HC Deb 18 March 1948 vol 448 cc2299-313
Mr. Churchill

May I ask the Leader of the House, the Lord President of the Council, 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, 22nd March.—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. A Debate will take place on Conditions in the Police Forces until seven o'clock; afterwards, there will be a Debate on Civil Defence. There will also be consideration of Amendments to the Local Government Bill and the Cinematograph Films Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today.

Tuesday and Wednesday, 23rd and 24th March.—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill.

Thursday, 25th March.—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon. Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 6th April.

Last week, I announced the date of the Budget and made a statement about a Debate on the Economic Survey, 1948. We hope it will be generally acceptable to take the Debate on the Economic Survey with the Budget discussions. The Debate on the Budget in Committee of Ways and Means usually occupies three days, and the Government are prepared to extend this period by two days in the special circumstances. I suggest to the House that the final arrangements for the Debate would he best left for consideration nearer the time.

Mr. Churchill

I think there are obvious inconveniences in a Debate of such a general character spread over as many as five days. It might be advantageous if there were some discussions as to what should be the understandings and arrangements best suited to give the Debate its fullest focus and grip. I gather from the Lord President that those discussions may take place through the usual channels. A five-day Debate on one vast mass of topics is a very,' unusual procedure in the House, and I had rather hoped it might be divided. But I understand that, as we shall be in Committee of Ways and Means, hon. Members will be able to speak on both aspects, and can speak more than once—not as if in the ordinary House. I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the matter can be discussed in a friendly manner in order to see what is best in the interest of the Debate and the House.

Mr. Morrison

As to whether hon. Members can speak more than once, that, of course, is a matter for the Chair. I imagine that there will be a good many hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate. It is very difficult to segregate the two things in the course of the Debate, though it may be, on certain days, that the tendency will be to talk about some aspects, and, on other days, about other aspects. I do not think we can segregate the two. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on a point—whether the five days should be continuous—which merits consideration. It may be that we can arrange a small interruption in the middle so as to enable hon. Members to get their breath and to think about the later stages of the Debate. We shall be quite willing to talk about it.

Mr. Churchill

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew

In view of the imminence of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and of the question of increasing the allowance to the Lord High Commissioner, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Bill does not get through before the General Assembly this year, he will see it is made retrospective so that the Lord High Commissioner will get the increase?

Mr. Morrison

I do not think I can enter into any commitments on that point. Hon. Members opposite seem to be manifesting a great deal of interest in this Bill. If they would persuade their Front Bench to make representations through the usual channels as to the urgency of this Bill, we would consider them, but we did not think that it was so urgent.

Mr. Warbey

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to submit the Brussels Treaty to ratification by this House, or whether, in some other way, a Debate will be arranged on this matter?

Mr. Morrison

I am not quite sure—I am not prejudicing the issue either way—whether this is a Treaty of a character which requires ratification or not. However, I can see that, in the not too distant future, it is quite likely that the Opposition will ask for a Debate on foreign affairs, and I imagine that hon. Members on this side would like to have one. But, if the House would not mind, I would rather leave it until the return of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean

With regard to the Bill on the Lord High Commissioner's emoluments, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his right hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), who has held this office for two years and now is to hold it for a third, has held it with great dignity and with appreciation in Scotland? How is he to make his plans, which he must make, in good time if he does not know what his emoluments are to be?

Mr. Ronald Mackay

Will the Leader of the House say whether, after the Easter Recess, he will make time available for a Debate on the Motion on European union standing in my name and in the name of about 120 other hon. Members drawn from all sides of the House?

[That, in the opinion of this House, steps should now be taken in consultation with the other members of the British Commonwealth, to create in Western Europe a political union strong enough to save European democracy and the valises of Western civilisation, and a trading area large enough, with the Colonial Territories, to enable its component parts to achieve economic recovery and stability;

That for this purpose there should be an emergency policy designed to secure immediate and effective co-operation between the countries of Western Europe, and a long-term policy designed to tring into being a federation of Europe;

That the emergency policy should establish forthwith a Council of Western Europe consisting of representative of the governments of the sixteen paiticipaling countries in the European Recovery Plan, and Western Germany, to lay down the broad lines of common action; that the Council should have power to set up permanent international staffs to co-ordinate the social, economic and defence policies; that the first and most important task of the economic.staff would be to frame concrete proposals for the stabilisation of the currencies of Western Europe, for the development of trade, for the execution of the European Recovery Plan, for a comprehensive broduction plan, including agriculture and the heavy industries, and for Colonial development; that the necessary siaffs should act under the direction, and by the authority, of the Council of Western Europe, and should be in continuous session;

That the long-term policy should be to create a democratic federation of Europe, with a constitution based on the princibles of common citizenship, political freed9m, and representative government, including a charter of human rights; that such a federation should have defined powers with respect to such matters as external affairs, defence, currency, customs, and the planning of production, trade, power and transport; and that to achieve his objective, the governments of the states of Western Europe should take steps to convene, as soon as practicable, a constituent assembly composed of representatives chosen by the Parliaments of the participating states, to frame a constitution for such a federation.]

Mr. Morrison

I do not think we could very well give facilities for a Debate on that Motion. I should have thought that when there is a foreign affairs Debate—which I imagine must, and should, come after Easter—the subject dealt with in the Motion of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can be debated in relation to the foreign affairs Debate.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay

Is not the essence of this Motion that it comes from the back benches of this House; is not this one of the most important Motions which has been signed by Members of all parties and put before the Government for many years, and would it not be of benefit to have a Debate on foreign affairs which started this way round?

Mr. Morrison

I very much doubt it. I have had this battle before about the number of names that appear on the Motion and also the argument about all parties, but I do not think I can adopt the automatic principle that if a Motion is signed by a good number of Members of all parties a Debate must automatically be given, and I very much doubt whether this is the best method of handling it. The subject, however, is another matter and I think that can be met.

Mr. Churchill

I quite see that with the momentous announcement made yesterday there will certainly have to be a Debate on foreign affairs, for which no doubt the Government will find the time whenever it is most convenient, but with regard to the Motion which is now the subject of questions and requests for time, we on this side of the House, while not committing ourselves to every detail of the phrasing of the Motion, or even to some of the points which it contains, nevertheless feel this is a matter which should be ventilated and discussed in the House. We should be very ready to facilitate its discussion in connection with Supply, if there is no other way, provided that at the same time the Government do not deny us the necessary Debate on foreign affairs which they will naturally find in their own time.

Mr. Morrison

I recognise the exact character of the helpful spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has made these observations, but what it really comes to is that he is asking for two foreign affairs Debates—one on this Motion and one otherwise. I cannot do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we have not the time; there are other things to do. I think if the House debates foreign affairs after Easter, the point is adequately and properly met. As to allocation of time, whether Government time or otherwise, that can properly be discussed and can usefully be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill

I must press the matter. I is obvious that when an announcement has been made—I am speaking on Business now—such as that made by the Prime Minister yesterday, and a great event has taken place—a solemn 50-years' alliance and so forth—it is the obvious duty of the Government, is it not, to provide an early occasion for an opportunity for its full discussion? But this is quite a separate question and this is matter which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is put forward by Members below the Gangway, men of all parties, and which is not inimical or hostile to the Government's policy in any way. I would therefore ask that whatever the Government do about giving, as is their duty, a Debate on foreign affairs, they should also give facilities for a discussion on this matter, especially as we on our side would not object to one of the Supply days, about which we are consulted, being devoted to this Question.

Mr. Morrison

As to the nature of the days for the Debate on foreign affairs, they can be discussed through the usual channels, but it is perfectly clear that the Debate must cover and include the same ground as that covered by the Motion. I am not going to concede the right hon. Gentleman's wish that he should get so much time for himself and the Opposition and should also have time in respect of a Private Members' Motion which is of importance, signed by a good number of Members and strictly in relation to the matter we shall be discussing.

Mr. Harold Davies

In view of the great concern in the country about the Prime Minister's statement on subversive activities in the Civil Service, may I ask if my right hon. Friend will give time in this coming week to discuss a Motion on the Paper in the name of myself and 42 other Members on this side?

[That, in view of the fact that the Official Secrets Act and other measures have always in peace and war provided adequate protection against subversive activities of any person in the public service, this House regrets the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 15th March, 1948, and feels that it constitutes a departure from the principles of Democracy and Civil Liberty.]

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend talks about "concern in the country." My own impression was that there was some degree of relief in the country in response to the Prime Minister's statement, and I am afraid I am not agreeable to giving facilities for the Motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Boothby

May I ask the Lord President of the Council to bear in mind that the previous Motion mentioned goes far beyond the Treaty which was signed in Brussels yesterday and raises issues of profound importance to this country and to Western Europe as a whole? Surely the subject matter of the Motion should be of some importance in giving consideration, quite apart from the number of those who signed it? Could there be any subject of more importance?

Mr. Morrison

I do not see why these matters should not be discussed within the Debate which is intended.

Mr. Churchill

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from the usual custom by which the official Opposition has the right to select the subject for discussion on Supply days?

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about Supply days. I am not arguing any such thing. I say, if there is a Debate on matters arising out of discussions at Brussels and out of the international situation, it is perfectly clear that these matters dealt with in the Motion on the Paper would be in Order for discussion on that occasion.

Mr. Churchill

Would that in any way invalidate the long-established custom that the Opposition may, if they choose, ask for the discussion on a particular Supply day of a particular Motion?

Mr. Morrison

The answer to that point is absolutely categorical. I, am not questioning at all the control of the Opposition over business to be taken on days of Supply.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to ask the Lord President of the Council in the meantime —the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition might have mad?. an apology for putting me down in my seat—apart from whether there is concern in the country or relief in the country, is it not the case that this is a very serious subject with very serious consequences for some people, even though they are a minority? I am talking about the Motion regarding the Prime Minister's statement. I always understood that the Leader of the House was very deeply concerned about minorities. [Interruption.] This is a very important subject—if you listen you will hear the tramp of many million feet, and before long it may be that the laugh will be the other way around.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore

Is this his master's voice?

Mr. Gallacher

I want to ask the Leader of the House, is it not the case that this is a very serious matter which can have very serious consequences for the citizens of this country, and would it not be very desirable that there should be some measure of discussion on it in this House?

Mr. Morrison

It would be most unwise of the hon. Member to press this point to a discussion. I assure him he will get the worst of it.

Mr. Gallacher

No, I will not.

Mr. Morrison

As to the rights of minorities, the hon. Member is quite right: I take account of the rights of minorities, and I am a great believer in those rights. I also believe in keeping an eye on certain minorities as well.

Mr. Frank Byers

May I press the Lord President on this point? Does he not appreciate that there is general approval in the country of the fact that the Government could relieve people of their jobs for reasons of security; that there is also the question of the political test coming in, and, while agreeing with the object which the Government are trying to achieve, there is a certain amount of concern about the methods which they are adopting; and would it not be wiser, even though certain' people get the worst of the argument, to allow the House of Commons to discuss the method?

Mr. Morrison

That, of course, is quite a limited point; that narrows the issue, and I should have thought it would be useful, if it were in Order, and if Mr. Speaker permitted, to have that subject discussed on the Adjournment Motion next Thursday.

Mr. Carmichael

Arising out of the statement on Business for next week and that immediately following the Recess, do the Government intend to introduce legislation at an early date to stop the conduct of property owners in Scotland in their treatment of small shopkeepers? The Government have already given some indications along those lines, and I should like more specific information on that point.

Mr. Morrison

I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking about legislation. With regard to my hon. Friend's allegations, I know that there are apprehensions, and that there has been certain experience in Scotland about it; and I earnestly trust that property owners will have consideration for small shopkeepers, and will not provoke a situation. I am afraid that I cannot promise to undertake early legislation——

Mr. Piratin

That is a Socialist speaking.

Mr. Morrison

I would not take the hon. Member as an authority on Socialism. My hon. Friend knows that that matter is under consideration by the Secretary of State, and we are examining what can be done. It is just possible that something may be done apart from legislation. I could not promise early legislation on that matter.

Major Tufton Beamish

Reverting to the Prime Minister's statement on Monday, it raises issues of the gravest and most far-reaching constitutional importance, and if the arrangements that have been set in motion are to be fully acceptable to British justice they should not only be just, but should appear to be just. Is it not, therefore, most important that one day should be set aside, in Government time, for a Debate on this most important constitutional matter?

Mr. Morrison

The Government have made a pronouncement and the issue is clear. I do not think there is much room for material confusion upon the issue. If there were adequate feeling in the House that the Government were taking an absolutely improper and unconstitutional course, the right action would be to put down a Motion of Censure. I gather that the only thing about which some hon. Members are anxious is for some further elucidation—which is fair—and I should have thought that that aspect could have been dealt with adequately, were it permitted, on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Driberg

My right hon. Friend suggests dealing with this subject on the Easter Adjournment Motion, but will he bear in mind that this is an extremely important subject, which deserves a whole day, and that the Easter Adjournment is customarily allocated by Mr. Speaker to a number of different back bench Members who have been unfortunate in the Ballot?

Mr. Morrison

If I may say so, I think that my hon. Friend is exaggerating the importance of the matter.

Mr. Henry Strauss

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the questions which hon. Members in all quarters of the House may wish to raise may go beyond elucidation; and that this House always concerns itself very much with all questions of individual liberty? Without wishing in any way to suggest any criticism of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether the Lord President does not realise that it is a subject which goes beyond what can be raised merely as one topic in the Adjournment Debate, and that he will be meeting the wishes of all sections of the House if he is more sympathetic to a demand that this House shall, at some not too distant date, have a day to discuss the subject?

Mr. Morrison

Then the hon. and learned Member should make representations to his own Front Bench with a view to a Supply day being taken for this purpose [HON. MEMBERS: "You are the Government."] Either the Government are being challenged or they are not; I am not clear. If that were done, and it at the end of the day the House were not satisfied with the Government's defence or exposition, it would be proper and possible for a vote to be taken. That is the solution of that.

Mr. Churchill

In the main, as has been stated, we are in support of the Measure which the Government, with great reluctance, have felt it their duty to take in the interests of public security. Nevertheless, as Members of the House of Commons we must recognise that it raises large issues, which probably could be clarified as a result of Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. Morrison

If the Opposition Front Bench wish to make representations they can.

Mr. Scollan

On a point of Order. Is it not possible to get Scottish business' introduced into this House, or any discussion on whether imperative and urgent business, which is awaiting immediate action, can be introduced into the House?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of Order, and not a matter which I can answer. Certainly, it does not seem to be relevant to the Business for next week.

Mr. Scollan

It is very relevant for all Scotland, and I want to know if we can raise it here.

Mr. S. Silverman

When my right hon. Friend says that some people exaggerate the importance of this statement, is he not overlooking the fact that on Monday the Prime Minister took the opportunity of making a special statement at the end of Questions, and that, therefore, he evidently regarded it, as most of us do, as a very important constitutional change? That being so, ought not the House to have the right to a full Debate, with the opportunity of a Division, if it wants it, upon the issue?

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend is an experienced Parliamentarian, and I am bound to say that I am surprised at the doctrine he is advancing. He is now advancing the doctrine that if the Prime Minister makes a statement at the end of Questions a Debate almost automatically follows.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft

The Leader of the House has very properly said that if there were sufficient feeling in all quarters of the House that there ought to be a Debate, then time might be found. Is it not obvious from the number of questions asked from all parts of the House that there is a feeling that there ought to be a Debate? I do not think that anybody wants to prejudge the Government's decision, but everybody wants a discussion. Indeed, hon. Members of the Lord President's own party have put down a Motion on it. Therefore, should not the Government find time for a Debate?

Mr. Morrison

I fully understand—I emphasise, fully understand—the hon. Member. I have made two proposals to the House: one, that the subject could be debated on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too short."]—and the other is that it can be debated on a Supply day, if a full day is wanted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Certainly; that is what Supply days are for. This subject is eminently a Supply day subject. If the Opposition Front Bench wish in any way to associate themselves with the critics of the Government, or with people who have apprehensions about the Government, their course is clear. The hon. Member should make representations to his leaders.

Mr. Churchill

Let me make it clear that we have no intention of asking that one of the Supply days should be devoted to a discussion of this matter. Important executive action has been taken, and an announcement has been made by the Government. This has raised a great deal of discussion, and it is for the Government to find proper and adequate time for the matter to be debated.

Mr. James Hudson

Will my right hon. Friend again consider the very serious opposition from his own benches, not merely on the issue of public security, but on the whole development of interference with private rights and with the rights of consciences of individuals, which will be much strained by the action the Government are now taking.

Mr. Morrison

We are all capable of judging how much apprehension there is, and I think I am as good a judge as my hon. Friend of what proportion of Labour Members is really worried about this.

Mr. W. J. Brown

As one who approves the general purposes of the Government in this connection, may I put to the Lord President two points? First of all, is it not desirable that the House of Commons should pronounce its approval or disapproval of the statement which was made to us—I should have thought, in the interests of the public service itself, a clear verdict of the House is desirable. Secondly, is it not desirable that we should have the opportunity of voicing our suggestions about the machinery and methods to give effect to what I believe the Government have in mind? In the light of these two considerations, cannot the Government provide us with time for a Debate?

Mr. Morrison

I really think we are in danger of repeating ourselves. I cannot say anything more at this stage.

Mr. Warbey

As this involves the protection of the liberty of the individual against the possible abuse of unprecedented powers by the Executive, which is a matter that private Members must be particularly concerned about, is my right hon. Friend aware that it should not be left to the Opposition whether or not it is taken up, but all private Members should have an opportunity to voice their opinions?

Mr. Morrison

I want to avoid a chaotic situation arising. I want to know whether the Government are challenged. This is not a vast new constitutional issue. The State already has the right to decide whom it shall employ and whom it shall not employ. It is merely a matter of reasonable precautions in defence of the security of the State. That is the issue which is involved.

Sir Arthur Salter

It there is to be a Debate on this subject, surely it is desirable that it should be under conditions which will ensure a fair reflection of this House? Are there not certain disadvantages in having this discussed just as one of the subjects for debate on Thursday? And is it really fair to suggest that this subject should be selected for discussion by the Opposition on a Supply day, when it is perfectly obvious that if there is strong criticism of the Government it does not, on the whole, come from the Opposition?

Mr. Harold Davies

Are not all the Adjournment Debates for Thursday already allocated? Irrespective of the machinery of this House, this is a vital issue affecting the liberty of the individual. [Laughter.] I am not concerned with that laughter. Your faces may be leathered by the suns of political expediency, but mine is not. I beg the Leader of the House to give an opportunity to Members to discuss this matter, because on all sides, irrespective of political differences, we desire the country to see the trend of opinion in this House, and an organisation representing 5,000 scientists has already said that it disapproves of this approach to the problem.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this could be debated on the Adjournment on Thursday. Does he mean that the whole day should be given up to this subject to the exclusion of other matters, or that these vast constitutional matters should be discussed for only two hours?

Mr. Morrison

I must refer hon. Members opposite to their own Front Bench. If the House debates this for the purpose of elucidating information, I should have thought it could have been taken as one of the subjects for Thursday. If there is apprehension in the House on this, a Supply day should be taken so that a vote can be given, and then we shall know where everyone stands about the security of the State.

Mr. Maclay

Will the Leader of the House study very carefully the remarks which have been made in the course of these questions, because if he does, he will see that a Debate is really necessary? The real issue about which we are concerned is not who are employed by the Government, but whether political party allegiances are automatically involved. If the Government have seen fit to take this action, surely they should explain what are their reasons, because if they are of this gravity it might justify even stronger action being taken.

Mr. Scollan

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of small shopkeepers in Scotland who have now got only one week either to buy or lose their businesses? Is he aware that if no immediate action is taken these people will be thrown out by the financial wolves? Therefore, we require immediate legislation to deal with the position.

Mr. Morrison

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter, and neither I nor the Secretary of State for Scotland is unsympathetic about it. We really cannot pass Bills of this character in one week.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great, anxiety about these evictions in Scotland? Is he aware that large numbers of landlords are seeking possession of property solely for the purpose of reselling it at enhanced prices? Will he not give consideration to legislation on this subject?

Mr. Morrison

I have already said that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the matter under consideration.

Major Beamish

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Government set aside a day for a Debate on the most important constitutional question, referred to earlier, it will be very hard indeed to avoid the conclusion that the Socialist Party have something to hide?

Mr. Speaker

We cannot go over and over this ground. We have already spent half an hour discussing this.

    c2313
  1. CONSOLIDATION BILLS 46 words