BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 23 November 1950)

§ Mr. Eden
May I ask the Lord President of the Council to tell us the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill. Second Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill.
TUESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Committee stage of the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Bill, the Second Reading of which, as the House is aware, is being moved today. It is hoped to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY, 29TH AND 30TH NOVEMBER—A debate will take place on foreign affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Eden
In reference to our Motion which was placed on the Order Paper early yesterday evening and to events last night, may I ask the Lord President and the House to accept that the absence of myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was not intended in any way—indeed, this equally applies to the absence of His Majesty's Cabinet Ministers—as an act of discourtesy to the House?
May I point out to the Lord President—I am sure he is aware of it—that before proceeding to where we had to go last night I took the greatest trouble, through the usual channels, to ensure that no member of the Cabinet was going to be present in the House, and also that no statement of major policy was to be made in the House, and that I also left instructions that, should any change be made in the Government's point of view, we should be informed so as to enable us to attend the debate? I do not want to make a debating point out of this, but in view of what was said last night, I hope that the House will accept that statement of where we stand.

§ Mr. Morrison
I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's observations as to the reason for the absence of the senior Members of the Opposition. I quite understand it, and it applies equally to the absence of right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I am sure that we shall not seek to score any points in that regard. However, the question did arise on the initiative of Members on this side of the House, and it was necessary for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a reply. I thought it was legitimate that he should make the reply he thought to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case That being so, I should have thought that at this stage everyone would be somewhat happier than they were yesterday afternoon.

§ Mr. Eden
As regards the state of relative happiness, there is a matter upon which I should like to ask the Government one or two questions before expressing myself one way or the other Without wishing to be discourteous, may I say that I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that any reader of last night's debate will agree that the last two sentences of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State bore no relation to the rest of his speech. Can I ask the Government whether they can confirm the last two sentences; that is to say, that the tanks will not leave this country until this House has another opportunity of discussing this matter?

§ Mr. Morrison
I understand the situation is that there are to be discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary of the Egyptian Government. At the end of that he will make a statement to the House. Meantime, no tanks will depart

§ Mr. Eden
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That leads me to the other question which I was about to put. Can we be told when these discussions are expected to take place and when the House may expect a pronouncement upon them, because, clearly, we may wish to maintain our present position in respect of our Motion until we see what is the position after these discussions?

§ Mr. Morrison
I understand that the discussions will take place next week. Of course, I cannot say exactly how long they will go on, and, therefore, I cannot say exactly when the statement will be made: but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no undue delay after the discussions have been adequately completed.

§ Mr. Janner
May I ask my right hon. Friend to state quite definitely whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposal before any definite arrangement is made about sending any further armaments to Egypt? May I also, on another subject, and in order to save time, ask with regard to the Leasehold Properties (Temporary Provisions) Bill—[Interruption.] I want to save the time of the House. Will my right hon. Friend let me know whether we are likely to be able to get the whole of that Bill through before the next quarter day so that those who will be affected on the Christmas quarter day will be protected by the Act?

§ Mr. Morrison
First of all, about Egypt. As I said, on that point, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement in due course. I think we had better await that statement and then see what the situation is. It may be desirable that there should be discussion or it may not be. We shall observe the sense of the House on that point. On the second point, relating to the Leasehold Bill, my impression is that it would take a bit of doing to get this through by Christmas—

§ Mr. Janner
It is very important.

§ Mr. Morrison
I know all about that, but my hon. Friend must face the fact that this is a free Parliament. There are two Houses. This House has to discuss it and another place has to discuss it. Believe me, if the Measure could be put through by Christmas—I should expect his help and co-operation so that we could be as speedy as possible—I should be very happy, but I cannot guarantee what Parliament will do about its speed. It is a free Parliament and heaven knows what it will do.

§ Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the foreign affairs debate on Wednesday and Thursday of next week should cover 515 a discussion on the Gordon Gray Report, which, in sweep and scope, may have as profound an effect as Marshall Aid on this country? If it is intended to cover that Report, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Report is made available for hon. Members in time for the debate? If it is not intended to be covered, may we have a day to discuss the Report?

§ Mr. Morrison
I understand that there are copies of the Report available in the Library already. While it is always for the Chair to rule what is in order or out of order, so far as I can see it would be in order for that matter to be raised.

§ Mr. Churchill
I wish to return to the question of the tanks and Egypt. Are we to understand that the Government changed their policy in the course of the afternoon from the statement made by the Minister of Defence—

§ Mr. Wyatt
On a point of order. Can it be said how this arises out of the business for next week?

§ Mr. Speaker
We are discussing the debate on foreign affairs next week. I gathered that this is a leading point in connection with it.

§ Mr. Nally
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Churchill
Are we to understand that the Government changed their policy—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Another point of order is being put to me.

§ Mr. Nally
It would be helpful to us, Mr. Speaker, if we could have your guidance on this point. I understand that we are having a statement on the business for next week. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learnington (Mr. Eden), I found some difficulty in following in the early stages of these questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] I had some difficulty in following exactly—[Interruption.] I had some difficulty in following—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot tell what the point of order is if hon. Members will not let me hear it.

§ Mr. Nally
I was saying that I had some difficulty in following, although I 516 was quite aware of the Motion on the Order Paper, the direct relevance to next week's business, and I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order, when we are discussing business, for hon. Members to raise general questions on direct policy statements which have been made the day before, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is now proposing to do?

§ Mr. Churchill
May I say in reply to that point of order that we have a Motion on the Order Paper and we have to decide whether we shall now ask the Government to afford time for its discussion next week. In order to guide us in making that decision now or immediately afterwards, I submit that I am entitled to ask in the course of business, the question which I intend and propose, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, to put in a few moments to the Lord President of the Council.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has just said what I was going to say, namely, that he has a Motion on the Order Paper and that he is entitled to inquire what the business for next week will be so that he can make up his mind whether he will ask for it to be called or not. I rule that he is quite in order in asking these questions.

§ Mr. Churchill
I need not say what pleasure it gives me to be able to listen to your decisive Ruling, given with so much alacrity and agreement, Mr. Speaker. To return to the point, are we to understand that the Government changed their policy between the statement by the Minister of Defence in the afternoon and the statement made by the Under-Secretary at the end of the debate, and if so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for our guidance, what were the new facts and circumstances which arose? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Churchill
Do the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are laughing realise that these are matters which affect the life and safety of our troops and affect wide matters of policy on defence, and that we should like to have an assurance, before making up our minds about the Motion which we have put on the Order Paper, that due weight is being given to those facts and 517 that matters are not swayed to and fro merely because of some gust of feeling in debate? These are matters on which our safety depends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am not making a speech. I have not departed from the interrogative i[...] any way. As to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, does he adopt exactly the words of the Under-Secretary to the effect that the House will be given a full opportunity for debate before any tanks are sent from this country? Does he accept that?

Hon. Members
Answer!

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Morrison.

§ Mr. Morrison
I do not under-estimate the importance of this matter at all, but, if I may say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is very much exaggerating the observations of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the afternoon and the observations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the evening.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Churchill
Is there no difference between them?

§ Mr. Morrison
I ought not to he cross-examined across the Floor. I did my best to get order for the right hon Gentleman.

§ Mr. Churchill
I am not in the least indebted to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Morrison
It really is too bad. Here am I trying to behave myself. The right hon. Gentleman is being needlessly provocative. The Minister of Defence said yesterday afternoon—[Interruption.] Ought I to have this cross-examination? Did I not—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Churchill
May I express the hope that the Lord President will soon recover sufficiently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—to be able to continue his reply?

§ Mr. John Hynd
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We had better let the Lord President reply. He wanted to say something before.

§ Mr. Hynd
Then I will put my point of order later. Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Morrison
I was in the course of making a reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I had, as a matter of courtesy, asked my hon. Friends to give him every consideration. When I was making my reply the Opposition intervened, as they often do, with a view to preventing my being heard. If the right hon. Gentleman, will turn to his hon. Friends and ask them to give me a hearing, I will reply. If he does not, it is not worth my while to try to bawl over the interruptions of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Churchill
In response to that appeal, let me say that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was at all hampered in what he was saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have often contended against much worse. But, in order to make assurance doubly sure, let me remind my hon. Friends that it is far more in the interests of the Opposition that the right hon. Gentleman should be fully heard than that he should be silenced.

§ Mr. Morrison
A little ungraciously done, but, still, there it is. I should have preferred the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to his hon. Friends to act in accordance with Parliamentary decency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence yesterday afternoon, in a somewhat different context of cross-examination said: … nothing more will happen between today and tomorrow—if that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 348.] So there was no danger of any tanks being exported yesterday, if it were a danger. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said: I can give this undertaking to the House, that no tank will be shipped to Egypt before my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary has come to the House and reported to it on these talks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 467.] To that undertaking I adhere on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and that will be observed. A further statement will be made in due course. I would ask the House to wait until that statement 519 is made. When it is made, then will be the time to raise the question as to whether there is a case for a debate or not.

§ Mr. John Hynd
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Churchill
The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted—

Hon. Members
Point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let us clear up the point of order first.

§ Mr. Hynd
My point of order is really to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, how long this private debate is to go on. Any Member can raise a point of order, but when I tried to do so I gave way to the representative of my own Front Bench. I have given way about three times to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Apparently the whole thing is to be debated between the Front Benches, and back benchers are not to be given any opportunity, out of courtesy to the Front Benches, of asking exactly what this is all about. The matter was thoroughly debated last night and the opportunity was not taken to get the matter finished. May we know what relationship these exchanges have to the business for next week?

§ Mr. Speaker
In the custom of this House, the Leader of the Opposition has a great deal of opportunity to ask his questions. Other hon. Members have only to be patient. If they want to ask questions about business they may be called in due course, after the general, initial exchanges between the two Front Benches.

§ Mr. Churchill
I would ask, on a point of order, whether the hon. Member was not making fraudulent use of the term "point of order," or whether it had better be described as a reflection upon the discretion of the Chair. I rose on what I thought was an absolutely relevant point, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to complete his quotation. He read out a statement from column 467 of HANSARD, but he did not read the concluding passage.

§ Mr. Hamilton
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Churchill
If I am not interrupted—

§ Mr. Hamilton
Can you tell us exactly, Mr. Speaker, what the pursuance of this argument has to do with next week's business?

§ Mr. Speaker
Apparently it is a rather long pursuance of an argument in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wants to maintain the position of his party with regard to the Motion that they have on the Order Paper. He is entitled to do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is arguing the merits."] One hopes that he will not be long.

§ Mr. Churchill
It will not take long, if hon. Members will only keep quiet. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs finished his statement by saying that he hoped that his undertaking would reassure his hon. Friends on that side of the House that the tanks will not be leaving this country until the House has had another opportunity of considering the matter. Does the Foreign Secretary endorse that undertaking or not?

§ Mr. Morrison
This is perfectly clear. Obviously my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would not undertake to give time for a debate in the House. Indeed, no Cabinet Minister would do so, in the ordinary way. Obviously this is a matter for the usual channels or one between the Leader of the House and the front Opposition benches. What my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said is two things: tanks will not leave until the Foreign Secretary has made a statement; the Foreign Secretary will make a statement and that statement and the subsequent questions will give the House an opportunity of considering the matter. I do not rule out a debate. I only say, "Let us wait until the statement is made," so that we can see whether a debate is necessary or not. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take.

§ Mr. Churchill
With very great respect, the Lord President has not endorsed the final statement of the Under-Secretary of State. He has, to a large extent, cut himself free from it. Is that not the fact?

§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is the same point of order. I must rule those points of order out of order.

§ Mr. Manuel
Further to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask how you can rule against a point of order before you have heard it?

§ Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members must not get too excited. We are getting rather heated. We should be careful.

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot have two points of order at the same time. There is one here.

§ Mr. Manuel
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to give a Ruling regarding the time for discussing the business for next week. It appears to me and to other hon. Members on this side of the House that the merits of the case are being argued and not the question of time for next week's business.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is exactly the same point of order which has been put before. It is not the merits of last night's debate—which may or may not have been satisfactory to the Opposition—which is now under discussion. The Opposition want to be satisfied that the undertaking was a genuine one in regard to the Motion that they have on the Order Paper. They are entitled to be quite clear about that, because on Thursday, the second foreign affairs day, they may ask to have that Motion considered in the debate. One must get that point clear.

§ Mr. Churchill
I only wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the statement of the Under-Secretary of State. I think he did not do so just now. If he accepts the statement and endorses the statement, then it will probably not be necessary for us to ask for a day next week to discuss the Motion that we have on the Paper. If, however, he is diverging from it, receding from it or mitigating it in any way, then we must consider what our course will be and that will affect the business that we are now considering.

§ Mr. Morrison
No, Sir, I am not repudiating what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said. I should be very sorry to do so. He is a most well-behaved Under-Secretary. I do not think he said anything that was wrong: A statement will be made, there will be exchanges across the Floor and thereby the House 522 will consider the matter. [HON. MEMRFRS: "No."] Yes. The House can consider the matter, for example on the Adjournment, as it did last night. I only wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not repudiating my hon. Friend at all. I associate myself with what he said. Nor am I saying that in no circumstances will facilities for a debate be afforded. I should have thought that everybody would be happy.

§ Earl Winterton
May I raise my point of order? I think that, inadvertently, you gave a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which took away a very ancient liberty of the House. I understood you to say in reply to a point of order raised by an hon. Member opposite: "There is no point of order." May I respectfully submit that until the point of order has been made, it is in accordance with the practice of the House that the hon. Member should be allowed to make it? May I further state that I have constantly heard points of order raised in the midst of most important matters, and that they have always been heard?

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps I was a little hasty. The noble Lord will remember that we had the same point of order put about three times, and one was getting a little tired of it. If I was a little hasty, I regret it.

§ Mr. Churchill
May I say, to conclude this matter so far as we are concerned, that we shall discuss whether our Motion will remain on the Paper and discuss through the usual channels whether we shall ask for a day to debate it?

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman
Will my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council bear in mind that to many of us on this side of the House, and of course to hon. Members on that side, too, the most urgent matter was to see that tanks will not be delivered during the progress of the negotiations? We thought that that was an urgent matter, and we are very grateful to the Government for having treated it as an urgent matter yesterday. The assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State last night have, in the opinion of most of us, completely disposed of the point. It met the only point that was raised yesterday on both sides of the House, namely as to the delivery of tanks while the situation remains unclear.

§ Mr. York
May I come to a less controversial matter which has to do with business? Is the Lord President aware that he is hurrying the Second Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill very considerably, and would he give an assurance that the Committee stage will not be brought on in such a hurry as other Committee stages have been brought on during this Session?

§ Mr. Morrison
I am speaking from memory, but I do not think that the period between presentation and the proposed Second Reading is unduly short. I know that I was liable to criticism a little earlier. I should, however, keep in mind the point which the hon. Member has made as to the space between Second Reading and the Committee stage, and I hope that I shall not offend.

§ Sir David Robertson
Can the Lord President say when a day will be arranged for a debate on the programme of Highland development?

§ Mr. Morrison
I do not know—I could not say straight away—but I should have thought that that would be a good subject in due course on the Estimates for the Scottish Office and other Departments concerned.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Reverting to the statement by my right hon. Friend on business for Wednesday and Thursday of next week, is it the intention of the Foreign Secretary to initiate the debate by making a statement to the House?

§ Mr. Morrison
The allocation of our own speakers is a matter for the Government, but it is probable that my right hon. Friend will initiate the debate. I must reserve some freedom of action, but I think that that will be so.

§ Mr. Niall Macpherson
In view of the fact that no Member of the Government was present last night to reply to the Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) involving the Health Service, in spite of full notice having been given, will the Government give time for an answer to that debate to be given and for a full debate to take place?

§ Mr. Morrison
I understand that a Minister was present. I must point out that on Adjournment debates—in which 524 hon. Members have had a lot of luck this week and I am not complaining—it depends on whether adequate notice has been given to the Minister concerned. If adequate notice has not been given, or cannot be given, then I think that the hon. Member raising the matter on the Adjournment must chance his luck. As a matter of fact, however, there was a Minister here last night, namely, one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland.

Dr. Hill
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the third Adjournment debate last night, notice was given to the Minister concerned at half-past two yesterday afternoon?

§ Mr. Morrison
If a may say so—I am not making any scoring point about this—the hon. Member has not been here very long, and really, 2.30 in the afternoon of the same day is not adequate notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I do not think so. I am sure that the Minister concerned would do his best in the matter, but I do not think that he is to be condemned if it did not prove convenient to meet the obligation on that day. It just happens that this week the House has been wonderfully expeditious in its work and, therefore, has had a perfectly merry time on a series of Adjournments

§ Mr. George Thomas
On the business for next Wednesday and Thursday, would it be possible for the Lord President to consider extending business for one hour on Wednesday in view of the fact that as things are it will be impossible for a large number of Members who want to take part in the debate on foreign affairs to do so.

§ Mr. Morrison
I should have thought that two days was pretty adequate. I do not think I could give an undertaking about that.

§ Mr. Butcher
In connection with the point raised on the absence of Ministers on the Adjournment for yesterday evening, will the Lord President make it clear to his colleagues that the first duty of Ministers in this House is to this House?

§ Mr. Morrison
That is a little unkind, because, as a matter of fact, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs put himself to very great 525 inconvenience to stay here, which he willingly did; and I do not think that the Liberal-Nationals are as virtuous as all that.

§ Mr. Eden
May I say that if the Lord President would not mind looking up all the precedents, he would find that it really is the duty of the Minister concerned, and even of junior Ministers, to return to the House on this sort of occasion?

§ Mr. Morrison
I quite agree. I should be the last to deny the duties of Ministers to the House—I should be the first to insist on them. But I do not think that the point can be fairly pressed when in a third Adjournment the notice is given the same afternoon. I still say that it is the duty of Ministers to do what they can to meet the difficulty. On the other hand, as regards an Adjournment of which very little notice is given—there was one the other day by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith), in which the most serious allegations were made against various people and practically no notice was given—that, if I may say so, is somewhat in the nature of an abuse.

§ Mr. Eden
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—after all, things may change and we on this side may be in the same position as the Lord President later on—that there are many precedents for junior Ministers attending Adjournment discussions of which notice has been given the same day. I should not like the House to think that this was not a serious obligation on the part of Ministers.

§ Mr. J. Hynd
Would my right hon. Friend inform the House whether it is not also the responsibility of the leaders of the Opposition, when they give notice of a matter of urgent public importance, themselves to be present on the Adjournment to debate it?

§ Sir Richard Acland
Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the Christmas Adjournment—even approximately?

§ Mr. Morrison
I am sorry. I should like to be quite clear, but I am not quite clear today. I hope, however, to be able to inform the House next week.

§ Earl Winterton
Will the right hon. Gentleman give most serious consideration to what my right hon. Friend has said, because it really affects the rights of this House? Again and again in the past 526 notice has been given to junior Ministers at seven o'clock that there was to be an Adjournment. Will the Lord President give a specific answer to my right hon. Friend's question?

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Before my right hon. Friend replies, will he bear in mind that this particular third Adjournment yesterday came on at three minutes past ten o'clock, that it came on most unexpectedly and, indeed, before the debate on the second Adjournment had finally concluded, because my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), was on his feet to continue that second debate; and in those circumstances does not my right hon. Friend think it would be an intolerable burden on Ministers if they should have to wait here day after day up to 10.30 p.m. in order to deal with an Adjournment when there was only the remotest possibility that it would ever be reached?

§ Mr. Morrison
I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. He has made the case conclusively, and I am perfectly sure that were it not that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) is in opposition—where he may stay for quite a time—he would agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I think that both sides of the House must be reasonable about the matter.

§ Mr. Janner
May I revert for a moment to the question of leasehold reform? [Laughter.] It is a very important matter The Opposition should not be so hilarious, for it affects many thousands of people. Would my right hon. Friend give any indication as to when we shall commence this matter and when we are to have the Second Reading? Even if we cannot get the whole of the Bill through by the Christmas Recess, at least we should start on it and get a fair distance before the Recess. May I have an answer?