HC Deb 11 March 1948 vol 448 cc1427-35
Mr. Churchill

May I ask the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the Business for next week?

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

Yes, Sir.

Monday, 15th March.—Supply (9th Allotted Day) Report. Votes A of the Navy, Army and Air will be considered. At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the Financial Year. Committee stage of the Palestine [Money] Resolution and Motion to approve the Draft Cotton Industry Development Order, 1948.

Tuesday and Wednesday, 16th and 17th March.—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill.

Thursday, 18th March.—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. A Debate will take place on manpower.

Friday, 19th March.—Further progress will be made with the Palestine Bill. The Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to pass the Bill through all its remaining stages.

It may be convenient if I inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 25th March, and meet again on Tuesday, 6th April. Also, that on Tuesday, 6th April, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

As the House is aware, the Economic Survey for 1948 was made available as a White Paper on Tuesday. Hon. Members will doubtless require ample time to consider this very important document which is bound to form the background of the Budget Debates. In view of the near approach of the Easter Recess and of Budget Day, the Government wish to suggest to the House that the Debate on the White Paper should, as a matter of experiment this year, be taken with the Budget discussions. We make this suggestion for the reasons which I have given, and if, as I hope, it will be agreeable to the House, the actual arrangements for the Debate should perhaps be discussed through the usual channels. Usually the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions occupies three days, but in the exceptional circumstances this year it may be found desirable to extend this period by giving some extra time so that the House will have full opportunity of considering my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals and the present economic situation.

Mr. Churchill

I do not like the expression which the Leader of the House has used that "it may be found desirable to extend this period by giving some extra time" on the Budget Debate. The Budget Debate usually lasts three days on the general topic, and to add another couple of days would make a very discursive Debate spreading over five whole days. I cannot think that would be a convenient method of probing the difficult topics with which we have to deal. I must put it to the Leader of the House that the Government have taken, of their own free will and in the management of their business, the exceptional step of issuing this "Black Paper" a fortnight before the Budget, and it seems to me that they have by so doing raised a very considerable issue and that we ought to have the opportunity of debating it before Easter on a separate Motion for two days. However, I quite recognise that it is difficult to judge the doctors when the disease alone is before one without hearing what their remedies may be, and I should be quite willing, on behalf of those who sit on this side, to discuss proposals for a discussion of this matter at the time of the Budget discussions and after we have heard what the Budget of the year is. But that must surely be a separate Debate of at least two days—entirely separate from the ordinary discussions of the Budget and enabling the Whole House to take part again in that Debate even if they have spoken in the previous financial discussion. Therefore, I ask him whether he will elaborate his phrase, "It may be found desirable to extend this period," and give us an assurance across the Floor of the House that, in addition to the normal time allotted to the general Budget discussions, there will be two days for the discussion of the Economic White Paper as a separate Debate, and that this can be arranged through the usual channels?

Mr. Morrison

I was rather apprehensive about the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning, but he got rather nearer to us at the end. It is, of course, the case—there is no deliberate plot about it—that, as it happens, the White Paper has appeared in the House pretty near to the Budget occasion. It is a longish document and hon. Members will want to study it with great care and, indeed, hear the reaction in the country about it before the Debate. Therefore, it seems that inevitably we are driven to take that Debate about the time of the Budget. I do not ask anybody to commit themselves at this stage; I am only thinking about the general convenience of the House. It has been the case, when we have been having economic Debates as distinct from Budget Debates, that hon. Members have sometimes said, "It is really difficult to argue about this unless we get into the field of budgetary proposals," whereupon the Chancellor used to say, "I cannot anticipate my Budget statement." On the other hand, on the purely budgetary Debates, it is a little artificial to keep clear of these wider economic issues, and I only put it to the House that, as an experiment, there is a great deal to be said for interlocking the two subjects. The Chancellor himself, who now discharges the normal functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer plus the functions of Minister for Economic Affairs, in his opening speech will inevitably go wide and deal with the White Paper as well as with the narrow budgetary proposals, and I think the House would be cramped in its Debate unless hon. Members could also go wide. Having said that, I ask the Opposition to think about it, and we shall certainly be prepared to discuss it through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill

I want more than that. This is really not good enough. A Paper of the utmost gravity has been presented to the nation by the Government, managing their own business in their own way, which they have a perfect right to do. They have presented it, and we have a right to discuss that grave Paper. We are perfectly prepared to waive that right and not to press for a discussion before Easter, if it is understood that there will be two days after Easter in reasonable relation to the Budget, so that those who speak about the economic situation may also know the financial proposals which the Government have to make to remedy it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: can we take it as agreed, as I certainly thought it was agreed through the usual channels, that there will be a two days' Debate, separate from the Budget but cognate to it, when we come back after Easter?

Mr. Bowles

Before my right hon. Friend replies to that question may I put this point? The Budget discussion will take place in Committee of Ways and Means, which is a Committee for raising money and not spending it. The discussion on the White Paper may be out of Order, I submit with respect, because it might involve questions about economy, and questions of expenditure also will be dealt with.

Mr. Morrison

It is quite clear that in a Debate on the Budget, hon. Members can discuss reductions of expenditure—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] On the original Budget Debate we certainly cover that. One of the purposes of the Budget used to be to denounce Governments for spending too much money as well as to consider the ways in which it proposed to raise the money. I would ask the House to forgive me if I cannot he final upon this point at this moment. I must consider the reactions of the House as a whole, and I really believe that if hon. Members reflect upon this, that if we have a watertight Budget Debate—after the Chancellor has gone wide, remember, and then a watertight economic affairs Debate—when we know that the two things react upon each other and are interlocked, we shall get into trouble. However, if I find the general opinion of the House is that that is how it is wanted, certainly we will be prepared to give that favourable consideration, but I ask that this should be the subject of discussion, and not the subject of final settlement across the Floor this afternoon.

Mr. Churchill

There is no doubt about giving the two extra days; the only question is whether we have them before Easter and before the Budget, or whether we should have them at a separate time from the Budget after Easter. I am not suggesting for a moment that either of these Debates should be completely watertight—obviously they cover the same ground—but it would be a great mistake to have a five days' Debate wandering over the whole field, without some attempt to focus the issues. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance on this matter. I did not understand that there was a difficulty about it. I thought that it would be for the general convenience of the House; but at any rate, unless and until he tells us that we can have two separate days as a distinct Debate after Easter, we must press the demand that this black—White Paper shall be discussed before we separate.

Mr. Morrison

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so subconsciously influenced about the colour of the Paper by the Beaverbrook Press, but I urge him again to let us talk about it and see what is the best way out of it. If the Debate is cut in two, the other will have to follow immediately after the Budget Debate. Let us talk about it, and let hon. Members reflect on it. I am only apprehensive that, when it comes to the point, they may be exceedingly sorry if we have been too rigid. Let us talk about it, and we will be accommodating.

Mr. Churchill

I thought we had talked about it, but I am agreeable to that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman next week will give his final decision and let us know the answer?

Mr. Morrison

I shall certainly wish to to do that in a week's time.

Mr. Churchill

In good time next week because, if we do not get our separate Debate, our demand will reopen for a two days' Debate on the White Paper before Easter.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew

Before coming to a final decision next week, will the right hon. Gentleman look up the new Standing Order? I think he will find that we can have no Debate at all on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.

Mr. Morrison

I have not forgotten that.

Mr. House

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the Debate is cut into two parts, it is possible that roughly the same sets of speakers may be called for the second Debate as for the first?

Mr. Churchill

It is always possible that the hon. Member may not be called on either occasion.

With regard to the Palestine Bill on Friday, it seems very hard on the House to be asked to deal with all the remaining stages of the Bill on a short Friday Sitting. We are not opposing the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are not opposing the Bill. It is only doing what we strongly urged should be done two years ago. What I want to ask particularly is, if the House cannot get beyond the Report stage on Friday, will the Government find time for the Third Reading in the following week?

Mr. Morrison

I said, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that further progress will be made with the Palestine Bill and that the Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to pass the Bill through all its remaining stages. I recognise that it may conceivably not be possible to get the whole of the Bill; on the other hand, I put this to the House generally, including my hon. Friends on this side, that yesterday was a Debate about a clear issue. It was a Debate as to whether we get out of Palestine quickly, in accordance with the time table laid down, or whether some other consideration could come in and there should be some delay. The House has decided by a very big majority to approve the policy of the Government. I should have thought, in the circumstances, that the sooner the Bill is through, the better, but we shall have to see how we go on. I would like the Bill to be through next Friday but, if that cannot be done, then we must arrange for the Third Reading to be taken a few days later.

Mr. Churchill

We are quite content with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

In view of the approach of the Easter Recess, and the approach of the time when the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meets, when is it proposed to take the Bill for the consideration of the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Morrison

I regret to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not adequately briefed on that subject.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Without wishing to raise any issue with my right hon. Friend now, will he bear in mind in regard to the Business for next Friday that the issue raised yesterday, although I agree it was clear, was not about the time table, but about the method? Therefore, there might be Amendments before the Committee which might take a little time.

Mr. Morrison

I thought not, because I thought the method and procedure were discussed. Once the House has reached a decision on Second Reading, although it is right that the Bill should be examined on the Committee stage, once the decision has been reached in principle, I do not think we would find that the Amendments would cut across that principle which was confirmed by the House. We shall have to see how we go. I do not want to be unreasonable.

Mr. Mikardo

Can my right hon. Friend hold out hope of any time, even a little time, being given to discuss the very important and valuable Report issued last week by the Cotton Manufacturing Commission, as a Debate on this subject might help in getting acceptance of this valuable Report?

Mr. Morrison

I am not familiar with the Report, which I gather was issued recently, and I cannot undertake to give time for discussion on it.

Mr. Gallacher

I wish to ask a question on a matter which is very seriously disturbing Scottish local authorities and I expect other local authorities—that is the increase in the interest rate. Will there be an opportunity for discussing that on the Budget, or at some time before the Budget, as it is of such great importance to local authorities?

Mr. Morrison

I should have thought that with a little Parliamentary ingenuity the hon. Member might be able to make a contribution to the Budget Debate on that matter.

Mr. Bing

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision of last week that the Northern Ireland administration is independent and not subordinate to this Parliament? Could not he grant time for the Motion which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)?

[That this House regards an order made by the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland prohibiting a meeting called at Londonderry for 17th March, 1948, and to be addressed by the honourable Member for the Platting Division of Manchester and the honourable Gentleman the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone as a violation of the constitutional rights of Members of this House to address the people whom they represent; and calls upon His Majesty's Government to seek powers so to amend the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as to make it impossible for the Government of Northern Ireland to prohibit any public meeting called by Members of this House to discuss matters which are the responsibility of Parliament.]

Can he do that particularly in view of the authority which I sent to my right hon. Friend which takes a contrary view, and in view of the decision in the Government of Ireland Act that, Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must not pursue this matter at length. He can ask whether it can be debated, but cannot give unduly lengthy reasons for doing so.

Mr. Gallacher

The Leader of the House took quite a long time.

Mr. Bing

In view of Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision?

Mr. Morrison

The question is whether we will give facilities for a Debate on a Motion to amend the Government of Ireland Act. I am afraid we cannot. I cannot hold out hopes of that. In regard to the interesting and learned letter which my hon. Friend sent to me, I am getting briefed about that, and will answer him in due course.

Mr. Delargy

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Motion referred to does not merely ask for amendment of the Government of Ireland Act, but asks this House to express its great displeasure at the prohibition placed on two hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Morrison

On that point, which is where we got to last week, I venture to say that it is not for this House to express opinions about the functions of another Parliament acting in accordance with its statutory functions.

Sir Hugh O'Neill

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Suppose that time were found for this Motion to be discussed—and personally I should have no objection whatever—would it be in Order for hon. Members, on the discussion of the Motion, to criticise the actions of another Government when there is nobody in this House to answer for that Government?

Mr. Speaker

I made that perfectly clear at Question Time last Thursday, when several supplementary questions were asked casting reflections on another independent Parliament. I promptly ruled the whole matter out of Order.

Mr. Mulvey

In view of the fact that three Nationalist meetings were banned in Northern Ireland in 1938 and that no Nationalist political meeting on the same scale was organised in the meantime up to this Londonderry meeting, which is now banned, may I take it that only the Government party of Northern Ireland has the right to organise political meetings?

Mr. Speaker

That is not in Order.