HC Deb 29 April 1948 vol 450 cc609-16
Mr. Eden

May I ask the Lord President of the Council if he has a statement to make about the Business for next week?

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

The Business for next week will be as follows:

On Monday, 3rd May—Second Reading of the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill, and Committee and remaining stages of the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Bill.

Tuesday, 4th May—Supply (11th Allotted Day), Committee. The Supply day will be taken formally and afterwards the Adjournment will be moved for a Debate on foreign affairs.

Wednesday, 5th May—Conclusion of the Debate on foreign affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. At the end of the Debate, it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill.

Thursday, 6th May—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Friday, 7th May—Second Reading of the Children Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

During the week we shall take the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order which relates to drugs and medicines.

Mr. Eden

With regard to Monday's Business. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill is narrow in scope and—I am not making any particular complaint—I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I say that we on this side of the House will seek an early opportunity for a wider Debate on this subject, a wider Debate than the Bill allows. About the foreign affairs Debate, there is a Motion on the Order Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, about Western Union, and I wonder whether he would think and you would think, Sir, that it might be for the convenience of the House if the second day of that Debate, while not specifically allotted—there being no specific agreement about it—might not generally be treated as a day on which this subject might be discussed, whether on the Motion or not—whether the Debate could be broadly divided in that way?

Mr. Morrison

On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill, I am not settling the exact form or the occasion upon which the wider discussion might take place, but that could well be considered through the usual channels and we will do our best to reach an amicable arrangement. With regard to the Debate on foreign affairs, if the House generally would find the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion acceptable, that is quite all right so far as the Government are concerned. In that case, the second day's Debate could be in relation to Western Union and in relation to the Motion which has been widely signed and is on the Order Paper. I think that will be convenient to all sides of the House and, while I would not propose that we should give facilities for the Motion to be moved, the substance of it could be discussed in the second day's Debate.

Mr. Eden

May I ask, Sir, if that would meet with your approval?

Mr. Speaker

It seems to me that I am in the hands of the House. As I understand it, there is going to be a two-day's Debate, one day on general foreign affairs and the next day more or less taken up on this Motion. So far as I am concerned, it has my approval entirely.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If the Debate is going to take place on the Motion—

Mr. Speaker

Not on the Motion. I think the second day would have to be devoted to the subject, and so far as I can control Members in their speeches, I will try to call people who are going to talk on this subject. That would be one of those unofficial arrangements which we have. I think that could be arranged.

Mr. Stokes

With regard to the Debate on foreign affairs, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will exercise his influence to restrain Members on the Front Bench on both sides from occupying too much time of the House and thus giving back benchers no real opportunity of expressing their views?

Mr. Morrison

On this occasion, as on all occasions, my hon. Friend's observations will be taken notice of in high quarters.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I understand that the Debate on Wednesday is to be on Western Union—although the Motion widely signed on that subject is not to be moved, at any rate the Debate is by general agreement to centre around that—and may I ask whether it will include the various Amendments to that Motion, which have also been very widely signed?

Mr. Morrison

I confess that it took me long enough to study the Motion and I have not studied all the Amendments, but I should have thought if there are views and opinions which would wish to amend the Motion they would be relevant to the Debate.

Mr. Osborne

May I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider giving time for the House to discuss the negotiations which have been taking place between the Cabinet Committee and the T.U.C. Crisis Committee on the economic situation, especially now the negotiations have happily come to a conclusion? In view of the very great importance of these negotiations to every Member of this House, could we not have an opportunity of knowing what has happened and of debating it?

Mr. Morrison

I should not have thought so. There were days of discussion recently about the economic affairs. I gather that the hon. Member thinks that these particular interchanges of opinion have come to a happy conclusion and, if things have come to a happy conclusion, I should have thought that was fine, and there was no need to talk about it.

Mr. Eden

May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has observed the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, of myself and of one or two others asking for a Select Committee? May I ask him whether he is now in a position to grant that Select Committee—his domestic investigation being concluded—or alternatively to give us an opportunity of debating whether a Select Committee should be set up?

[That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and to report upon, the circumstances in which the names of Members of this House are alleged to have been added without their consent to a telegram sent on the 16th April to Signor Nenni.]

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid not. I should have thought, having regard to the news in this morning's newspapers, that the Motion has become rather out of date.

Mr. Eden

The right hon. Gentleman has not observed that the news in this morning's newspapers has nothing to do with the point of the Motion on the Order Paper. May I ask him, if he does not feel he can give Government time to the matter, whether he will consider, through the usual channels, a proposal by the Opposition that they will be willing to give some of their time in order that this House of Commons matter may be effectively debated?

Mr. Morrison

I would be hesitant to interfere with what the Opposition do with their time. I wish to be very respectful to that time of the House under the control of the Opposition, but I am afraid the Government themselves would not be willing to give time for the discussion of a matter which I think has been effectively dealt with, which is domestic to one of the political parties and on which that political party, I gather—I do not know—does not need the assistance of the official Opposition.

Mr. Eden

Has the right hon. Gentleman not observed that I do not wish to intrude into the domestic side at all? Has he not observed that the hon. Member who is perhaps most intimately concerned with the outcome of the domestic discussion—if I may put it that way—has himself said that the side of the matter in regard to the signatures was not discussed at any time?

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid this has got beyond me. I cannot keep up with it.

Mr. Churchill

May I lend the right hon. Gentleman a crutch or a spur? He has been dealing with his party, family, domestic affairs and we certainly feel no over-compelling inducement to enter into them, but this is a question, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, of the way in which Members should be treated by their fellow Members of the House of Commons; whether advantage should be taken of their carelessness or whatever it may be, or actual travesties put forward of their views when their signatures are attached to a particular document. That is a question we consider we have a right to discuss and it is a House of Commons question—nothing to do with the domestic affairs of the Labour Party, domestic affairs about which the Labour Party are in labour, but one which nevertheless is extremely important for the decent conduct of affairs in the House.

Mr. Morrison

I should be the last to say that this is not a welcome and admirable sentiment of public spirit which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But, if I may say so, it is purely incidental. The matters to which his right hon. Friend referred are matters in which Members of Parliament are concerned, but if those concerned had not been Members of Parliament the same action would have been taken. Therefore, I cannot see that it is a matter which concerns the House of Commons as such. It is a matter of the internal affairs of the political party concerned. They are dealing with it, and I do not believe it concerns the corporate activities or capacity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Austin

On foreign affairs, in view of the fact that a great deal of the time of the Foreign Affairs Debate will be taken up by Front Benchers—

Mr. Stokes

No.

Mr. Austin

—and in view of the fact that humble back benchers like myself have been waiting for almost three years to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a Foreign Affairs Debate, will the Leader of the House consider radically extending the time on Tuesday night to allow those with viewpoints of their own to express them?

Mr. Morrison

I think my hon. Friend is a little premature and unduly depressed. He does not yet know how much time will be occupied by Front Benchers. He had better wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Eden

To revert to the matter previously being discussed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am only anxious that there should be no misunderstanding. I understand the position of the Leader of the House, which is that the Government are not prepared to give time for it. We, the Opposition, have said that we are prepared to make provision for that purpose with time out of our own allotment. I assume that how that can be done will be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Morrison

Certainly; and I earnestly trust that a good day will be had by all.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to raise with the Leader of the House a matter which I consider is of very great importance to this House. Arising out of the fact that there is such general agreement between the other side of the House and the Government, in my opinion the time has now arrived when the responsibility for leading the Opposition should be taken from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and transferred to one of those—

Mr. Speaker

I must ask the hon. Member to connect his question with the Business for next week. After all, we are not now dealing with the Opposition or the Government.

Mr. Gallacher

I want an opportunity to discuss this question. I consider it very important for the House that—

Mr. Speaker

Under our Rules we may discuss the conduct of the Government, but we may not discuss the conduct of the Opposition.

Mr. Gallacher

Well, I ask the Leader of the House whether we cannot get a day to discuss the possibility of one of those now being accused by the Tories and by the Labour leaders of being in opposition to the Government, being transferred to the position now held by the right hon. Member for Woodford?

Mr. Morrison

There is something in what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Gallacher

I am not applying for the job, mind you.

Mr. Morrison

I am a little disinclined to agree with the hon. Member because if we were to debate that, we should also have to debate the extraordinary concurrence of opinion en certain matters between the hon. Member and Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Churchill

And Moscow.

Mr. Gallacher

That record has worn a little thin.

Mr. Chamberlain

For our guidance, would the Leader of the House tell us whether during the Foreign Affairs Debate the Foreign Secretary's statement is likely to cover the whole field; and, particularly, whether he is likely to deal with the Far Eastern situation, which many of us think is very important and which has been greatly neglected by this House for many months?

Mr. Morrison

I could not be sure. Perhaps my hon. Friend would communicate with the Foreign Secretary and find out. I am not quite sure what the scope will be.

Mr. Pritt

On the question of the time to be allotted for the Foreign Affairs Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) that he must not be too worried about the amount of time taken by Front Benchers. If the usual expectation of the Front Bench taking a long time is realised, will the Leader of the House consider an extension of the time, if only on Tuesday?

Mr. Morrison

I think we had better wait till a little later and see how things go on.

Mr. Stokes

Could not my right hon. Friend restrain the Front Bench?

Mr. Churchill

How the right hon. Gentleman would like to!