BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 20 November 1947)

§ Mr. Eden
May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

§ Mr. H. Morrison
The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 24th November—Second Reading of the National Assistance Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday, 25th November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday, 26th November—Committee and remaining stages of the Ceylon Independence Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill; and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Further progress will be made with the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill.
Thursday, 27th November, and Friday, 28th November—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he proposes to find the time to set down a Motion in the terms of the Motion standing in 1341 the name of myself and several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen which, as he will see, is signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

§ Mr. Scollan
Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I say that I wanted to raise this particular point? I gave notice in the House yesterday, as hon. Members will read at column 1232 of HANSARD. I gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I wanted to put down a Motion on the lines that the Bill be divided into two parts. Yesterday, I put in a Motion in my own name, but imagine my astonishment when I discovered this morning that the Motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—a different Motion—and my name is tagged on to it. Immediately after the incident took place in the House, when I went outside I was tackled by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who informed me that if the Motion was going down, it would have to be in his name because he was a Privy Councillor. I informed him then that no Motion of mine was going down with his name. After I had written the Motion I immediately brought it in here, and two hon. Members on this side of the House decided to support it. But today we find that the Motion is not on the Order Paper at all, and that there is one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and our names are tagged on to it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
May I say that I raised the matter the day before, that I raised it during my speech, that I also moved that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and that on the Division the hon. Member in question voted against the Bill being remitted to a Committee of the whole House, thereby possibly precluding himself from his chance of speaking on it if it were referred to a Joint Committee. Thereafter, I gave him notice outside that I intended to put down a Motion of this kind—

§ Mr. Scollan
That is not the case.

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
That is my recollection of the conversation—[Interruption.]. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I thereupon, in conjunction with my hon. and right hon. Friends, drafted the Motion, and I think that the Table will bear me out, that my Motion was in immediately before any other.

§ Mr. Speaker
This appears to be a little complicated. Of course, it does not much matter. If one says in the House, "I am going to put it in," that does not necessarily mean that it gets in first. It has got to get in first to the Table. I have inquired, and there is no question but that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion was first in to the Table and, therefore, it is entitled to priority and to be put down first. Knowing nothing about the little feeling which apparently was roused between the two sides, I understand that the Motion put in by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) was really not in Order. Therefore, the Table altered it in order to assist the hon. Member, and it was not known that it would be inconvenient for all the names to appear together. I understand that it was altered because it was not in Order.

§ Mr. Scollan
I must say that I have always found very great help from the Clerks at the Table at any time when I have had to go to them; but on this occasion I asked specifically because I was in some doubt whether I had worded the Motion correctly or not. I asked, "Is that correct?" I asked a second time and I was told, "Mr. Speaker will decide whether or not it is correct." With that help, I understood that it was acceptable. Had I been told that it was not, I would have altered the Motion accordingly. I do not think that it is quite fair that my name should be tagged on like this.

§ Mr. Speaker
It appears there was some mistake. I confess I had never heard of it. In fact, all this morning I was attending another function and, therefore, did no business myself.

§ Mr. Scollan
I hope that there were no mistakes there.

§ Mr. Speaker
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the misunderstanding which seems to have occurred. When we know 1343 whether or not the matter is to be debated, I dare say that we can rectify the misunderstanding.

§ Mr. Eden
If an Englishman dare interrupt in the matter, may I try to help, not at all on the merits of the Scottish dispute but on the merits of the Motion on the Order Paper? May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has had a chance to consider the Motion and does he not think it is quite clear?

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Scottish Labour Members are completely unanimous in this request? We are in favour of the general request made in this Motion. On the other hand, we do not wish to have our names, through any of our representatives, associated with the Motion in these circumstances.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore
Petty.

§ Mr. MacMillan
The matter is extremely difficult as far as Scottish issues are concerned, and, therefore, we wish to be dissociated from it. I would ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, against what, on the surface of it, appears to be a very gross breach of the ordinary principles of this House. To any person reading this without the explanation given today, it looks extremely unfair and rather unworthy' of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

§ Mr. Speaker
I went so far as to say that I regretted what had happened. I apologised and said that I would try to put matters right.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
On the main issue, the more I listen to this, the more I am quite clear that it had better be discussed through the usual channels.

§ Sir Arnold Gridley
Having regard to the fact that the Report of the Committee that went into the operation of the Members' Fund has now been at the service of hon. Members for many weeks, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government are prepared to find time at an early date to consider the recommendations in that Report, having regard to the possibility that there may be some of our old colleagues who are now receiving assistance and who need the extra assistance which is one of the recommendations of that Report.

§ Mr. Morrison
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been some delay, but I am most anxious that it should be dealt with expeditiously, and I will do my best to see if this cannot be taken before the Christmas Recess.

§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood
May I ask the Lord President whether in view of the fact that the verdict in the case Rex v. Caunt suggests that the regulation may be totally inadequate, he can hold out any prospect of early amending legislation?

§ Mr. Morrison
That was a very recent decision of the Courts, and I do not know whether there may be an appeal. I do not think I ought to say anything when it is such a recent decision of the Court, and when I cannot be sure whether there may not be an appeal.

Hon. Members
There cannot be.

§ Mr. Eden
He was acquitted.

§ Mr. Morrison
Then, there cannot be; that is quite right. Obviously, there cannot be an appeal against the decision. But it is quite recent and I do not think that I should make a statement. If any statement is to be made it should be made either by the Home Secretary or one of the Law Officers.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Since the question now raised is the subject matter of Question 86, which was not reached, would it be in order for the Home Secretary to answer that Question now?

§ Mr. Speaker
As a matter of fact, I could not hear what the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said; otherwise, I would have stopped him putting his question, because it was quite out of Order on Business.