HC Deb 23 October 1947 vol 443 cc236-45
Mr. Eden

May I ask the Leader of the House if he can make a statement about Business for next week?

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

The Business for next week will be as follows:

The Debate on the Address will be continued on Monday, 27th October, and on Tuesday, 28th October, and brought to a conclusion on Wednesday, 29th October. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be good enough to indicate today, for the convenience of the House, which Amendments to the Address you propose to call and the days upon which they will be taken.

Thursday, 30th October—Consideration of the Reports from the Committee of Privileges relating to the cases of the hon. Members for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) and Doncaster (Mr. Walkden).

Friday, 31st October—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is hoped to obtain the Second Reading, which is usually a formal stage, on Monday. Second Reading of the Jersey and Guernsey (Financial Provisions) Bill. Motions to approve the Fish Sales (Charges) Order and the four Purchase Tax Orders on the Paper.

During the week, it is hoped to consider the Motion relating to the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944.

Mr. Eden

Could you tell us, Sir, what is in your mind, in view of what the Leader of the House has said about the course of the Debate on the Address?

Mr. Speaker

What I propose is that we should continue the general Debate today and Friday. Then I thought that on Monday, without any definite Amendment before the House, there might be a general discussion on Germany and foreign affairs. Then on Tuesday and Wednesday I shall call the Amendment which is down in the name of the official Opposition. There is an Amendment down on Defence, and I thought all those matters should come in under the general Debate on the Amendment put down by the official Opposition, or else during the general Debate today, and I would prefer to call a certain number of speakers on that subject.

Mr. Eden

You do not feel, Sir, that you could call any other Amendment than the official Opposition Amendment on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker

No. I thought I would give two days to that, and that would cover the whole field as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Churchill

Is not this a new departure, to have no Amendment to the Address except the one moved by the official Opposition party? Ought there not to be opportunities for hon. Members in all parts of the House to raise topics of general interest, apart from that contained in the official Opposition Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, but I have carefully examined the subject matter of the Amendments which have been put down, and I am quite prepared to call Amendments, for a Division if necessary, if hon. Members want to record a Vote. The Amendment down in the name of the Liberal Party would be covered on Monday; the second one is covered by the general Opposition Amendment; and the third is, of course, out of Order became there is a Prayer down on that subject. Except for the Amendment dealing with National Defence, I think, there is none which raises any point not covered entirely by Amendments already down. In view of the time limit—and I am bound to work to a time limit—and as last year I tried to fit in a good many Amendments, which I do not think met with the general pleasure of the House, I thought that this year we would try the one big Amendment and have a longer general discussion.

Mr. Rhys Davies

May I ask the Leader of the House, on Business for next week, whether he has noticed that on next Monday night there is a Prayer down against the Control of Engagement Order? As I understand the Rules of the House, that would come on at about half-past ten. Is it not possible to bring that Debate on a little earlier because of the importance of the subject?

Mr. H. Morrison

I do not think that will actually come up on Monday, and it may be that we could do something better. I will ask the Chief Whip to consider what can be done through the usual channels.

Mr. Rhys Davies

Thank you very much. Do I understand aright, that arrangements can be made for a Debate early in the day; and does that mean that our Motion will not be taken on Monday night?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, that is the idea. Of course, I cannot give my hon. Friend a permanent undertaking, but that is what I want to do if I can.

Sir Peter Macdonald

I should like to ask the Leader of the House or you, Mr. Speaker, about Monday's Debate. Will the Debate on Foreign Affairs be split into two parts, to deal with Germany first or last, or will it all be mixed in with foreign affairs generally? We have a report on Germany from hon. Members of this House who have just returned, and have taken a great deal of trouble in getting the reportready in time for the House to consider during this Debate. A great many hon. Members will want to speak, and I do not think one day will be enough for the whole of foreign affairs and Germany. Therefore, I ask you, Sir, or the Leader of the House, if you will now consider giving one full day for Germany and another day for foreign affairs generally.

Mr. Morrison

If it is a question of time, I am afraid I cannot add to the period, which is six and a half days, the same as last year. Somehow or another we have crept up on the average which obtained before the war, when there was an average of five to six days. Now we have slipped up to six and a half days. How we have drifted into this rather longer period, which worries me a little, I do not know.

Sir P. Macdonald

How long are we to have for Germany before the Amendment is taken?

Mr. Speaker

I have noted what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) has said, and I will endeavour to arrange that; I will try to divide the Debate so that part of it will be devoted to Germany and part to foreign affairs generally.

Sir P. Macdonald

May I reserve the right to ask again on Monday for an extension of time in case a large number of people want to speak?

Mr. Speaker

That depends on how long hon. Members speak. I cannot say in advance how long it will take. I will do my best to allocate the period.

Mr. Churchill

With great respect, is not what will now take place simply that there will be one long Debate on the general question of the Address, brought to a point in the last two days by an Amendment from the official Opposition, with one Division on the whole subject? And is that not a great truncation and restriction of the ordinary use made by the House of this unique facility in the Session, when all matters can be brought into review? Really the formal Amendment moved by the official Opposition is also very largely general, because the Address is discussed at the same time. May I also ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not desirable to preserve the old customs of the House to have Amendments which divide the topics completely and rigidly, according to the Rules of Order, instead of Mr. Speaker just calling those whom he can trust to speak on particular topics which are more or less assigned by agreement to a particular division? There ought to be a division of the Debate, and there ought to be means whereby hon. Members vote, if they so please, on those specific Amendments. To lump those all into one and then to have, a vote at the end is certainly—it seems to me, with great respect—a very different method of procedure from that which has been sanctified by long observance.

Mr. Speaker

Of course, I am quite prepared to fall in with the general wishes of the House, but I have a time-table just as much as the House, and that I cannot expand. If, of course, the Opposition choose to give up one day of their Amendment, then I could call other Amendments for a Division.

Mr. Churchill

If I may say so, quite apart from the general matter I have submitted to you there is the question of the length of time given to the Address. It never occurred to me for a moment that the Debate would come to an end with a Vote on Wednesday next. There are two topics in which a great many hon. Members are interested: one is the state of affairs in Germany, and the other is the question of National Defence as affected by the violent changes which have been made. Both these matters should be discussed in debate, and it is also perfectly reasonable to ask that the official Opposition should have their full share. May I ask the Government if they will give Thursday also in order that we can discuss National Defence, and then on Monday Germany and foreign affairs would come into the discussion?

Mr. H. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman is being quite unreasonable. There was a suggestion about the Debate on the Control of Engagement Order coming up during the Debate on the Address, and we are trying to provide special time for that.

Mr. Churchill

That is the Prayer.

Mr. Morrison

How the Opposition uses its time is, to a great extent, within its own prerogative and control. There is a Debate today; there is a Debate tomorrow; and there is a Debate on Monday. We would have been most happy to consider representations, and would not have raised difficulties, in regard to whether the Opposition wish to use those days in another way. I would only add that there are six and a half days, which compares with five or six days before the war; and if I remember rightly, before the war it was not uncommon for perhaps only the official Opposition Amendment to be called, sometimes with one other. If I may respectfully say so, I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that last year we got into a little difficulty when perhaps there were too many Amendments. However, I do not think this is an unreasonable arrangement, and if the Opposition, within the time-limit of six and a half days, wish to make some re-adjustment that might perhaps be considered. I am bound to say, I think the proposed programme is about the best we can get. Anyway, it is a longer time than used to obtain before the war. My worry is how this longer time has occurred.

Mr. Janner

On the question of Business, will an opportunity be given to discuss Palestine before the committees which at present are sitting in the United Nations organisation come to any conclusion?

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking about that at the moment.

Mr. Janner

In view of the uncertainty of the statements that have been made at U.N.O. as far as we are concerned, does the right hon. Gentleman think that an opportunity could be given to the House to debate the whole issue?

Mr. Morrison

No. I think the statement made by His Majesty's Government to the United Nations is quite clear. I thought so. I should have thought that a debate at this juncture, while the matter is under discussion by the United Nations, would not be likely to be helpful. Whether the question may arise thereafter I do not know.

Mr. Pickthorn

On Business and the announcement of the Debate on the Reports from the Committee of Privileges, I am sorry if I am about to ask an unnecessary question. Is the Debate on Thursday to be on the two outstanding Reports? Are they both to be debated on Thursday, and will the whole of Thursday be for those two? I think that that is what was announced, but I am not quite clear about it.

Mr. Morrison

Yes, Sir, if necessary the whole of Thursday will be available, and it will cover both cases, the case of the hon. Member for Gravesend and the case of the hon. Member for Doncaster.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Reverting to the question of Palestine, and without wishing to express any opinion about the clarity or ambiguity of the statement made to the United Nations, does my right hon. Friend realise that that statement, at any rate, indicated a fundamental change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government in Palestine as so far indicated to the House, and that that change of policy so far has been indicated only to the United Nations and has never been indicated to the House, and that the House has had no opportunity whatever of expressing any opinion about it?

Mr. Morrison

I do not know that the statement represents a fundamental and violent departure from the statements made in the House. But the Government are responsible for submitting their views to the United Nations, and I do not think they can be inhibited from so doing by the fact that that particular statement to the United Nations has not yet been debated here. I do not think we shall ever get our Business done if every time an issue goes to the United Nations, a Debate has to be held in the House. It may be that on some future occasion the question of Palestine may come up again. It may be that it could be worked into the Debate on Monday, but we were not proposing to give it any special place.

Mr. Churchill

Do I understand from the exchanges that have taken place that the Leader of the House intends to bring the Debate on the Address to a close on Wednesday evening? Do I also understand that in the interval there will be another opportunity for saying which topics the Opposition wish to be debated under the heading of precise Amendments, and which they are prepared to have raised in the ordinary course of Debate?

Mr. Morrison

I do not wish to prejudice the issue about precise Amendments. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker. I have only expressed, very respectfully and humbly, a view conformable to yours, Mr. Speaker, that I was not quite sure that last year's course was a success as an experiment. But this is a question of topics. I am not talking about Amendments. This is a matter of topics. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss them through the usual channels, subject always to the views of Mr. Speaker we shall be quite prepared to talk about topics.

Mr. Churchill

May I then ask you, Sir, as the Leader of the House has said there is no objection to the topics being brought forward behind specific Amendments——

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir. That is not what I said. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I did not say that. I personally am not wishing to urge on Mr. Speaker that particular Amendments should be called. Because of last year's experience, I think it is doubtful if it is good to have too many. On the question of topics, if in the general Debate it is desirable to have a timetable which would include various topics, we are prepared to discuss that through the usual channels, subject always to the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, who has to call the participants in the Debate.

Mr. Churchill

I will ask you, then, Sir, whether you will not be prepared to consider precise Amendments in such time as the Government allow to the House to discuss the Gracious Speech, apart from the official Amendment which the Conservative Opposition have put down. In particular, I should like to ask you whether an opportunity can be found to discuss on a precise occasion, and with a Debate permitting a Division, so that Members have the right to vote as well as to speak, the question of the state of Germany, the question of foreign affairs, and the question of Defence.

Mr. Speaker

I think I indicated that as far as the time-limit allows I am quite prepared to fall in with the general wishes of the House. I must make it perfectly clear that I cannot take the whole time away from the general Debate. The argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) yesterday was, I think, very relevant to this—that Private Members on all sides of the House have a right to make themselves heard on a Debate of this kind—and I must consider the fact. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) alluded to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), who may want to have the right to say something in reply. I must bear all these things in mind. Subject to that, however, I am only too willing to try to adjust my programme within the time limits to suit the convenience of all Members, whether belonging to the Government or the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill

With great respect, if there is no precise Amendment before the House the matter proceeds entirely by personal arrangements between yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the Members you choose to call, and nothing can prevent, surely, under the Rules of Order, a Member who is called from addressing the House on the general topic which is before us. That being so, is this not a great weakening of the principle of dividing the Debate on the Address into certain compartments, where specific issues are brought to a definite conclusion? Apart from the desire of Members to take part in a general Debate, must not some consideration be given to Members who wish to express their opinion on specific issues, not only by speeches but by votes?

Mr. Speaker

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will be quite frank. My first idea was to have half a day on Monday on the Navy and general defence, and half a day on Germany. Then I gathered that there was a general demand from all quarters of the House that that Debate should be widened into a general Foreign Affairs Debate which would include Germany. I am sure that within the three days we have next week we should be able to arrange that some subjects are called and, if necessary, Divided upon. I am only too willing to do all I can to suit the convenience of the House.

Brigadier Head

In view of the fact that the Amendment on Defence is unlikely to be called in the comparatively short time available, and in view also of the large numbers of Members on both sides of the House anxious, for various reasons, regarding Defence, would the Leader of the House consider allowing a day before the Christmas Recess for thoroughly discussing the whole matter of defence, and getting a responsible answer from the Government?

Mr. Morrison

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, on the naval point, is about to make a statement. I cannot give any undertaking about a Debate on defence between now and Christmas. We have a lot of business to do, and, of course, there will be ample opportunities on Supply days in due course.