occasions to mark exercises. As I was correcting them—I do not mind giving this professional tip—I was saying to myself "accuracy, presentation, context," and I gave marks for them, and further marks for neatness. Neatness would not have entered into it in the presentation of the right hon. Gentleman's case. When it came to context I asked myself, "What is he really saying? What substantially worth counting has he brought forward?" At the end I said to myself, "Words, words, and still more words, without any reasoned argument——"

Mr. Price - White (Caernarvon Boroughs)

The hon. Member has described the right hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) as an excitable Welshman, and has implied that excitable Welshmen are a danger. Can he say, before he leaves this part of his subject, whether the nine Welshmen who are now in the Government, are also a danger?

Mr. Thomas

Hon. Members may not realise that that is an example of humour from North Wales.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hope the House will get back to the Debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas

I will leave the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is certainly creating the danger of making me excited as well. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) was quoting what some hon. Members had been saying on this side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member, who is remembered of course for his remarkable article in the "Daily Mail"—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member, and I appreciate his reaction. I would be sensitive if I had written such an article. I know it is the accustomed duty of the Opposition to oppose, but apparently this Opposition have a link with the Liberal group who are here, and it is just as well for the country to know how many are left here.

Mr. C. Davies

The hon. Member is engaged in the usual habit of some Members opposite, of sneering. I can assure him that I and my colleagues are much more faithful in our attendance in this House than most.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I fail to see what all this has to do with the Amendment, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member will not pursue this subject any further, but return to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Thomas

I think the country ought to be aware—when the deputy Leader of the Opposition asks us to go away for five weeks, forget it all, have our holiday and then come back—how many Members of the Opposition were here after the all-night sitting.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. That has really nothing to do with the Amendment. The House should get back to the consideration of the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas

When we return on 16th September, how many Members of the Opposition will be here? What a false idea it is that when we leave these premises we are on holiday. Hon. Members opposite may not be very well known in their constituencies. I shall not be on holiday because I believe it is the duty of hon. Members to be in their constituencies.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

On a point of Order. [Laughter.] Is it funny? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order.

Earl Winterton

It is awfully funny, I know, but my point of Order is this—[Laughter]—when I can put it and when hon. Members opposite have ceased their derisive laughter—that the hon. Member who was on his feet was asking whether hon. Members on this side of the House were going to be in their constituencies during the Recess. What on earth have such wounding observations about hon. Members on this side of the House to do with the Motion before the House?

Mr. H. Morrison

Further to that point of Order. I submit that the remarks of my hon. Friend as to what hon. Members do with their time in the Recess is very much more relevant to the Motion before the House than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Eden

I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what the Leader of the House has just said, which was to imply that my speech was out of Order.

Earl Winterton

rose——

Mr. Morrison

When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gets into this state of extreme excitement I often wonder what his end is going to be.

Earl Winterton

We know what yours will be.

Mr. Morrison

Sir, I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman has implied. I only asked if my hon. Friend's observations were not nearer to the point of the Amendment than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition. I did not say that he was out of Order.

Mr. Eden

I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and he said that the hon. Member was more in Order than I was. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am within the recollection of the House.

An Hon. Member

He said: "More relevant."

Mr. Eden

Very well, but that implies that my speech was irrelevant.

Mr. Morrison

Surely the right hon. Gentleman can follow ordinary English? "More relevant" means that the speech of my hon. Friend was, in my judgment, more relevant than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was irrelevant, indeed I could not, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. Eden

I have only one further comment to make—[Interruption]—If I may be allowed to make a comment. I regret that the Leader of the House felt it necessary to use language like that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is not for me to pronounce judgment upon what has happened. Obviously if Mr. Speaker had thought that any speech was irrelevant or out of Order, he would not have allowed it.

Mr. G. Thomas

It appears that there are other excitable people, apart from Welshmen. We have been expecting a Recess, and hon. Members have made arrangements, not for their holidays, but, so far as I am concerned, for a whole list of activities with my people and in my constituency. I believe that a Member of Parliament has far more to do than even addressing this House. We cannot say that attending this House is our only duty. We have a place and a duty in the country. Whatever—I hope the noble Lord will not get excited at this—hon. Members opposite will be doing, I know where I and my hon. Friends will be.

Earl Winterton

Hear, hear.

Mr. Thomas

We shall not be shooting grouse.

Earl Winterton

In the pub, that's where you will be.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. We cannot get into this kind of tangle. It is becoming almost farcical.

Mr. Davies

Is it in Order for the noble Lord to imply that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) will spend his Recess in a pub? As it happens, the hon. Member is a complete teetotaller.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

On a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot deal with two points of Order at the same time. On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) it would not be correct, or even possible, for me to suggest that it was out of Order for any hon. Member to spend his Recess in the aforesaid place.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Would it be in Order for the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) to give an assurance that he will not be shooting a line instead of shooting grouse?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That would be out of Order because it has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment.

Mr. G. Thomas

Further to the original point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman now continues his speech and that the incident is now closed.

Mr. Thomas

The noble Lord opposite distinctly said in the hearing of my hon. Friends that I will spend my time in a public house.

Mr. Harold Davies

In a saloon bar.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Might I suggest that while I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will do with his time, we are wasting a good deal of time here today.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South)

Further to the point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You may be aware that in Wales there is a very strong feeling on the subject of public houses.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) may sneer. Perhaps he does not agree.—[Interruption.] I am going to put my point of Order. It is a very wounding charge to level against an hon. Member who is a total abstainer that he is going to spend his time in public houses. May I therefore ask whether the ignoble Lord opposite will have the decency to withdraw?

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot deal with more than one point of Order at a time.

Mr. J. Hudson

It is the same point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

With regard to that point of Order, I did not hear the statement made——

Mr. G. Thomas

But the noble Lord made it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I submit that the hon. Member is so well known in Wales that if it were said, it would be known to be untrue.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Earl Winterton

I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his most serious charge against me that I was going to spend the Recess shooting grouse, to withdraw any suggestion that he ever enters a pub.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I would remind the House that we are getting no further with this Amendment, and I call on the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.

Mr. G. Thomas

I do not see why the noble Lord should get away with an insult of that kind. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the noble Lord has no right, with his knowledge of the customs of this House, to lay down conditions upon which he will withdraw his statement, and I ask your protection that it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member asks for my protection, which is accorded to him immediately, but I think that at the moment we are making a tremendous lot out of a very small—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would allow me to complete my sentence. In view of the fact that the hon. Member is so well known, it is obvious that the charge is untrue.

Mr. Thomas

I am not going to continue with my speech, even if I have to leave the Chamber, until that statement is withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member certainly should not speak in that tone.

Mr. Thomas

The statement should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman cannot compel me to take a certain course of action. The Chair decides, and accepts responsibility for what it does. We seem to be on an entirely false track and are spoiling what is really a very important Debate and one on which we want to arrive at a conclusion early. I hope the hon. Member will consider the incident closed.

Mr. Callaghan rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have appealed to the hon. Member—[Interruption.]—Order. I appeal to the hon. Member to regard the incident as closed and now to continue with his speech.

Mr. G. Thomas

rose——

Mr. Callaghan

I desire to put a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if I am out of Order, doubtless you will tell me so immediately. The point of Order is that when a charge is made against the personal integrity of an hon. Member and he denies that charge immediately, is it not the custom of this House that the hon. Member who has made the charge should withdraw it?

Earl Winterton

I have done so.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there has been no charge against' the integrity of any hon. Member? Do not many hon. Members know that by sitting in a public house in one's constituency one can obtain extremely valuable information and make the closest possible contact——

Mr. J. Hudson

Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member cannot speak unless he is called upon. The hon. Member must wait for a minute while I am hearing the point of Order for the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield).

Sir W. Wakefield

I was saying that in that way it is possible for Members of Parliament to obtain the closest possible contact with their constituents. I suggest that if the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) carried out that procedure he would learn from his constituents their feelings towards this Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I really must appeal to the House. It is not for me to determine the accuracy of any charge, if a charge were made, and I am not convinced that any such charge was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] It may be that personal offence was taken, and the hon. Member is justified in feeling offended, but I did not appreciate that any individual charge was made. I cannot allow the Debate to continue on these lines.

Mr. J. Hudson

Further to the point of Order. I submit that the charge is of an extremely serious character if any hon. Member of this House who is well known to take certain standards of conduct is accused in the House of deliberately and deceitfully, after his own professions, going where he says that people ought not to go. Is that not a serious charge to make against a man who takes the standard my hon. Friend takes?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As a matter of fact, I never heard the charge made in the form in which the hon. Member has expressed it. It may or may not have been a jocular remark, but I feel that there is no question now, even if there were before, of the hon. Member visiting such places.

Mr. Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Further to that point of Order. May I point out that the noble Lord did admit that he made such an observation when he was up the last time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have not denied that I heard the noble Lord. It may have been an unfortunate remark or a remark intended to be of a jocular character, but what I feel is that we are now wasting more time than is desirable and that we should get on with the business.

Mr. G. Thomas

In view of your request, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and despite my feeling, I propose to leave the matter there. I trust that the people in my constituency know me well enough.

Earl Winterton

And in mine, too. [Interruption.]

Mr. Thomas

If I cannot get on, it is not my fault, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The people of this nation realise that the Government need this opportunity in order that they shall be better prepared to carry on with the work afterwards, and I think that no great and useful purpose will be served by saying 16th September rather than 20th October since the Government have the power to call us back, if it were needed, on 1st September and not 16th September.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)

I rise to try to recall the House to the subject matter of this Debate. The subject we are discussing is a serious one. It affects our responsibilities as Members of the House of Commons, whether we sit on that side or on this side. It affects our responsibilities to our constituencies during the coming weeks. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, when he moved the Motion, advanced no argument at all as to why we should adjourn until 20th October. Whatever views he may have about the relevance or irrelevance of other people's arguments, he did not dare present his own. I should have thought that, at a moment such as this, it is an astonishing thing to suggest that we should adjourn for 10 weeks, without hearing a single thing in support of that suggestion. One would have thought that the House was at least entitled to some explanation on the subject.

I want to put to the Government and to the House the reason why I support the suggestion of ray right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). A great deal of talk has gone on about the crisis which this country is in at the present time. The real crisis has not even yet come upon the country; it has not really started. There is a sort of crisis going on, but it is a Governmental crisis. The crisis going on now is that the Government have suddenly recognised the state of affairs which everyone else, including most of the back-benchers on the other side, knew perfectly well had been going on for a very long time. That is the real crux of the matter at the moment. The suggestions put forward by the Government amount, as my right hon. Friend said, to dealing with only about one-third of the problem which will have arisen by 20th October. The Government have suggested that certain cuts should be made in imports; but they only close the gap by about one-third. What are the Government's proposals for dealing with the situation which, on most people's estimate, will certainly be with us by about 20th October. Are the import cuts to be trebled while the House is not in Session? Are we to read these things in the newspapers, without having any opportunity of discussing them, of making our points about them, or of representing the views of our constituents? It seems to me that that is not treating the House with very proper respect.

Before we go away for 10 weeks, I should like—if I may have the attention of the Lord President for one moment, because I want to put an important point to him—to know, as I think a great many people in the country want to know, what has been happening to these dollars? I have studied, as far as I can, the very complicated account of the dollar expenditure, which was presented in a two-hours speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Stubbs (Cambridgeshire)

What has that to do with the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft

Whatever may be said about other arguments, this is a peculiarly relevant one. I am saying that, before we go away for 10 weeks, the country is entitled to know whether the Government are looking after the dollars which we have left as well as they should be? I say that they have not been looking after them very properly. I say that there is some money missing from the till; it is public money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of that till. I am not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dollar bills—[Interruption.]

The Minister of Health (Mr. Bevan)

I thought that was an extremely inelegant metaphor.

Mr. Thorneycroft

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of the elegance of metaphors, but I would prefer to choose my own. I was under no doubt that we have had, so far as it is possible for us to see, an explanation of how these dollars have been spent, but there is a real suspicion, widely expressed in this country, that there are leakages, for some reason which, so far, has not been properly understood. I suggest that before we go away, we should be satisfied on that point. We want to have a clear and concise account to show that the figures have been properly set out to us, and that this kind of leakage is not going on. Unless we have some special assurance, I think it is wrong that we should disperse, and see the Email remaining total of dollars squandered when they could be put to more proper usage.

Various decisions have to be made by the Government. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) is a neighbour of mine in South Wales. We are both interested in the question of the Severn bridge. Only a few weeks ago, after many promptings, the Minister of Transport announced that work on this great scheme—always wanted—was to start next spring. I have no doubt that the Government got some credit for that announcement. It was thought, "Here, the Government mean business at last, and this great scheme is going forward." Why were the Government so out of touch with the realities of the situation that only a week before this crisis broke they announced the launching of a great scheme of capital construction? Is it safe to go away for 10 weeks and let them do the same kind of thing? I do not propose to argue the merits of the Severn bridge. Everyone in my constituency wants that bridge, but I think that it would be a great mistake, at this moment to go on with a great scheme of capital construction, when we know that we are expending our resources far beyond our means. Let the Lord President of the Council have the courage to say whether the Government are going on with it or not, and let the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport come here, having made an announcement that it was going on——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member said that he did not propose to discuss the Severn tunnel, but he appears to be doing so.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I mentioned it because it was referred to by other speakers, and one end of it happens to be in my Division. The real point about this is that the Government, within the last few weeks, have been utterly out of touch with the speed with which this particular subject is developing.

There is one other point. There might be a case for the Government going away for 10 weeks, even if the situation were fairly serious, if the Government had been pursuing a policy for which they had a mandate, and which manifestly had a vast majority of the nation behind it. That is not the state of affairs today. The Attorney-General announced the other day that the Government of which he is a Member had the vast majority of the public behind them. For what purpose? The policy, so far as one can ascertain it, which is being pursued by the Government today, is one for which they have no conceivable mandate whatsoever; they have not even a shred of mandate. I think it is necessary for Ministers and hon. Members opposite to go back and make contact with their constituents. I think that we shall have rather less talk then about the vast majority being behind the Government.

I am not one of those who think that we ought to sit here and go on sitting all the time. I think that would be quite wrong. I think that we all ought to have a holiday. I propose to have a holiday, and I propose to shoot grouse, if that is of any interest to hon. Members opposite. In pursuing the other matter, to which I would not like to refer, I shall certainly do that for my entertainment as well. I think that it would do all of us good to go for a holiday. But it would be wholly wrong if we were to go away for 10 weeks in the situation which is developing very fast indeed, the full seriousness and gravity of which is not apparent to the whole country, and which I do not believe is even now apparent to His Majesty's Government, a situation for which no solution has been proposed by the Government. Even such matters as they have suggested go only one-third of the way towards solving it. We know on their own admission that they are going to have to do things about three times as harsh as those things they have vaguely suggested at the present time—and we are told to go away for this period. That would be wrong.

There must be some hon. Members opposite who share that view; there must be many who take their responsibilities towards their constituents as seriously as anyone else. I do not think that they can be altogether happy to go back, to go round their constituencies, perhaps making a few speeches, knowing all the time that their real job is to be here at Westminster, dealing with the situation which is developing very fast indeed. The only way in which they can have any check whatever on the Executive is by being here to challenge them face to face. In those circumstances, I hope that when this matter comes to a Division, it will not be solely a party Division. I hope that one or two hon. Members opposite will have the courage to vote according to their consciences, and vote with us to say that they desire to come back on 16th September to do the job for which they were elected.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)

I wish to deal briefly with the interesting and moving appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the House was during last Session, when I also had the privilege of following the hon. Member. I must say that quite a lot of what he said in regard to the whole situation commended itself to me. It is certainly true that hon. Members on this side of the House have a deep sense of the urgency of the situation, and are not too happy to be going away, leaving the situation where it is. That arises, not from the functioning of the Government and its relationship with back-benchers, but because the duty of His Majesty's Opposition has had to be assumed on these benches because of the inefficiency of the Opposition. That is a situation which we have had repeatedly to face in the House. I am always entranced by the contributions which the hon. Member for Monmouth makes. They are forthright and dashing. In fact, it seems to me that the hon. Member has cast himself for the rôle of the twentieth-century Disraeli. I am sure that he will not misunderstand me if I say that most of us think he fills the rôle of the nineteenth-century Noel Coward. We are, of course, terrifically concerned, but I would say of the tactics of the Opposition that there is nothing new in His Majesty's Opposition crying havoc. We had not assembled in this House for many weeks when they cried havoc. It has always been "cry havoc."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

It has always been true.

Mr. Daines

The Opposition are so weak politically, and have such a poor political sense, that they are incapable of having any sense of tactics. Of course, we are going away, we all need to go away, we all need to be refreshed—no one more than the Opposition. It is not only in the interests of the House that the Government should have opportunities of preparing real plans which will capture the imagination of the country; it is also necessary for the Opposition to go away and try to shape themselves so that they can begin to assume the function of the Opposition, and give real efficiency to the working of Parliamentary Government in this country.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I do not desire to say anything at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about the merits. I am glad I have hon. Members opposite with me on that. I desire to put to the Government a technical question of some importance, which will probably arise in the event of my right hon. Friend's Amendment not being accepted. I am sorry that the Law Officers have just left. The point I desire to put is not in any sense a party one, but one that does affect the powers of this House.

The point is that under the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill which left this House at ten minutes past eight yesterday morning, the Government will no doubt issue a number of orders. That, I think, is generally agreed, and it is indeed the intention of the Bill. During the discussion of that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President told us very properly that the only Parliamentary control over those orders would be under Section 4 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. That is the only Parliamentary control over these orders, and I think it is accepted on both sides of the House, that it is the form of Parliamentary control which is the least that is acceptable. Under that Section these orders can only be prayed against within 40 days of being laid before Parliament, subject to a proviso that— In reckoning any period for the purposes of this subsection— that is 40 days— no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. That means, of course, that the time during an ordinary Recess, with both Houses adjourned, is not counted, and the 40 days begin to run from the time the Houses come back.

My right hon. Friend referred to yesterday's proceedings in another place. I may be entitled to say that the possibility of another place being in session during our proposed Recess is one which cannot be eliminated. There is a distinct possibility. I need not say more. The 40 days period during which Prayers against orders can be made runs during the time when either House is sitting. On reading the proviso, it can be seen that the 40 days period does not run during the time in which both Houses are adjourned. It is surely an elementary construction that it does run during the time in which only one House is adjourned. Perhaps the House can see what might happen. Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that the other place resumes on 9th September. Then the 40 days during which a Prayer may be made against orders which have been made before then begins to run from 9th September and would have expired by 20th October, upon which date it is suggested this House should re-assemble.

Mr. Bevan

I do not think that the hon. Member should start that hare, because it is one which will not run very far. It would be most undesirable if there should be a misunderstanding. The decision of another place cannot, in such circumstances, limit the power of the Commons. The Commons itself must sit in order that that provision may come into operation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not think that the Minister of Health has got the point. It is not a question of the decision of the other place or of the Commons. It is a question of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Bevan

No, but the hon. Member has said that the time begins to run if another place sits, and that, therefore, the order would mature before the House of Commons had an opportunity of considering it—that is the gravamen of the case, it is perfectly simple—and, therefore, the decision of another place, if the hon. Member's reasoning is correct, would, in fact, be taking away from the Commons the right of considering the order. That is a clear point. As I understand the situation, that is not the case. It certainly would be quite unreasonable for irresponsibility exercised somewhere else to limit the authority of the Commons.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Whether or not it is desirable, I do not propose to be led away to discuss——

Earl Winterton

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "irresponsibility exercised somewhere else." Is it in Order to suggest that the other place act in an irresponsible manner? I thought that we could not criticise the other place.

Mr. Speaker

If I heard the Minister correctly, he was not speaking of irresponsibility with that meaning, but merely that it was a position which had no regard for this House.

Mr. Bevan

May I make it quite clear? What I meant was that if the construction put upon the Statute by the hon. Member is correct, then indeed it would be an act by another place which would very gravely limit the authority of this place. I do not believe that that construction is a proper one.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I deliberately do not want to get into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman on merits. The point I am trying to get clear, because I think it is important, is what are the legal consequences? I submit that the proviso I read is perfectly clear, and that the 40 days are only suspended during such period as both Houses are adjourned or, though it does not arise hers, prorogued. If that is so—and I should be very interested to hear any argument to the contrary—does it not follow that if another place were sitting during a period in which this House were not sitting, the time during which Prayers could be made against orders, would be running. It is quite possible that the whole 40 days might have run before this House comes back on 20th October. If that is so, it would be a very serious matter.

Mr. Bevan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Whether the fault was that of another place for sitting, or of this House for not sitting, is a matter upon which there could be legitimate argument on another occasion. I want to clear up the legal position. If this is right—and I think we are entitled to have an answer—one of the consequences of this House adjourning until 20th October may well be that this House would forfeit any power to use the Parliamentary checks which we were told existed under the Act of 1945, in respect of any orders which the Government may make in the next week or two. The constitutional implications of that are quite obvious. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would object to being denied the right to discuss orders. That would be a very serious blow to the authority of this House, and that is the reason I felt it to be my duty to put the point before hon. Members.

We are entitled to a full answer on the legal implications of this. I want to be clear that if the Government's Motion is carried, and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is defeated, our right to pray against Government orders will not be forfeited in any way by reason of the provisions of the Act of 1945. Those provisions were put through when the present situation was not contemplated by hon. Members on either side of the House. We are entitled, before we go away, for whatever period, to be perfectly clear that we have retained our power on this point. I hope that the Government will put up some representative to tell us authoritatively what the position is. I hope that whoever replies will not say, as the Minister of Health said when he interrupted just now, that it would be a bad thing. I hope that whoever replies will be in a position to tell the House what the true position is, whether it be good or bad. We should be told the legal consequences, so that we may make up our minds in the light of that, what we are to do in order to secure the best possible results.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has raised an important legal question which, I have no doubt, will be answered. If I, as a Member of this House, were asked to agree that the House should not adjourn to enable hon. Members opposite to pray against orders, I should very much question the request because of the way in which the time of this House has been used in the past. The right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition raised the question of complete mistrust in the Government. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to their point of view, but I do not think it is fair to ask this House not to adjourn in the normal way because, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the Government have shown an unwillingness to face facts and have shown the extent to which they have misjudged the situation. We on this side of the House do not accept that point of view. I say definitely that it is hon. Members opposite who on a number of occasions have completely misjudged the facts of the situation. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept the view that the Government have shown a lack of appreciation of the facts and, therefore, cannot be trusted during this period of vacation.

From time to time I have criticised the Government, and I shall continue to claim to exercise my right of conscience. I am perfectly satisfied to put my trust in the Government in this difficult economic situation, knowing full well that if it was necessary to recall the House the Government would do that. If they did not call the House together and the situation was extremely serious in a particular emergency, the Government would receive serious criticism from this side of the House. During the Debates of the last few days it has been said that there is very much worse to come. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) emphasised that point again today. I do not understand this sort of panic which hon. Members opposite are trying to whip up in the House. I can only say that from childhood, I have been told that this country has been on the brink of ruin. I think it was Wilberforce who said the future was so black that he dare not marry. Really, if we are to allow ourselves at the end of a very difficult and hard Session to be whipped into this kind of panic, we shall make a mistake.

Hon. Members opposite have shown time and again, that whatever the Government propose, it is never the right time to put it into effect. During the past year, when we showed quite clearly that it was necessary to ration bread, the Opposition prayed against that, and showed that they did not at all appreciate the situation as the Government did 12 months ago. I submit that no real case has been made out why the House should be recalled earlier than has been suggested by the Government. The Government are entitled to work out carefully schemes for dealing with the situation in the immediate future. I have every confidence that the Government will do the right and proper thing and that, if necessary, they will recall the House to discuss the situation.

1.20 p.m.

Brigadier Rayner (Totnes)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) took objection to a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who had accused the Government of having been unwilling to face facts. I would like to explain to the House that I entirely agree with that expression of opinion by my right hon. Friend, and on that I shall base the enthusiasm with which I shall vote for the Amendment at the end of this discussion.

In my opinion, the greatest weakness of the Government has been their inability to face facts. In two years of time, they have thrown away the whole of the fruits of victory for one simple reason—their inability to face facts—and we, on this side of the House, during the last four or five days, have performed a very useful service in that we have made the Government face facts. That is the reason I shall vote for this Amendment that we should come back earlier than has been proposed, in order, once again, to make the Government face up to the facts. There is one fact in particular which the Government do not face, and that is that the whole cause of this crisis in the country is the fact that, generally speaking, the country is not prepared to work hard. We have had a series of red herrings dragged across the trail——

Mr. Speaker

This, surely, is part of a speech which might have been delivered the other day.

Brigadier Rayner

I am not going to use the speech which I delivered last week, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to say that the cause of our troubles today is the lack of the will to work hard, and the fact that the Government are showing no leadership at all in this connection. The other day, we saw them, with one hand, placing up the posters "We Work or Want," and, with the other hand, reducing the hours. Now, we find that they are going back on that and increasing the hours again, and we are not surprised, because, if there is one thing which this Government has shown it can do, it is running around in circles—vicious circles.

Mr. Speaker

The question before the House is whether the date should be 20th October or 16th September.

Brigadier Rayner

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I gathered from your Ruling during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that we could give our reasons why the House should come back on 16th September instead of in October, and I was trying to give them. However, I will finish by saying that this Government is a round peg in a square hole, and "hole" is the word. The right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench look more miserable and harassed every day and obviously have no idea how to get us out of the hole into which their crass inefficiency has got us. I for one am not prepared to give them until 20th October to go on making a mess of things. Therefore, I shall be delighted to vote for the Amendment.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

I can look on this matter with a certain impartiality, not being a member of either of the two main parties conducting this discussion, and I recall the history of these discussions. Almost ever since I came into this House, the country has been in a crisis. I do not think it is really my fault; I have always taken the view that it has been the fault of the Tories and the system which they supported, though I must not go into that at the moment. Certainly, every summer, the Opposition has demanded, in one form or another, either that the House should not go away at all or should come back at an earlier stage, or that provision should be made empowering a certain number of hon. Members, and not merely the Government, to call the House back, or to request you, Mr. Speaker, to recall the House, which I think would be the more correct form, on any suitable occasion. I am bound to say that there were times when I felt a certain sympathy with that plea, but the real question of principle we are discussing today is this: With whom should the initiative lie?

We are all agreed that the House should come back if the crisis develops to such a point that either views of the House or legislation by the House is required, or an explanation by the Government or criticism of the Government is really called for. The Tory-dominated Governments which I have seen in the past, before 1945, always insisted on retaining the initiative in that matter in the hands of the Government. I did not much like it, because I did not much like those Governments. Nobody ever thought that I did like them, but that is a constitutional practice which was well-established. Now, the suggestion is that the House should come back at a point relatively soon in time, so that, in fact, the initiative is taken away from the Government, and we are confronted with a choice between taking 10 weeks' holiday or taking only four or five weeks, with a latent power, of course, to call the House back, which, however, would not be exercised if the Amendment were carried, because the time would be too short.

The only reason which I can think of why anybody suggests that we should depart from what can be described as constitutional practice and come back much sooner was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who, I am glad to see, has now recovered his temper, and who, in fact, never loses it for long. In a very charming speech, the right hon. Gentleman told us that everything done by the other side of the House is wrong, and that, if the Opposition had had the opportunity of doing it, they would have done it differently, but, really, his arguments were not very impressive.

Let us recall the history of this subject. I have plenty of which to complain, in one way or another, about this Government, if I wanted to. They came into power just about two years ago, confronted with a most appalling task, such as no other Government in the world was ever confronted. There were unprecedented destruction of property, and, above all, of domestic dwellings, the loss of every conceivable market, the loss of every conceivable productive capacity, for the time being, the actions of other people whom I suppose it would be wrong to describe as "shabby moneylenders," because, in fact, they were very bright. They were confronted, among other things, with the problem of getting millions of men out of the Armed Forces and back to work, and confronted also, as we may notice from time to time, by a vigilant well-informed and courageous Opposition, who think they know-all about everything, but who have not succeeded in winning a by-election for months, and who now say that the country is in such a state of crisis that the Government cannot be trusted to go away for a few weeks' holiday.

I think it would be very interesting to have a by-election to see whether the Government are still enjoying the almost undiminished support of the country. My impression is that it docs. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot issue writs; at least, in this place. My impression is that the Government command more support than they deserve, but, at any rate, a great deal more than hon. Members opposite suggest. Surely, unless there is some vital reason for bringing the House back early, there are good reasons for having a holiday? I think that everybody is tired. I am very nearly tired myself, and I, after all, do not have to run the Government, or the Opposition. I do not know which would tire me most. I think it is time that Ministers and hon. Members went down some quiet mousehole and had a little rest. Their work will be all the better for it. I do not think that the Opposition have advanced any convincing reasons for saying "No" to that.

I want to add one other thing, even if it should excite a little resentment. If the House is going to meet again, it will meet for discussion, and if it meets for discussion, the Opposition, as inevitably happens, will do a good deal of the discussing. That seems to me to be the most appalling prospect. I have followed, as best I can, the criticisms and observations of hon. Members opposite, and of all the concentrated nonsense that I have had to listen to in the last 12 years, I think that is the most concentrated nonsense. Take the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill; that was discussed for hours and hours. I am sorry that a duty which I thought was paramount, for once kept me away for many hours on Monday night and Tuesday morning. It was the first time in my career that I had not been present at an all-night Sitting, I thought about it before the discussion took place, and afterwards when I perused the report. Anything that could reasonably be said about that Bill, or against that Bill, or about its Clauses in Committee, or against its Clauses in Committee, could really have been said by any intelligent controversialist in an hour and a half.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

On a point of Order. You will have heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) discussing the Debate which took place on the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. Is it in Order, when considering the date on which this House is to adjourn, to discuss the value of the arguments put up by the Opposition in the Debate on that Bill?

Mr. Bevan

On that point of Order, and before Mr. Deputy-Speaker gives his Ruling, I would like to point out that I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to be discussing that at all. What he was pointing out was that, because of the character of the speeches made by the Opposition, it would be undesirable to come back and be compelled to listen to more of them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am in the difficulty that I did not hear what the hon. and learned Member said, because I was otherwise engaged, and, as there seems to be a diversity of opinion as to what the hon. and learned Member said, he had better proceed with his speech so that I can determine whether or no it is in Order.

Mr. Pritt

I certainly would not want to take advantage of the Opposition in a matter of debate where the boundaries are necessarily somewhat blurred, but the essence of what I was saying was that it is surely relevant to the discussion as to whether we should come back early or not, to consider what we should do when we came back. I suggested that hon. Members opposite would waste a great deal of public time. I did not put it as offensively as that the first time, but that is the result of prodding me. I gave an illustration of how they had wasted time during the last few days. I do not intend to recite the speeches of hon. Members opposite to show that they were wasting time. I think I have made that sufficiently clear already. There is a great deal too much—particularly in times of what can fairly be called "crisis"—of the Opposition making speeches just because it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. Sometimes, when watching the present Opposition, I have wondered whether it was not the duty of an Opposition to decompose. One hon. Member has suggested that I am making my Monday speech. I am trying to speak on this topic, and I hope that I am keeping fairly well within the confines of it, but, of course, in such discussions, it is always a little difficult, because one hon. Member goes a little too far and then one has to be allowed to answer him.

The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), who spoke immediately before me, succeeded, before he was stopped, in getting across the proposition that the people of this country were not working hard enough, and that that was the reason for the trouble. He represents a class who have never done a willing stroke of work in their lives, and yet he comes here and tells the miners that they are not working hard enough. I do not think that is a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment which be says he will vote for with such enthusiasm. I wonder what his enthusiasm would be like if it was carried and he had to come back. However, I feel that no solid ground has been put forward by the party opposite——

Brigadier Rayner

On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? In the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, there was an account of four brothers at Coventry who had been fined for doing a really good job of work in building a house and workshop with their own hands——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order. It is obviously not a matter with which I can deal.

Brigadier Rayner

May I come to the point of Order? It is that Mr. Speaker very properly ruled me out of Order just now when I tried to produce that point. I would like to know, because my knowledge of procedure is not what it should be, whether I can move the Adjournment of the Adjournment Motion in order to consider a matter of great public interest?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, the hon. and gallant Member cannot do that.

1.38 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

In moving this Motion for the Adjournment, the Leader of the House adopted such a nonchalant and easy manner that he seemed to take it for granted that the Motion would be accepted by the House as a matter of course. As a fairly old Member of this House, I must say that I am amazed at the lighthearted way in which the supporters of the Government have dealt with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I recall that, at the beginning of this Parliament, one of the first acts of the Government was to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament. The ground on which they based and justified that action was that Members of Parliament, in the pursuit of their duties, had a fulltime job. I do not dispute that, because I can assure the House that I have never worked so hard in my life as I have in this Parliament.

Mr. Alpass (Thornbury)

We set the pace for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. Macdonald

Nevertheless, I find it very difficult today to justify going away for three months at this time of crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not three months."] Certain hon. Members have put forward the claim that they must go away, because they have already made plans. I think that claim was made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). For my part, I made plans to go away a couple of months ago.

Mr. George Wallace (Chislehurst)

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) make the point. His point was that he had made plans to meet his constituents. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) rather inferred that my hon. Friend had made plans to go away on holiday, and to leave his responsibilities to other people.

Sir P. Macdonald

If the hon. Member had not been so hasty, I was going to deal with the point. It does not matter much to me what plans were made. I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, or anyone else, is going to have a holiday all the time. Some people can have a holiday in their own constituency. As far as I am concerned I made plans a couple of months ago and, what is more, I went away last week. But I saw such glaring headlines in the Press relating to the economic situation that I was alarmed, and I have come all the way back. [Interruption.] I think I have just as serious a sense of responsibility of my duties in this House as hon. Members opposite. Having come back, I was amazed to find confronting me an emergency Bill which had to be rushed through in 48 hours, giving the Government a complete blank cheque to do what they like in order to meet the economic situation, and, having got that Bill through, they are going to disperse for three months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For 10 weeks, then; that is nearly three months. That is a situation I cannot accept, and that is why I most wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).

Another reason why I was almost certain the Government would postpone the Adjournment of this House, was because of the broadcast made by the Prime Minister the other night. That broadcast gave the impression, if it gave any impression at all, that there was a severe financial and economic crisis. So far as I can make out, the Prime Minister asked us to deal with it by harder work and, in some cases, longer hours. What kind of example are the Government themselves setting?

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member went away for a holiday when the House was sitting.

Sir P. Macdonald

I agree. Because plans were made, I did go away, but I came back immediately I knew there was a crisis; I certainly came back to oppose the Bill, which I did not see before I went away because it had not been introduced to the House at that time. In his broadcast the Prime Minister exhorted the country to work harder and longer. He certainly told the country that we were faced with a very severe crisis. I read in "The Times" a letter from a farmer who said that he listened to that broadcast because he was very anxious, as a farmer and a producer, to know what the Prime Minister was going to say, and what lead he was going to get, because he was told that agricultural production was necessary.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of Order. What has this to do with the date on which the House is to reassemble? Are we in Order in discussing the content of the Prime Minister's broadcast? Surely, that is entirely outside the range of this discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It has been extremely difficult to confine this Debate within clearly defined limits, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far.

Sir P. Macdonald

I understood that other hon. Members had gone very wide from the Motion, but I apologise if I have gone too far.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

May I suggest that this is an opportunity for the hon. Member to set a good example?

Sir P. Macdonald

I do not wish to take up too much time, because I know others want to speak. Very good reasons have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington why this House should come back on 16th September.

Mr. Alpass

If the Amendment is carried, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he and other hon. Members opposite will come back and attend better than they have done?

Sir P. Macdonald

My attendance is just as good as that of the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass). Reasons have been given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition why we on this side of the House think that the Government should return before 21st October. We are running out of dollars; there is the economic situation generally, and there is also an absence of policy with regard to exports, and various other matters. I can give one or two more reasons. During the Recess, one of my duties as a Member of a Select Committee will be to proceed to Germany. I should be prepared, and still am, to give up part of my holiday for that purpose, with other Members on both sides of the House, but I must say that before we go on this mission to report on the economic situation in Germany, I think it will be very difficult for us to form any conclusions unless we have a pronouncement of policy in relation to that country. At present, as far as I understand, there is a complete lack of high policy with regard to Germany. We were told recently that there is to be a fusion of zones with one of our Allies, and we all acclaimed that as a very good thing indeed. Since then, I am told that owing to a clash of ideologies between ourselves and our Allies, there is a hold-up of the introduction——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I fail to see what that has to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Sir P. Macdonald

I thought it was a very good reason why we should all come back and hear a statement of policy and, if necessary, discuss it. But I will not pursue that matter. All I have to say is that I wholeheartedly support this Amendment, and I certainly commend it to the House. As far as I am concerned, I could not justify myself either to my conscience or to my constituents in going away for 10 weeks at this time.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley)

Ministers and Members of the party opposite in the earlier and, perhaps, more lively stages of this Debate have shown a certain nervosity which I quite understand. I think it is natural, after a very hard year's work, that Ministers should try to get the House away. Certainly, in recent weeks they have not had very much to enjoy in the Debates which we have had. No doubt, there are other reasons why they are anxious to get away; continual quarrels and rifts must be very exhausting. I read today that Ministers are to have, like everybody else, staggered holidays. I certainly think they should have holidays. I do not know whether it is quite fair for them to have staggered holidays when one goes to Blackpool and another to Burma; I do not know how it works out, but we must leave it to them. We would be very foolish if we were not to recognise that after a very strenuous Session, the whole House requires a reasonable change and some holiday, in addition to all the work which we do in our constituencies. Therefore, we have moved an Amendment which would ensure not that we should continue the Session permanently, but that we should come back to see how things are going, have a Debate, and then arrange a further Adjournment in the light of the situation then existing.

The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to other occasions when Motions or Amendments of this kind had been moved relating to the Adjournment of the House. I think he was wrong in saying that on previous occasions it was a question as between the initiative of the Government and that of private Members. Great Debates on this subject have often turned on Motions to fix a date different from that moved by the Government of the day. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would refresh his memory, as I have refreshed mine. He has a reputation for supporting minorities, and I hope he will do so today.

Mr. Pritt

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in no summer between 1935 and 1945 have Tory Members sought to move that the return of the House should depend on the initiative of private Members rather than on that of the Government?

Mr. Macmillan

No. I was referring to great occasions—rather historic occasions. In 1941 there was a Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Fuel and Power. After Debate, so reasonable were the Coalition Government of that day, that the Prime Minister, then deputy Leader of the House, accepted the Motion and cut the holiday in two. That was in December, 1941. I am now coming to great Debates on other occasions. A long and important Debate took place in the summer of 1944. On another occasion there was, as my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition reminded the House, a plea that we should adjourn for five weeks—not ten, but five. That was the summer, if hon. Members will cast their minds back to it, when Field-Marshal Alexander's armies were sweeping through Italy, after the capture of Rome, after the successful landings in France, when the war was going very well, and we were about to win the war. My right hon. Friend was courteous. I shall go rather farther than him, and say that now—instead of winning the war as we were then—we are losing the fruits of victory.

My mind goes back to, perhaps, the greatest of these Debates. It lasted a whole day. It was in the summer of 1939. I remember that Debate. It was one of the most historic Debates in this House. The Motion of the Government was to adjourn until 3rd October—not 20th October, but 3rd October. The Amendment to that Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister without' Portfolio was that we should adjourn until the 20th August—for only three weeks. In moving that Motion he used these words: I want to put it quite bluntly. A considerable number of Members of this House … do not trust this Government.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 2427.] I am not sure I would go as far as that now, but I would go as far as to say that I do not wholly trust this Government. That Debate was memorable for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That Debate will always remain in my memory because it was notable also for a speech by the then Member for King's Norton, which was one of the most dramatic speeches I have ever heard in this House. It was, alas, the last speech that he ever made. There was brought to an untimely end a wonderful and brilliant career.

The question at issue was whether the House should adjourn for a long period, or come back sooner in view of the character of the situation as it appeared to hon. Members who put forward the plea for a shorter Adjournment. It was not—and is not now—a question of coming back necessarily to transact the normal business of the House, but to come back to take counsel together, to get some statement from the Government of the day, either on external affairs, which were then the main problem, or on home affairs; and, having heard that statement and taken counsel, to decide what it is the duty of the House to do. I think that if ever there was an occasion when that course was suitable to the dignity and the propriety of the House of Commons, it certainly is the occasion in which we now find ourselves.

My right hon. Friend was forced to say that one of our major anxieties is that the Government have failed in the past to take notice of warnings. My right hon. Friend quoted in support of his argument on the question of the balance of dollars and the running out of the dollar loan, an article written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) in March, 1947—so recently as that—pooh-poohing all the possibility of a rapid using up of our dollar resources. That article was quoted with approval by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite have stated in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the American price level had not begun to rise at that stage, to make an alteration in the value of the commodities we could buy. That will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the House at the time.

Mr. Pritt

Then why tell us again?

Mr. Macmillan

Unfortunately, the hon. Members who said that were wrong in their facts. I will re-state the facts. The American price level in January, 1946, was 107; in July, 1946, the American commodity price level was 124; in January, 1947, it was, 141; the article was written in March; in May, the level was 146; and in July it was 150. Therefore, there has been a total rise during the whole period of the dollar loan of 43 points; and 36 took place before the writing of the article, and only seven afterwards. Therefore, as a defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that argument is as slender as most of the arguments hon. Gentlemen have on which to rely for their defence.

Once more we have to decide what course it is the duty of the House to take-On previous occasions—there have been many great occasions, and I have quoted two or three—Governments have some-, times acceded to the views expressed by a minority of the House; sometimes they have resisted. I do not think that the precedent of the refusal to accept by the Government of 1939 is a happy one. On other occasions, Governments have accepted partially the consideration of the views put before them. But, at any rate, there do not apply here many of the alibis which it is now the practice of His Majesty's Government to plead for everything that goes wrong—for nothing is their fault: it is always the fault of somebody or something else, the weather, Tory misrule or the failure of the price level, of which they took no notice until it had grown large. So much do they rely on alibis that I am reminded of the advice of old Mr. Weiler, "Samivel, Samivel, we ought to have an alibi." The Government have never forgotten that advice.

Unless Parliament be dissolved—ah, if it were dissolved there would, indeed, be a great solution to our problems. Then the country would be able to carry the burdens that lie upon it. But unless Parliament is dissolved, and until that happens—and then there would be plenty of holidays for many hon. Members below the Gangway—the House of Commons is still the master of its life and work. It can decide how and when it shall sit. On all the previous occasions there have been members in more than one part of the House who supported such a plea as we are making today. I confidently appeal to hon. Members to support our plea today. In days past there were independent Members in all parts of the House——

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

There were just 63 on Tuesday morning.

Mr. Macmillan

I appeal with confidence to all hon. Members, certainly to those of my party, and also to those of the Liberal Party to support us in this matter. There are even some independent Members in this House of Commons who are Members of the Labour Party.—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'even'"?] We have heard them in the Debates. I appeal to all men who really value the position the House of Commons should take at such an immense moment in our history, to give at least an example by taking the trouble to come back here sooner than the Government propose to hear a statement from the Government, and, in the light of events at that moment, and in the light of that statement, to decide upon the future action of the House.

Mr. Pritt

The right hon. Member was good enough to quote the rise in American commodity prices, and he gave certain details. Has he had those figures broken down, so that we can see the prices of the commodities which we were mainly buying with the dollar loan?

Mr. Macmillan

No. I obtained these figures partly from the Government, and partly from the Chancellor's speech, which gave some figures. But these figures are not put out in full for the information of hon. Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the difficulty in obtaining accurate figures when the full sources of information are not published. My figures were obtained as a result of much work and delving into certain sources, but these matters are published very little. I cannot break them down into the whole range of commodities. I would say, broadly speaking, the most important commodities, being on the longest-term contracts, are least affected by a rise in prices.

2.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

As to three-quarters of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), we have had one of the most logical, coherent and relevant speeches which has been made in this Debate. For the greater part of his speech he kept to the point, although it is true to say that at the latter end he got on to the somewhat wider field which, undoubtedly, is in Order because it has been so ruled—and I do not question that a bit. That wider field was covered amply, and I think with some extreme feeling, by the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, indeed, was nearer to the wild irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition than he is usually. If I recall aright, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) got as far as recalling what happened in 1940 about some Adjournment or other, and he said that our situation today was more serious than in 1940.

Mr. Eden

In some respects.

Mr. Morrison

I thought that was rather an extreme partisan observation.

Mr. H. Macmillan

The President of the Board of Trade said so.

Mr. Morrison

Did he? Well, I will tell the right hon. Member for Bromley what he himself said yesterday. I am bound to say, I prefer the moderation and more realistic tone of the right hon. Member for Bromley, today, because yesterday he said——

Mr. Macmillan

At 8.0 a.m., just before breakfast.

Mr. Morrison

We were dealing with the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. I think he put his views forward, and repeated them with absolute sincerity and clarity, as he always does. He said: I do not agree … that we are in a position as serious as during the war in the period from 1940. He later went on to say: Nor do I believe we are up against difficulties such as those in 1940.

Mr. Macmillan

Read what I said about the reasons.

Mr. Morrison

We only need courage and a renewal of our faith to make a big inroad into the path of progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2228.]

Mr. Macmillan

I gave the reasons; people being killed and wounded.

Mr. Morrison

Of course. I prefer the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley today to that of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. Indeed, if there is anything I deprecate about this Debate it is certainly this: Undoubtedly, the country is facing some serious economic difficulties, which nobody denies, and about which certainly nobody on this side of the House is happy or pleased; but I sometimes think hon. Members opposite are happy and pleased about it. I sometimes feel that they think that the more the country is in trouble, the better politically it is for them. The fact that a whole series of speakers have gone out of their way today, after this week of pretty acid and controversial Debate about a Bill which need not have been controversial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It really need not have been, and when hon. Members opposite compare the proceedings of yesterday and today in another place with what happened in this House, I think they may be ashamed of themselves.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Tell that to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Morrison

What have the Opposition been doing all the time? They have used every conceivable opportunity—even to the point of stretching the Debate—not for the purpose of helping the country in its economic difficulties, not to encourage the nation to put its best foot forward, not to seek to steady the national nerve, which is vital in these critical times, but they have, every time, gone out of their way and done their very best to stir up mud and trouble, to cause people to be nervous, frightened and jittery if they could; in fact to do everything they could politically to impede the success of the nation's efforts to solve its economic difficulties. That has been the role of this Opposition. Some of them have made speeches encouraging other countries not to co-operate with this country.

Mr. James Stuart (Moray and Nairn)

We have not called the Americans "shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison

I am sorry the Opposition Chief Whip should be so noisy.

Mr. Stuart

We did not call them,"shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison

If I remember rightly, there have been references by Conservative people to the nation being in pawn?

Mr. Stuart

"Shabby money-lenders."

Mr. Morrison

I know, but have there not been references from Conservative people about the nation being in pawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is all right, if nobody said it, because otherwise it would be an allegation of pawnbroking somewhere.

Mr. Stuart

The Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stand up."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were "living on tick."

Mr. Pritt

The Tories have done it for centuries.

Mr. Morrison

Of course, the Chancellor said that. He sometimes stands up for the Conservatives; he almost seems to enjoy it. I am bound to say, this active intervention by the Opposition Chief Whip is causing me apprehension as to whether I have any moral authority over my own Whips in keeping them silent any more. The Opposition Chief Whip has come into the Chamber full of life and vigour, and if he comes to the conclusion that he ought to be a debater in the House instead of a Chief Whip, nobody will welcome him into the ranks of the debaters more than I shall. I say that the Opposition, at every conceivable time, and in every conceivable way, have taken such opportunities as they could to unsteady the nation, to weaken its nerve, and to weaken its industrial effort in the belief and on the basis that if the nation gets into an economic mess it is not a bad thing, because it will be embarrassing to His Majesty's Government. And I say that such opposition is pure negative opposition and not particularly useful in the life of our country.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare) rose——

Mr. Morrison

I cannot give way. I have said before in this matter, that in three-quarters of this economic field it is not a matter of party politics at all, but a matter in respect of which we ought all, Government, Opposition and everybody else, to make the best contribution we can, objectively, to what is needed.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Tell the Attorney-General.

Mr. Morrison

But the Opposition constantly say that the Government have no ideas. After having listened to the detailed speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It was a detailed programme. Has any Member of this House ever heard a constructive detailed programme from the Opposition? I am sorry to say these things, and I intend now to get away from them. But I must say that the Opposition at this juncture are lacking in public spirit. They are doing all they can, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, to injure the nation in these times of trouble, and judged by any reasonable standard of good public conduct and spirit they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Having followed the order and scope of this Debate, I now come back to the date. We are discussing two dates; one is 20th October, and the other 16th September.

Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)

And 5th November.

Mr. Morrison

That is a very natural observation from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). We have put down a Motion for the resumption of the House on 20th October. We have put it down, of course, in accordance with the usual custom and practice, and, indeed, subject to the Sessional Order, namely, that if His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion—and if the circumstances warrant it, we shall certainly be sympathetic about it and give consideration to it—that it is in the public interest that the House should resume earlier, then we shall make representations to Mr. Speaker and to the Lord Chancellor in another place. I freely give that undertaking to the House. I cannot see that it would be useful at this juncture that we should meet earlier than that date, unless the circumstances warrant it. It is perfectly true that another place has decided to meet earlier.

Mr. H. Macmillan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison

It is competent for another place, as it is for this House, to decide when it shall meet. I am not going to comment upon it, and I am not sure that I would get very far if I did try to do so. It was commented on by the acting Leader of the Opposition, and, therefore, perhaps I may say that I am sorry there is to be this difference. I think it is untidy. If action were taken in relation to a Defence Regulation—and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) called attention to this—it would be a bit awkward. It would be a bit awkward if their Lordships annulled a Regulation, just as if they disagreed with any particular thing, but in their present mood, judged by the way they have handled this Bill, I think we can trust their Lordships better than we can trust the Opposition in this House. However, we cannot help it, as it is competent for either House to resolve when it shall meet. I have no power over another place, and another place has no power over the House of Commons in this respect.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to answer the question I put in his absence, namely, whether the effect of another place sitting earlier may not be to deprive this House of the possibility of moving to annul an order?

Mr. Morrison

This House is in no worse position because another place is to meet earlier. It is perfectly true that this House will not be able to annul a Defence Regulation until we come back, whatever the date may be, and if another place comes back earlier, it will, in that respect, be able to act more speedily.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

During my speech, I ventured to invite the attention of the House to the proviso in Section 4 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, which says that if one House is sitting, the period of 40 days during which a Prayer may be moved continues to run, even if the other House may not be sitting. I put the point that the 40 days might expire before we came back, and, therefore, we might have no chance to discuss the annulment of an order.

Mr. Morrison

I am sorry that I missed the hon. Member's speech, but like the right hon. Gentleman, I was getting something to bite at that moment. I see his point, and I admit straight away that it is difficult, and that it raises a difficulty. If it happened, we should have to see what we could do about it. I would certainly examine it. It is one of the reasons why it would have been better perhaps if the practice hitherto adopted had obtained, and there had been synchronisation in the Sittings of this House and another place. However, I have no authority over another place, and I am afraid there is nothing we can do about it.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington covered the very wide ground of economic and financial policy. I am so sorry that I cannot deal with these matters, because, quite frankly, I came here equipped for a Debate on the dates when the House should resume. Perhaps my imagination was deficient and I may be faulty in that respect, but I suggest that if these matters were to be raised, notice might have been given, just as with the other matters which are to be debated later on. The right hon. Gentleman could never have expected that I would enter on the whole and varied field of economic and financial policy on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to a particular date. He must, therefore, forgive me for not replying to his points, just as I will have to forgive him for making them.

Mr. Eden

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how serious it all is?

Mr. Morrison

I do, and I wish the Opposition, instead of playing about as they have been doing in the matter of politics, had taken a serious view of the situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred to the Sessional Order which I have dealt with, and said that he would like to have a provision whereby 40 Members could recall the House. I should not like to have such a provision, nor would anyone else in power. Judging by the way hon. Members in various quarters sign papers, I do not know how often the House would have to sit if it required only 40 Members to make the request. I think it is rather a light-hearted proposition.

Mr. C. Davies

I am not sure, but I think that in 1931 the right hon. Gentleman supported such a Motion which was brought before the House.

Mr. Morrison

It is an unfortunate historic fact that I was rejected as the Member for South Hackney in the 1931 Election, and so I do not think I could have supported such a Motion. Whoever did it at any time, I say that it is a foolish idea.

The Adjournment of the House is for three purposes. First of all—I am not talking about Ministers, because we are not allowed to claim any consideration for ourselves, and I being a modest Minister would be the last to do so—hon. Members have had a hard Session and they have said so; indeed, it has been complained that we have worked the House too hard, but now they object to having a fair stretch away. The House has been hard-working, and I think there are signs of stress and strain, especially on the opposite side in the last few weeks, and that hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, would be all the better for a break. Members of Parliament are entitled to a holiday. I am glad that it has been said that so are Ministers of the Crown, who, I hope, are going to have one—I am going to have one—because it is good for us to have a holiday, otherwise we shall be a ragged lot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking about the House, not the Government. Secondly,

Members need to renew contact with their constituents to lead them in the path of light and learning, and that refreshing renewal of intimacy will be all to the good. Thirdly, Members of Parliament need time for reading. They will need to read during the Recess to improve their minds, and I hope also that all Members will busy themselves in the country and help in the economic drive for the well-being of the country as a whole. I invite all hon. Members, from whatever part of the House they come, to assist in that direction.

For all these reasons Members are entitled to a break, but this is not going to be a holiday, and it is a misuse of term to say that it will be a holiday. Members are going to have a break and a holiday but they are also going to do work which is strictly relevant to their duties as Members of this House. That is the case, and for these reasons and in all the circumstances—the House having had two and a half hours or so of discussion in which hon. Members have expressed a variety of views about a variety of subjects—I hope that the House will now be good enough to come to a conclusion on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman and on the Motion which I have moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Several Hon. Members rose——

The Paliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Monday, 2oth October' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 84.

Division No. 383.]	AYES.	[2.30 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Bing, G. H. C.	Chetwynd, G. R.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Binns, J.	Cluse, W. S.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)	Blenkinsop, A.	Cocks, F. S.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.	Collick, P.
Alpass, J. H.	Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Colman, Miss G. M.
Attewell, H. C.	Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Comyns, Dr. L.
Bacon, Miss A.	Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Cook, T. F.
Barstow, P. G.	Bramall, E. A.	Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Barton, C.	Brook, D. (Halifax)	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Bechervaise, A. E.	Brooks, T. J, (Rothwell)	Corvedale, Viscount
Belcher, J. W.	Bruce, Major D. W. T.	Cove, W. G.
Benson, G.	Burden, T. W.	Crawley, A.
Berry, H.	Burke, W. A.	Daines, P.
Beswick, F.	Callaghan, James	Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Champion, A. J.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McAllister, G.	Sharp, Granville
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)	McEntee, V La T.	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	McGhee, H. G.	Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Diamond, J.	McGovern, J.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dodds, N. N.	McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)	Skeffigton, A. M.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	Maclean, N. (Govan)	Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Dumpleton, C. W.	McLeavy, F.	Snow, Capt. J. W.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Sorensen, R. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Sparks, J. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)	Mathers, G.	Steele, T.
Farthing, W. J.	Mayhaw, C P.	Stephen, C.
Follick, M.	Mellish, R. J.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Messer, F.	Stross, Dr. B.
Gallacher, W.	Moody, A. S.	Stubbs, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Morley, R.	Swingler, S.
Gooch, E. G.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Symonds, A. L.
Gordon -Walker, P. C.	Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)	Moyle, A	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Nally, W	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Naylor, T. E.	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Guest, Dr. L Haden	Meal, H. (Claycross)	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Guy, W. H.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.	Noel-Buxton, Lady	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hannan, W, (Maryhill)	Oldfield, W. H.	Thurtle, Ernest
Hardy, E. A.	Oliver, G. H.	Tolley, L.
Herbison, Miss M.	Orbach, M.	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Hobson, C. R.	Paget, R T.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Holman, P.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Viant, S. P.
House, G.	Pargiter, G. A.	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Parkin, B. T.	Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Weitzman, D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Pearson, A.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Peart, Thomas F.	Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Popplewell, E.	White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Jay, D. P. T.	Porter, E. (Warrington)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Pritt, D. N.	Wigg, Col, G. E.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Proctor, W. T.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)	Pryde, D. J.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Keenan, W.	Pursey, Gmdr. H.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Kenyon, C.	Randall, H. E.	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Key, C. W.	Ranger, J.	Wise, Major F. J.
Leslie, J. R.	Rankin, J.	Yates, V. F.
Lever, N. H.	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Levy, B. W.	Rhodes, H.	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Lindgren, G. S.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.	Zilliacus, K.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Logan, D. G.	Robertson. J. J. (Berwick)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Longden, F.	Rogers, G. H. R.	Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Lyne, A. W.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Mr. Simmons.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Gammans, L. D.	Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Baldwin, A. E.	Harris, H. Wilson	Nicholson, G.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.	Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Beechman, N. A.	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Boothby, R.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Bossom, A. C	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Raikes, H. V.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Hurd, A.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hulchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)	Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bullock, Capt. M	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Renton, D.
Byers, Frank	Lancaster Col. C. G.	Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Carson, E.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Smithers, Sir W.
Challen, C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Clarke, Col R. S.	Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Low, Brig. A. R. W.	Teeling, William
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)	Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Touche, G. C.
De la Bère, R.	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Diamond, J.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Ward, Hon. G. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Drayson, G. B.	Marples, A. E.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Marsden, Capt. A.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Maude, J. C
Fox, Sir G.	Molson, A. H. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Moore, Lt-Col. Sir T.	Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and
		Major Ramsay.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That no Questions be taken on Monday, 20th October, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]