HC Deb 25 January 1951 vol 483 cc310-21
Mr. Churchill

May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make to us on 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, 29TH JANUARY.—Second Reading of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;

Committee and remaining stages of the Penicillin (Merchant Ships) Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, 30TH AND 31ST JANUARY.—Committee stage of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

THURSDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY.—Motion to refer the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading:

Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill; and, if there is time, Committee stage of the Livestock Rearing Bill.

FRIDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY.—Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Churchill

rose—

Mr. Morrison

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I am sorry. I ought to have added that it may be convenient for me to inform the House that a statement about the Government's defence programme will be made on Monday next.

Mr. Churchill

We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for not having omitted that detail. With regard to the list of topics which we are to discuss next week, and which the right hon. Gentleman has read out—the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill, the Penicillin (Merchant Ships) Bill, the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill and the Livestock Rearing Bill—the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the House will give its usual careful attention to them all, but is he also aware that there are some other topics which appear to demand our consideration?

We have already informed him through the usual channels that the Opposition make a formal request for a debate next week on the serious position about coal, and I wish to ask now if this can be arranged. Then we are, as I have said, much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that a statement will be made on Monday next on the whole question of defence which, I presume, includes the Government's policy on rearmament, trained reserves and so on. It is obvious that a debate must take place as soon as possible on all these matters, but I think that certainly a week or more should elapse after the statement is made for careful examination of the proposals before a debate takes place on such complex and grave subjects. We are of opinion that at least two days will be needed for this debate. May I ask the Lord President if it would not be better that a discussion on foreign affairs should precede the debate on defence. I think that is a matter which he should carefully consider.

I must also make it clear that the Opposition will wish to debate the question of the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Again?"]—in good time before the vesting date on 15th February. I ask him to let us know now what can be arranged about that. I do not ask that we should now fix the exact dates for these debates, though obviously they must come in the next week or two, but I would ask the Leader of the House to agree that the actual arrangement of business should be settled as soon as possible through the usual channels.

There is one other question about which I feel bound to ask the right hon. Gentleman today. We are led to believe that legislation will be necessary to deal with the new developments about groundnuts. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will be brought before the House at an early date? If not, we feel that at least half a day should be devoted to the discussion of this agreeable subject in the near future.

Mr. Morrison

With regard to the last point, that Bill is in course of preparation and it will come forward in due course, I do not think at any distant date, but it has to be prepared.

Mr. Churchill

Is it a matter of weeks or months?

Mr. Morrison

I should hope that it will be weeks. The long catalogue of requests which the right hon. Gentleman raised leaves me a little bit speechless. I suppose he will leave a little time for the ordinary business of the legislative programme which has to be attended to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fishing."] Certainly. Do hon. Members opposite scorn such a Bill? Are they contemptuous about the interests of the fishing industry? We shall take note of that on the way, and so will my hon. Friends from the fishing constituencies. I take note of the long catalogue of requests for debate. It is a little bit tall. It is a long, heavy catalogue of requests, but we will take them into account. As to whether any re-adjustment can be made in business for next week to allow a debate on the fuel situation, we shall certainly consider that and we shall be willing to discuss it through the usual channels. I cannot promise, but we will see what can be done. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the defence or foreign affairs debate, whichever it may be or both—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] Well, maybe; I am not sure. I agree that there should be a period of time between the statement on defence and that happening.

With regard to iron and steel, I am really beginning to wonder whether the Opposition realise that finality has been reached about this matter. After all, on 9th March last year a whole day of the debate on the Address was devoted to this matter. Precisely the same issue was raised then and the Opposition were defeated by the handsome majority of 14, quite a good one. On 19 September it was snapped in during the emergency sitting of the House; but it was all right—we agreed about it. As recently as that precisely the same issue was raised. I want to say in the public interest that the issue has been debated ad nauseam and it really is time that this vital industry, vital to rearmament, should know where it stands. Therefore, so far as the Government are concerned, it must be taken that we are not offering any facilities for debate upon this matter.

Mr. Churchill

With regard to the matters connected with defence and foreign affairs, they can be discussed through the usual channels, but I trust that coal will be arranged for this coming week because it is a burning question in every sense of the word. With regard to iron and steel, our view is that this Measure will greatly hamper rearmament, that it is put forward not on merits but for political purposes, and that it constitutes a grave and direct issue between the parties and should be brought to a decision in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many decisions do you want?"] No doubt it will at an early date be a matter to be decided by the electors. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to give any time for this subject—I should think it would be one he would be anxious to avoid—but we shall place a Motion on the Order Paper in due course and ask for the facilities which all governments are accustomed to give to Motions of that character.

Mr. Morrison

I only heard about the fuel debate this morning. We shall want to think about it. [Laughter.] Really, we cannot have these things dropped on us at a moment's notice. The Opposition are perfectly entitled to conduct themselves as a party political opposition exploiting every trouble that comes along. I am not complaining. They are perfectly entitled to do it as long as we all know they are doing it and the right hon. Gentleman does not come along the next minute with a white sheet around him as if he were a saint, because he is not. We will think about the fuel debate and discussions can go on through the usual channels. On iron and steel, however, where exactly the same issue is involved of the Opposition starting up party political tactical moves—which I am not complaining about at all—these precise issues—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ask the country."]—the country was asked twice about it and the country decided—[An HON. MEMBER: "By a majority."] I only say that these precise issues which the right hon. Gentleman has now raised, obviously for partisan purposes, have been debated ad nauseam in this House and I shall not commit myself to the Government giving any facilities whatever.

Mr. Churchill

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that he will refuse to give facilities for a Vote of Censure upon the Government?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Ellis Smith

May I ask the Leader of the House if I am correct in understanding that on the question of defence next week a statement will be made in regard to the calling up of Class Z and other young men in this country? If so, is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern and anxiety which has been aroused in the minds of millions of young men and women owing to the uncertainty of three months and the rumours that have appeared in the Press? Will he agree to a searching departmental inquiry in order to try to ascertain the sources of these inspired and stimulated statements which have appeared in the Press of this country?

Mr. Morrison

I anticipate that included in the defence statement there will be a reference to the Class Z Reserve. I agree with my hon. Friend that the sooner that is cleared up, the better it will be. With regard to the latter part of his question, I share his concern about this matter. I do not think that what I believe the House will consider in due course are inaccurate leakages, that have caused a lot of possibly needless anxiety, have leaked from Government quarters. If improper inspirations have been made from any quarter I can only say that if we find out who and what they are, we shall take a most serious view of them.

Mr. Churchill

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer the question I put to him, whether, if a formal Motion is put down by the Opposition on the question of iron and steel as a Vote of Censure, as we have a right to do—[An HON. MEMBER: "You have done it already."] You want to have another good "boo," do you? If a formal Motion is put down on that subject, are we to understand that the Government will refuse it or will accept it?

Mr. Morrison

I have not yet seen the terms of the Motion. When I have, we shall consider it.

Mr. Churchill

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent—personally I cannot remember one—for a Government, however desirous of clinging to office, refusing a formal Motion tantamount to a censure from the Opposition.

Mr. Morrison

I have not refused yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you have."] I prefer to see the terms of the Motion. It might be possible for the Vote of Censure procedure to be abused. Supposing there was one every week on the same subject, we would have to think about it. But we shall have a look at it when we see it.

Mr. Awbery

The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to come on this side.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

May I ask my right hon. Friend, if the internecine warfare is now over, whether he would bear in mind that there is another subject with which the people of this country are at the moment gravely concerned—[An HON. MEMBER: "Meat."]—and that is the proceedings at Lake Success—[An HON. MEMBER: "Houses."]—in which the peace of the whole world may easily be involved. Does my right hon. Friend not think that it might be a good thing if, before our representatives there take any decisive or conclusive stand with regard to the resolutions now being debated, the House of Commons might be given an opportunity to hear what the policy of the. Government in the new circumstances is to be, and to give instructions to our representatives such as the House may think right?

Mr. Morrison

It would not be usual for the House to give direct instructions to our representatives. I quite agree that the Government are accountable to the House, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement the other day which I thought was generally acceptable to the House, and no doubt questions can be put down about further developments in due course.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In regard to the Business for next Monday, may I ask the Lord President a question? The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill deals only with one of the many recommendations of the Lewis and Pilcher Reports. Is it the intention of the Government to announce before, or in the course of that debate, the extent to which the Government accept or reject the other recommendations? And is it the desire of the Government, subject to the permission of Mr. Speaker, to debate the contents of those reports which form the background to the Bill in the course of the Second Reading Debate on that Bill?

Mr. Morrison

We have that matter under consideration and we would wish to give the House an indication during the course of the debate, maybe at the beginning or in some other way, as to the attitude of the Government to the recommendations made by the two Committees. I appreciate the importance of that point. As to the scope of the debate, it is, of course, for Mr. Speaker to decide. The Bill is a Bill dealing with certain specific matters, but the scope of the debate would be for the Chair and not for me.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

While it would be useful to have information on what the Government propose, it would of course be quite impossible to debate the Government's decision on the other recommendations if we are not to know of it before next Monday.

Mr. Morrison

I appreciate that, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall do everything I can to meet the point he has raised.

Earl Winterton

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answer to my right hon. Friend might seem to involve a breach of the unwritten rules of procedure of this House, will the Lord President look up the precedents to see whether there is any occasion upon which the Leader of the House has said in advance that he will have to consider whether or not he will give time for a Vote of Censure? Is he further aware that there have been numerous occasions in the past, as in the 1906 Parliament, when a Vote of Censure was put down by the Opposition once a week for three weeks running.

Mr. Morrison

I have not said that I would refuse facilities for a Vote of Censure. What I have said is that I have only just had notice of this; the matter has been debated repeatedly before; and before I commit myself on this matter I think it not unreasonable that we should see the terms of the Motion it is proposed to put down. I am not laying down any unalterable and fixed laws upon the matter, and I would not wish to do so.

Dr. Barnett Stross

With regard to the statement to be made next week on the Class "Z" Reserve and the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), will the Lord President tell us whether an inquiry will be made to find how this information reached the Press and why it was no tendentiously given to the public; and if he is satisfied that there has been irresponsibility will there be not only an inquiry but disciplinary measures?

Mr. Morrison

My general experience is that it is never easy to find the sources of these inspirational or other affairs. Certainly if matters of a grave character arose, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government would look into them with the greatest care.

Mr. Churchill

In considering this matter of a day for the discussion of the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry, postponing the vesting date, which would undoubtedly have the character of a Vote of Censure, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what is written in Erskine May, Chapter XIV: Votes of Censure.—By established convention the Government never fail to accede to a demand from the leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion expressing lack of confidence in the Government—a 'vote of censure' as it is called. In allotting a day for this purpose the Government are entitled to have regard to the exigencies of their own business"—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Certainly— but a reasonably early date is invariably found. Few sessions fail to provide examples of such motions.

Mr. Morrison

I notice a certain contrast between the language of Erskine May and the language used in part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Part of his statement indicated that it may be that all they would ask for is a postponement of the vesting date. I think that is a very good reason why we should see the terms of the Motion before we come to a final conclusion about it.

Mr. Eric Fletcher

As there is very considerable concern throughout the country about the proposal to re-arm Western Germany, could the Lord President give us an assurance that no irrevocable decision will be taken on this subject until the House has discussed it?

Mr. Morrison

Some statements have been made about this in the course of discussions with other Powers and I think the policy of the Government is known. The Government are committed to that and must stand by it.

Mr. Edelman

Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on the shortages of raw materials, which are causing great anxiety to all sides of industry?

Mr. Morrison

I will add it to the list for consideration, but I have got a long list dropped on me this afternoon.

Mr. Norman Smith

Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate a Motion on post-war credits, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South?

[That this House, recognising the widespread mistrust of the financial system arising from realisation by working class people that post-war credits are likely in numerous cases to remain unpaid over several generations, is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should fund all outstanding post-war credits at a rate of interest to be determined by the market price of 2½ per cent. Consols.]

Mr. Morrison

I am a little doubtful whether I can see daylight in finding time for that Motion.

Mr. S. Silverman

Reverting to the question about a debate on foreign policy, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), about another aspect of foreign policy, is my right hon. Friend now saying that the Government are entitled to, and that it is desirable that they should, commit themselves to foreign Powers by speeches and declarations made outside the House without ever giving the House of Commons an opportunity of prior discussion? Is this what the democratic control of foreign policy has now come to?

Mr. Morrison

I have not exactly said that. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend is laying down a doctrine that before ever the Foreign Secretary can do anything of a material character he has to have the specific approval of the House, then I think foreign affairs would come to an end.

Mr. Silverman

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I made no such all-embracing proposition as that. The two subjects that have been referred to are the motion upon which the representatives of this country may be called upon to vote within the next two days at Lake Success, which is fraught with the direst consequences one way or the other, and the question about Western Germany which arouses deep anxieties in many quarters. Would it not be right, and would it not indeed assist the Government, for the Government to fortify themselves with the opinion of the House of Commons before committing the country irrevocably to policies that might be disastrous?

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend has illustrated a perfectly impossible proposition. He says that in two days something has got to happen at Lake Success.

Mr. Silverman

I did not say that.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman did. Today is Thursday, tomorrow is Friday and the next day is Saturday. We cannot run the United Nations or foreign policy by the Foreign Secretary being meticulously controlled by the Rouse of Commons day by day. That is quite impossible. I know that my hon. Friend has a point of view which is not generally held in the Labour Party, but he ought not for that reason to think that foreign policy can be run on the basis of the House being consulted day by day. The Government must sometimes take their line, and then it is for the House to disagree with the Government if it so wishes.

Mr. Churchill

We are in full agreement that treaty-making power rests with the executive Government who are responsible to the House which judges them by their conduct. After this interlude of controversial questions, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information to give us about the health of the Foreign Secretary about whose recovery we are all so much concerned.

Mr. Morrison

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman as I am sure all my hon. Friends are. The information is that the condition of the Foreign Secretary has somewhat improved. I am sure the House will be very glad to hear that, especially in view of the great burden which he has patiently carried for so many years.

Mr. Speaker

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Sir. I should like to ask your guidance, arising out of the interchange of questions and answers which has just proceeded, with special reference to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition just now, who indicated that the Government had the support of the Opposition in certain policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said so in so many words—

Mr. Churchill

I never said so at all. I said they had my concurrence as an individual of some experience in the House in the doctrine laid down as to the initiative which belongs to the Government in foreign affairs.

Mr. Silverman

I am much obliged and accept the correction, which does not affect the point I was putting to you, Sir. The position now indicated is that in the view of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition, it is right that on important matters the Government should take their decision first and hon. Members of the House should not have the right to be consulted. I wish to ask what opportunities an hon. Member may have in those circumstances for indicating, before an irrevocable decision is taken, his own view and attracting other hon. Members' support to that view while there is still time.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think there is any special method by which hon. Members may indicate to the Government that they do not like the line the Government are taking. I should have thought it could be done at a party committee, a party meeting.

Mr. Silverman

With very great respect, I think this is the first time in many years that the Speaker has taken cognizance of the existence of parties, or party meetings. We are all equal Members of the House of Commons, and parties and party leaders, I submit with great respect, have nothing to do with the question I was putting to you.

Mr. Speaker

That may be so, but it is a practical proposition. I have been a member of a party meeting myself and I know they take place. To tell the honest truth, I think the hon. Member, if I may say so, is quite inaccurate in the proposition he is putting forward. The Gov- ernment is an executive committee and one can elect another executive committee, but it is not a committee which is subject entirely to directions of the House. The House gives directions by turning it out, if it so wishes, but it is an executive committee which is responsible, and if hon. Members do not like its actions it is up to them, afterwards and not before.

Miss Irene Ward

Further to that point of order. Would not the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) be in order if he put down a Vote of Censure on his own Government?

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members can put anything they like on the Order Paper.