BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 20 November 1952)

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
Yes, Sir. May I first say that at the end of business today we shall ask the House to consider the Report stage of the Transport [Money] Resolution, and that tomorrow it is not proposed to take the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill. We shall start with the Third Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, which is an urgent Measure, and proceed with the other Orders as already announced.
Next week's business will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a Time-table Motion for the Committee and remaining stages of the Transport Bill. It is proposed that the details of the Time-table should be arranged by the Business Committee in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 41. The terms of the Government's Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning. We shall also proceed with any business not obtained on Friday of this week.
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, 25TH AND 26TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading:
Iron and Steel Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Motions for Addresses relating to the continuation of Emergency Powers, which is the subject for today, of course.
2044 Remaining stages:
Civil Contingencies Fund Bill.
Committee and remaining stages:
New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill.
Any other business.
Motion to set up Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
FRIDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Attlee
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Opposition will offer strenuous opposition—I cannot think of another word—to the Motion for the Time-table on the Transport Bill. It is very unusual to introduce a Guillotine Motion of this kind before even setting up and starting with the Committee. It may be a recognition that this is an extraordinary bad Bill and that Ministers cannot explain it. How much time is it proposed to devote to the Committee stage of the Bill?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I have just said that the terms of the Motion will be on the Paper tomorrow morning and they will then be available.

§ Mr. Attlee
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us now?

§ Mr. H. Morrison
If the proposed Allocation of Time Order is to be on the Paper tomorrow, presumably the right hon. Gentleman knows what it contains. What is he doing? Is he trying to treat the House with the utmost discourtesy and lack of consideration? We have heard the point to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know the answer by now, and if so, surely he can tell the House what my right hon. Friend has asked.

§ Mr. Crookshank
The actual allocation of time within the Time-table is a matter for the Business Committee. The only question which I am now asked is the total number of days for the Committee stage. I was not ready to give a final decision at the moment. I have certain intentions, but I was wondering whether it would be possible to extend the time which I have in mind. That was all.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable difficulty arose on the Licensing in New Towns Bill on some of the special issues which concern Scotland? In regard to the Transport Bill, there are some very special considerations affecting Scotland and I hope that in an Allocation of Time Order of this kind sufficient time will be allowed for discussion of these problems.

§ Mr. Crookshank
All these things can be discussed on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that we are proceeding according to the Standing Order which lays down that it is the Business Committee which will settle the arrangements. No doubt what he has said will be borne in mind by those who sit for his party on that committee.

§ Mr. P. Morris
Will the Leader of the House reply to the original question put by the Leader of the Opposition and explain this indecent haste to guillotine a Measure the implementation of which will affect the livelihood of a million people? Why this indecent haste?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I should have thought that what has been going on in this House during the last week was a sufficient answer.

§ Mr. Paget
Was the Leader of the House in the House when the Minister of Transport promised adequate discussion? Is there any precedent whatever in the history of this House for the introduction of a Guillotine Motion before a Bill has even gone to Committee?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I certainly was there. It is our hope that there will be adequate time for discussion of the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. As for the other matters, we had better discuss those on Monday when we debate the Motion.

§ Mr. Paget
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Has it ever been done before?

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which affects neither the Government nor the Opposition as such as parties in this House; but as it affects the procedure of the House, it is a matter obviously upon which we require your guidance. The Leader of the House has 2046 just said, in reply to a supplementary question, that having regard to what happened in the House this week he had decided to take a certain course of action. If he means by that that there is an objection to democratic debate in this House, may I ask whether it is not the fact that all that happened this week in the debate on the Transport Bill was—so far as I am aware—within the Rules of the House and there has been no transgression of the rules of procedure? Surely the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make that statement?

§ Mr. Speaker
I was not conscious of any breach of the rules of debate or of the House, or I should have done my best to check it. I was rising to say that these matters as to the desirability or not of introducing a Time-table Motion are not for me. They will no doubt be discussed at length on Monday. They are a matter for the House and not for me.

§ Mr. Mellish
You have the honour to occupy the Chair, Mr. Speaker, in what is regarded as the greatest democratic assembly in the world. Surely some influence could come from the Chair to stop a measure of this kind, which is more like Soviet Russia or Franco Spain.

§ Mr. Speaker
Again I must rule that this is a matter for the House and, not for me.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House what he meant by saying that, having regard to what had happened this week, he must take appropriate action?

§ Mr. Crookshank
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate on the Transport Bill, when we were promised the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Is not that a very shocking observation? It is quite frequent that an Opposition, whether Conservative or Labour, indicates that it will engage in vigorous and sustained opposition to particular Bills. It is a Parliamentary right. It is what this House is for. Are we to understand, merely because we indicated something which has been indicated many times, that the right hon. Gentleman immediately retaliates by putting down an 2047 Allocation of Time Order? May I ask him to recall, for reference in the future, that when he made this announcement it was received with gleeful smiles and cheers by his supporters?

§ Mr. Crookshank
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman also will recollect that when his own Transport Bill was under discussion, it was not taken on the Floor of the House but was taken in Committee upstairs.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of the House for a Minister of the Crown to say that he proposes to introduce a Guillotine Motion, not because of the necessities of the Bill or the urgency of the matter, but as a penalty upon the Opposition for exercising their Parliamentary right?

§ Mr. Speaker
I count myself fortunate that I am not responsible for Ministerial or other utterances in the House. It is a matter for the House itself to decide. There is nothing out of order in what the Minister is proposing to do. What I think is undesirable is that when we are to have a debate on this matter on Monday, when there will be a Question on the subject before the House, which the House must resolve, we should take up time at Question time today on the subject.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
You were good enough to advise us, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the Time-table is a matter for the House. If we allow this to pass today, it will mean that during the weekend it will be accepted. Therefore, and in view of the fact that there are no precedents for this, I ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of supreme public importance.
I accept that under the Standing Orders I have not the right to debate this, but for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, these are my principal points for asking you seriously and sympathetically to consider that this is a matter of urgent public importance. First, from my own knowledge there is no precedent for this, especially on a matter of great controversy which is now raging throughout the country. Second, in view of the feeling in the country and the effect upon 2048 people's lives, this should not be rushed through in this way. My third point is that this House is looked upon throughout the world as the world's most democratic institution, and therefore it is our duty to safeguard it. In view of these points, I ask you to consider that this is a matter of urgent public importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
The democratic character of this Assembly is maintained by adherence to its rules of order, and it would be quite wrong for me to accept any motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject which is to be debated on Monday. I ask the House to cogitate on what has been said and to come prepared on Monday to discuss this subject, when it will be done in the ordinary course of the business of the House.

§ Mr. L. M. Lever
Has the Leader of the House read today's leader in the "Manchester Guardian" about the lack of comprehension by the Government of the Transport Bill and its serious implications, affecting not only the workers, but the future conduct of the industry?

§ Mr. Stokes
May I change gear, so to speak, on a matter of gastronomic importance and ask the Leader of the House whether he has read the Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) and myself, and whether he realises the importance of providing time to debate this Motion?
[That in the opinion of this House the Kitchen Committee have failed to make proper or adequate arrangements for the provision of tolerable food or drink, at reasonable prices, at any hour of the day or night; and should be dismissed from the service of the House.]

§ Mr. Crookshank
Of course, I saw that Motion on the Paper, but I do not see that there is much likelihood of finding any Government time. Government business has got to be got through first, but if there is any general demand for that Motion to be taken some evening, perhaps this could be discussed through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Stokes
If the usual channels happen to be unsympathetic, what is the starving back bencher to do about it? The Prime Minister, for instance, and 2049 others of us do not suffer from gastronomic starvation, nor does the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, but the Leader of the House will be aware of the inconvenience that was caused to hon. Members on Monday, and we do not want that to happen again. Surely the Leader of the House realises that this is not a question of conversation through the usual channels but a matter concerning every back bencher.

§ Mr. Shinwell
May I ask the Leader of the House whether the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) does not justify a discussion of the Motion?

§ Mr. Boothby
This matter has nothing at all to do with appearances. The Motion is couched in rather strong terms, and in view of the fact that the Kitchen Committee are bound to feel a little uncomfortable until it has been discussed, does not the Leader of the House think that some discussion, even if fairly brief, should take place in the near future so long as the Motion remains on the Order Paper?

§ Mrs. Castle
On the Allocation of Time Order—

§ Mr. Crookshank
As it is obvious that the hon. Lady is asking about something else, perhaps I may reply first to the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Of course, if there is a general demand for a debate, we shall be very glad to consider it, but we must have—

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On Monday and Tuesday.

§ Mr. Crookshank
Monday at 10 o'clock, perhaps, if that is what is desired.

§ Mr. Stokes
The Kitchen Committee should know first.

§ Mr. Crookshank
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is not such a hurry, after all. We should be quite ready to give facilities one evening, but not in Government time. If the right hon. Gentleman finds any difficulty, perhaps he will discuss the matter with me.

§ Mrs. Castle
In view of the outrageous justification given by the Leader of the House for the introduction of an 2050 Allocation of Time Order, may I ask whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) told him during the Second Reading debate that there would be plenty of constructive Amendments coming from that side of the House and that the hon. Baronet said to the Minister of Transport that he could not conceive the need for this violent hurry. Therefore, will not the proposed Order not merely muzzle Members on this side, but also Members on the opposite side who are honest enough to state their views?

§ Mr. Speaker
We are still at Question time. The hon. Lady's argument would appear more suitable to be advanced on Monday, when a Question will be before the House. At present we are merely being told the business for next week. This is not the time to discuss the merits of next week's business; otherwise this time would stretch out far too long.

§ Mr. Norman Smith
Is the Leader of the House aware that his methods of handling business will greatly strengthen the hands of those outside the House who want to use industrial action for political purposes?

§ Mr. Speaker
These are matters which can be brought up on Monday.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must have order. Any hon. Member whom I call may ask a question about business by all means, but I ask him not to try to anticipate Monday's debate. That would be quite out of order.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I hope to observe your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the House on a remark which he himself made arising out of business, and I trust that it will be in order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House put forward the principle that if a Government is told that it must expect wholehearted opposition to a Bill, it is entitled to put down a Guillotine Motion of the kind he has described as coming before us next week. Does he lay that down as a general principle in all circumstances? If so, we should like to have it clear for future use and reference.

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We ought to proceed with the business now.

§ Mr. Mellish
On a point of order. Could it be recorded that the Liberal Party have made no effort to intervene in this debate?

§ Mr. C. Davies
Would it be in order for me to intervene, Mr. Speaker, after you have given your Ruling?

§ Mr. Speaker
We must get on now. Sir Thomas Dugdale.

§ Dr. King
On a point of order. In view of the fact that most of the questions about next week's business have taken the form which they have taken, it has not been possible for hon. Members to raise other miscellaneous questions on next week's business which they would like to raise. Will you give that opportunity?

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member wish to ask a question about next week's business?

§ Dr. King
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
And does not wish to argue the Guillotine Motion?

§ Dr. King
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
Very well. Dr. King.

§ Dr. King
Since it is still necessary to convince both the Government and the country of the necessity to give greater aid to the blitzed towns of this country and of the inadequacy of the measures proposed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, will the Leader of the House find an opportunity at some time in the very near future to discuss the Motion which appears on the Order Paper about blitzed towns in the names of several hon. Members and myself?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he proposes to authorise some new reconstruction work in the bombed cities for the year 1953, but maintains its opinion that the amount 2052 of work which he proposes to allow, namely £2,500,000 worth, is inadequate to meet the crying needs of these cities for a reasonable advance towards their rebuilding.]

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am afraid that I do not see any early prospect of that.

§ Mr. W. R. Williams
On a point of order. Reverting to the Allocation of Time Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your guidance, having regard to the serious situation which is arising out of this decision and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is in his place and that we know the importance which he attaches to democratic forms of Government. May I ask you to invite the Prime Minister to make a statement on how he stands, whether he is aware of these arrangements, and what his views are about them?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for Monday.

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is quite out of order.

§ Mr. Williams
Further to that point of order. I ask for your guidance and assistance in the matter, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to invite the Prime Minister to make that statement.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I should myself then be guilty of a breach of order.

§ Mr. Williams
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no point of order involved in it.

§ Mr. Williams
I wish to make a further submission, Mr. Speaker. Instead of inviting the Prime Minister, would you be good enough to allow him to do so if he so desires?

§ Mr. Speaker
I certainly will not. Otherwise I should be in breach of my own Ruling, which I do not desire to be.