HC Deb 13 November 1952 vol 507 cc1121-8
Mr. Attlee

May I ask the Leader of the House if he can state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Yes, Sir, but perhaps I might refer first to the progress of business today. I hope that it will be possible to obtain the three Second Readings and the necessary Money Resolutions in time to allow the Prayer relating to the Shops (Revocation of Winter Closing Provisions) Order, 1952, to be moved at a reasonable hour. I believe it would meet the general convenience if this hour proved to be somewhere about half-past Seven or Eight o'clock.

Next week's business will be as follows:

MONDAY, 17TH and TUESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading:

Transport Bill;

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

WEDNESDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Committee, and remaining stages, of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, of which we hope to obtain the Second Reading today; Committee stages of the Public Works Loans Bill and of the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill, of which we hope to obtain the Second Reading today; and consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft Medical Act, 1950 (Period of Employment as House Officers) Regulations Approval Order of Council, 1952.

THURSDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Motions for Addresses to continue in force for one year the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, various Defence Regulations and Enactments having effect under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, and Motions relating to the Patents Act, 1949, and the Registered Designs Act, 1949.

FRIDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill, of which the Second Reading is down for today; remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill and the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill; and the Committee and remaining stages of the Colonial Loans Bill, of which the Second Reading is down for this Friday.

Mr. Attlee

On the right hon. Gentleman's statement about today's business, when we suggested that it would be possible to take the Prayer at 7.30 or 8 o'Clock there was a certain amount of business down for today which has since been added to. While there is no harm in hoping, I cannot say how the business will proceed.

With reference to the debate on Monday and Tuesday on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that three days were afforded on the Transport Bill introduced by the Labour Government, though there was great pressure of business at the time. This is a highly controversial Measure and, as the right hon. Gentleman will have seen in the newspapers today, very strong feelings have been evoked among chambers of commerce. As it is most likely, therefore, that there will be very considerable opposition put up, probably from both sides of the House, it would be reasonable that there should be three days for the Transport Bill.

Thursday's business on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act and various Defence Regulations is rather long and complicated, and extra time should be given for that.

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Gentleman is right, on the first point. Three days were given by the previous Government, but they had not produced a White Paper, and there was no discussion in the House on the fundamentals of the proposals, such as has already taken place.

As regards the emergency powers debate, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that not only last year but the year before only one day was given for this purpose. We are, therefore, following what appears to be a more or less established practice. On the other hand, I recognise, and the Government recognise, that these emergency powers are very important for discussion, and it is not an entirely unreasonable request that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. If he likes to have it discussed through the usual channels I will be quite ready to discuss it.

I would point out that the Bills announced for consideration on Wednesday and Thursday are most urgent owing to their having to be enacted before Christmas because of the dates. It would be reasonable, if hon. Gentlemen opposite want more time for the Defence Regulations debate, for them to help us with these other matters. Perhaps that point can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Attlee

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will discuss the matter of the time for the Transport Bill through the usual channels

Mr. Crookshank

No, Sir. I think that two days are enough.

Mr. Attlee

The Transport Bill has not to be got through before a certain date. In fact, the general opinion seems to be that it would be better if it never reached the Statute Book at all. Although there has been a White Paper, there has been also a great deal of chopping and changing in policy, and there is great confusion among the supporters of the Government and great need for clarification. This is a difficult and complicated Bill. It sets an entirely new precedent of trying to undo a nationalisation Measure. There is a strong case for the three-day debate.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Crookshank

I have answered, but if it is any satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite I will repeat the answer. In the view of the Government, two days are enough.

Mr. Walker-Smith

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, having regard to the comparative sizes of the Transport Bill and the Transport Act, 1947, the proposed allocation of time is adequate, and perhaps even generous?

Mr. Ede

With regard to Thursday's business, may I ask whether some of the Regulations have not been considerably revised and do not exist in any easily recognisable form, and whether copies should not be placed in the Vote Office, particularly of Defence (Finance), Defence (Trading with the Enemy) and Defence (War Risks Insurance), in the form in which they actually exist at the moment?

Mr. Crookshank

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to this point yesterday. I have looked into it since, and I find that this is the situation: the bulk of these Regulations are in the bound volume of 1950. It is true that the Defence (Finance) Regulations originals are in the Vote Office, but they have been so much changed that they are not very clearly distinguishable in the old papers. They will be made immediately available before the end of the week in their present form. As to the Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, these are not very much different, and are to be found in the bound volume—

Mr. Paget

They are not in the bound volume at all.

Mr. Crookshank

The reference as to where they are is to be found in a pamphlet—[Interruption.] I have been asked these very technical questions, which are not my direct responsibility and I hope I may be allowed to give the facts. There is a pamphlet "Trading with the Enemy, and the Peace Treaty" and in it will be found the appropriate references. These are now also available in the Vote Office to hon. Members. This leaves only the Defence (War Risks) Regulations, which do not appear in the bound volume. They are of no particular importance. They are not on the Order Paper, as the Government suggest that all of these should now lapse.

Mr. H. Morrison

If I may revert to the Transport Bill, may I put this to the Leader of the House? This Bill, which is an undoing Bill, will, in the judgment of many hon. Members, imperil the livelihood of large numbers of workpeople engaged in road transport, railway transport, and so on. It will be the wish of many hon. Members on this side of the House, associated with a considerable number of trade unions catering for these workpeople, to contribute to the Second Reading debate.

In view of the great importance of this Bill and the fact that we gave three days to our own Transport Bill, will he reconsider the request made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Otherwise there will be great disappointment, not only among hon. Members representing and associated with these trade unions, but the very large number of workers who belong to them and whose livelihood and future is vitally affected.

Mr. Crookshank

I am sure that all those points of view can be put within the compass of a two-day debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Transport Bill which his side introduced was given three days, what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said is quite right—the only similarity is the name. This Bill is a great deal shorter than that one and there are nothing like so many points to discuss.

Mr. G. Thomas

Reverting to business, is the Minister aware that Welsh affairs have not been considered since last February. Can he say when we shall have an opportunity to discuss them?

Mr. Crookshank

I think the general understanding was that they should be discussed once a year. The Government certainly intend to continue the practice of having a debate on Welsh affairs, but I cannot give the date at the moment. It has also to be remembered that the report of Government action for the year ending 30th June, 1952, was only published at the end of October. Perhaps hon. Members in all quarters of the House would like a little more time to study that before we settle a date, but there will be a day.

Mr. Hollis

Can my right hon. Friend tell me when we are likely to be able to consider the Motion relating to the Statutory Instruments Select Committee?

Mr. Crookshank

If I may weary the House again, we had hoped that there might be an opportunity tonight, but in view of the fact that the Opposition wish to have a Prayer tonight, I do not propose to seek that opportunity and I hope, therefore, to move it next week. It is, of course, an important Committee which the Government, indeed, I think the whole House, desire to set up in order that Statutory Instruments may be scrutinised, and I regret it is not possible to do it yet.

I should have thought that the right way of dealing with this would be to set up the Committee, and then, as has been the practice in the past, leave the Committee, if they find their powers inadequate, to report to the House what extension of powers they require in order to carry out their duties. I put it to some hon. Gentlemen who have interested themselves in this matter that perhaps that is the wiser way of doing it. I am in the hands of the House, but we cannot take it today.

Mr. Attlee

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, not immediately on next week's business, whether the Government will afford time for a discussion of the new proposals for the Home Guard that were outlined yesterday?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not see any early prospect of doing that.

Mr. Bevan

Adverting to the time allotted to the Transport Bill, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, the livelihood of a very large number of workers is affected by this Bill and there has been great agitation for direct action to stop the Bill altogether. It would be extremely unfortunate, and much more difficult to resist it, if the impression got out that Parliament itself was giving inadequate time for the discussion of the Bill.

Sir T. Moore

Industrial threats.

Mr. Bevan

Perhaps the little boys will be quiet for a moment. I should have thought that it would be much easier to resist that importunity if it is recognised that Parliament is seriously considering the interests of the workers in the matter and giving plenty of time for discussion. The failure to give plenty of time for discussion will have a sinister interpretation outside.

Mr. Shinwell

About the Home Guard, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the somewhat drastic reorganisation that has been effected for the Home Guard, that the House is entitled to some say in the matter? Therefore, should he not consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that an early day might be provided for a debate, even if it is only a half day, so that we might ascertain from the Secretary of State for War his actual proposals and their consequences?

Mr. Crookshank

I did not say anything further than that there was no early prospect of a debate that I could see. I did not say that there would never be one.

Mr. Bevan

Can I have a reply?

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) got up so quickly that I had not time to reply. I really cannot amplify the answer I have given to the Leader of the Opposition. After all, two days for Second Reading does not mean that the Bill is never to be discussed again or that the points which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind cannot be raised later in the debate.

Mr. Bevan

In view of the atmosphere existing in the industry, would it not be worth while to be even over-generous in the allocation of Parliamentary time rather than give the impression that the Government are trying to hand over this loot as quickly as possible?

Mr. Crookshank

There is no reason for anybody giving such impressions anywhere.

Mr. Lewis

The Leader of the House no doubt will have seen the statement by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food that for the second time in 12 years, and only since this Government have been in power, the people will have no Christmas food bonuses. Can he, therefore, make arrangements for a debate on that question in view of the fact that the previous Government always made arrangements for these bonuses?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not see any prospect of that.

Mr. Paget

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that during the Election a pledge was given to introduce permanent legislation to put the Defence Regulations on a permanent basis, that this promise was repeated last year, and that in consideration of that promise they were given a relatively rapid passage? This year we shall certainly require to discuss these Regulations, and if the right hon. Gentleman puts legislation which he does not require by a specific date in front of legislation which he requires by a certain date, let him not come back to us and ask for mercy when he gets to that date.

Mr. Jay

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had a day to think it over, can he tell us why he introduced two Bills in the wrong order yesterday? Was it a case of balanced flexibility or just plain confusion?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing next week's business, not yesterday's.

Mr. Jay

On a point of order. The business for today, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is dependent on the confusion which he created yesterday. Am I not at least entitled to an answer as to why the Government reversed the order of these Bills?

Mr. Bing

Would the Leader of the House say whether adequate time will be provided for the discussion on the Motions on Thursday on the Defence (Finance) Regulations when, and if, these are available to hon. Members?

Mr. Crookshank

I have already announced what was to be discussed on Thursday, and in response to the Leader of the Opposition I said that we would consider the matter further.

Mr. Bing

But the right hon. Gentleman will realise from the terms of the Motion that he has put down that it is not necessary that these Regulations can be brought up. Therefore, will he give time for a Resolution raising specifically the Defence (Finance) Regulations, in view of the general public interest that at the moment they arouse?

Mr. Crookshank

What is to be discussed are the Addresses which have been put on the Order Paper.

Mr. E. Fletcher

The Leader of the House said that he hoped one day next week to take the Motion for the appointment of the Statutory Instruments Committee, but he did not say which day next week. Can he say on which day next week that will come up?

Mr. Crookshank

I cannot say today.