HC Deb 26 February 1948 vol 447 cc2125-32
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton

May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison

Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 1st March.—A Debate will take place on Defence which will arise on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister inviting the House to approve the White Paper.

Tuesday, 2nd March.—Supply (4th allotted Day); Civil Vote on Account. A Debate will take place on trade with special reference to bilateral agreements and price control.

Wednesday, 3rd March.—The Government propose to afford an opportunity for a Debate on Parliamentary Questions relating to the boards of socialised industries until 7 o'clock. The Debate will arise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Afterwards, we shall take the Report and Third Reading of the Water Bill [Lords], and the Second Reading of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (if not previously obtained).

Thursday, 4th March.—Supply (5th allotted Day). It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on first going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, 1948–49, and to consider Votes A, 1, 7, 8 and 10 in Committee.

Friday, 5th March.—Report and Third Reading of the National Assistance Bill.

Mr. Lyttelton

May I ask the Leader of the House if he is satisfied that a Debate on the Adjournment on Wednesday on the matter of Parliamentary Questions regarding socialised industries will permit of a full discussion on this subject, or whether we shall be unduly restricted? May I have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on that?

Mr. Morrison

I do not know whether my opinion is worth much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that this modesty of mine is appreciated. I think Mr. Speaker's opinion would be of greater value. I would only like to say that we have done our best to try to meet the convenience of the House. Of course, there is a limitation on proposing legislation, and whether that is a material factor which would embarrass us or not I do not know, but, subject to that point, as far as the Government are concerned, we are not seeking that the Debate should be unduly restricted. Therefore, if some accommodation could be reached, it would be agreeable to us.

Mr. Lyttelton

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could give us some guidance on this point, because, obviously, a good deal of reference to past legislation must be made.

Mr. Speaker

There is the old rule about the Motion for the Adjournment that matters involving legislation are out of Order, but, of course, I should point out to the House that, as far as the gas industry is concerned a Bill is now upstairs in Committee and not within our cognisance. It would, therefore, be out of order on the Adjournment to make reference to it. There is another rule, and I think the sub- ject is rather a delicate one. Supposing that hon. Members wanted to suggest to the Table that the Clerks should not do their duty but should accept Questions for which a Minister is not responsible, that, I think, would be going outside what is in Order, because, in fact, it could only be done by vote or Resolution of the House. That affects not only Questions, but Debates on the Adjournment. Subject to those three points which I have mentioned, everything else, I think, is in Order. I would almost suggest that it would be more convenient if a Motion were put down, and that that would get rid of the difficulty.

Mr. Morrison

May I submit that part of the arguments which will arise will be as to how far the existing law determines the question of eligibility and responsibility for Parliamentary Questions. I assume that it would be in Order to refer, by way of defence or otherwise, to the fact that the law which defines the powers of the Minister must, in turn, have an effect on the answerability of the Minister to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker

That, of course, is a pretty wide field, and it would be in Order. If we have the suggestion that that will mean legislation in any way, that will be out of Order.

Captain John Crowder

If the law can be altered by means of a regulation, I understand that that does not come under the ban, because regulations are not legislation by Act of Parliament, but by Statutory Rule and Order, which can be made by a Minister?

Mr. Speaker

That, I think, is correct.

Sir Arthur Salter

May I make the respectful suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, that you would greatly facilitate the discussion on this subject if you were able to add to the statement you made on the last occasion when this matter was raised, which left an impression on most Members, that, when a Question was in doubt, you referred to the Department and took the view of the Department? I imagine that you mean that you get evidence as to the facts which help you to take your decision, but that that decision remains ultimately with yourself as to whether the Question is eligible or not?

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I gave rather a hurried statement. I said at the beginning that I had been by-passed, and I thought hon. Members would understand from that, that very often, negotiations took place and the Table did not agree that a Minister was responsible; that often an argument went on for quite a long time whether the Minister would or would not accept responsibility, but that, in the end, it came up to me. Of course, normally, I was by-passed, because they settled it before it came to me. In the last resort, it comes to me, because I have to say "Yes" or "No." It does not often happen, but it has happened.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The rule which prevents a Question being accepted where no Minister accepts responsibility is enshrined in the Standing Orders of the House. Would it be possible for you to say that, in this particular situation, where there is a relation between a Minister and some statutory authority outside, which is not a relationship of responsibility, but, nevertheless, a point of contact—that in those circumstances, questions could be put to Ministers. May I also ask whether the suggestion that the Standing Orders might be altered to meet the point in that way, would be in Order?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that, as a matter of fact, this is a Standing Order. It is the custom of the House, and I should think that it would require some general agreement on the part of the House if that custom was to be altered.

Mr. Silverman

The point on which I would like to be put right is whether a discussion on the customs and Standing Orders of the House would be in Order?

Mr. Speaker

I think that discussion would be in Order.

Mr. Lyttelton

As there seems to be some doubt about the matter of a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, could we have it explored through the usual channels and see whether some form of Motion could be adopted?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, Sir. I am quite agreeable to having discussions through the usual channels, but I am bound to intimate that I take the view that, if there is to be a Motion in place of the Adjourn- ment, it would be right that it should be an Opposition Motion, as the Debate is to take place at their request.

Mr. Blackburn

Do I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that, if an hon. Member submits to the Table that a certain matter is within the responsibility of a Government Department, and that that Government Department then denies that it is within its responsibility, you, Sir, will have discretion to rule whether that is so or not?

Mr. Speaker

Yes. I thought I had made that plain in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), but I cannot act as a dictator, and I must satisfy myself whether it is so or not.

Mr. Lyttelton

May I ask whether it is proposed to move the suspension of the Rule on Thursday, in view of the great interest taken in the subject to be debated?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, Sir. I think that is the usual custom on that particular class of Business.

Mr. Lyttelton

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why an explanatory memorandum has not yet been issued with the Navy Estimates, and when it will be available?

Mr. Morrison

I should have liked it to be available a little earlier, but it will be available tomorrow.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Reverting to Wednesday's Business, would not much of the difficulty be avoided if the Lord President put down a Motion approving his own statement on the subject, made on 4th December last, and if a Debate took place on that Motion?

Mr. Morrison

I think approving myself would be a bit invidious.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman has done it before.

Mr. Morrison

Modesty sits upon my brow; I would not like to do that. The Government, through me, made a statement, and they stand by it. The Opposition is complaining and criticising, which it has every right to do, and, therefore, it is up to the Opposition to put down a Motion, if that course be approved through the usual channels.

Mr. Teeling

In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary in his last speech on foreign affairs only devoted about three minutes to the Far East, would it be possible to give a little time in the near future to a Debate on the Far East, as, both in Korea and Burma, there are gathering clouds, and in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Australia there is considerable worry about the present policy of the Government in regard to foreign affairs?

Mr. Morrison

The Far East would have been in Order in the last foreign affairs Debate, but I do not think we can find room for another foreign affairs Debate yet awhile. We have had a fair number of them, and we have many other things to do.

Mr. Harold Davies

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the important Debate on trade on Tuesday, there will be a suspension of the Rule; and, further, can he say whether, in view of the importance of the Colonies to our economy, we can have a Debate on them in this House before the Recess?

Mr. Morrison

On the first point, Tuesday is an ordinary Supply Day, and it would not be in accordance with practice to suspend the rule. With regard to a Debate on the Colonies, I am afraid that must depend on Supply Days, and whether such a subject is named by the Opposition.

Mr. Walter Fletcher

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Government gave a definite promise that a Debate on Malaya would be held during this Session, and that I reminded the Secretary of State for the Colonies of that fact? Would the Government see that that promise is carried out?

Mr. Morrison

There is nothing easier. The course of the hon. Gentleman is quite plain. It is to make representations to his leaders to take a Supply Day on the Colonial Vote, and to have a Debate.

Mr. Fletcher

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; it was the request of the Government that Malaya should not be discussed during a certain Debate in Government time, and the Government gave an undertaking that they would provide an opportunity out of their time for that Debate. It is entirely wrong that it should be taken out of our time.

Mr. Morrison

If the hon. Gentleman will let me have his evidence, I will check it, but I would not like to make a pronouncement on the strength of his evidence at the moment.

Mr. Austin

In view of the widespread interest in the Defence White Paper, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule on Monday, so that those who wish to take part in the Debate may have an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. Morrison

I do not think I can commit myself. I will consider the suggestion, but the House, as a whole, is not too keen on having frequent suspensions, even though it appreciates the interest of my hon. Friend in certain matters.

Mr. Niall Macpherson

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention this year that the six days' Debate on Scottish Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee shall be given, and, if so, how soon he intends to debate Motion No. 21 dealing with special procedure for Scottish Estimates, standing in the name of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Morrison

I am sorry I cannot say. We are not trying to hold anything up; it is a matter of trying to find time. However, I will see what we can do.

Mr. Teeling

Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to me, if it is impossible to have a Foreign Affairs Debate on the Far East in the near future, could he not reconsider his decision about Tuesday's Debate, because most questions connected with the Far East are connected with trade in the Far East?

Mr. Morrison

Again, there is nothing easier. Tuesday is a Supply Day. All the hon. Gentleman has to do is to make representations to his Front Bench to see if they want the subject changed or modified. If they do, I am sure we shall be glad to co-operate to the mutual convenience.

Mr. Osborne

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the economic survey will be available? Will it be available before Tuesday?

Mr. Morrison

I do not think it will be available before Tuesday, although I do not think that it will now be long delayed.