BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 27 November 1952)

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the business for today? I notice that there is a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with Stautory Instruments. Is it intended to take all the matters referred to in that Motion and the Defence Regulations within one day?

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
Yes, Sir. Yesterday I gave notice that after the Iron and Steel Bill and the Money Resolution, we would proceed to the business already announced for that day. What is on the Order Paper is that business.

Hon. Members
Shame.

§ Mr. Attlee
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no precedent for trying to make the House of Commons take two days' business in one day solely due to the incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip? We had a precedent referred to by you, Mr. Speaker, in which time was lost through grave disorder. At that time, Mr. Asquith did not thereupon try to make the House do two days' work in one day, although that was due to the Conservative Party shouting down the Liberals—I think throwing a book at the present Prime Minister.

§ The Prime Minister
That has nothing to do with the particular case.

§ Mr. Attlee
It was another instance of the disorderly habits of the Conservative Party. It is really monstrous, when we have had time given for two days, and time is lost purely through the fault of the Government. You can read on that, Sir, the statements of Prime Ministers of both parties, in which it has been laid down over and over again that it is the duty of the Government to keep a House. The Government failed in their elementary duty on a major Bill, and it is absolutely monstrous that the House should be asked to sit till any hour to deal with very important matters. The matter which I referred to, the Defence (General) Regulations, has been explained to us over and over again by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as a matter of the first importance to try to carry out 620 the Prime Minister's idea of setting the people free. Has the right hon. Gentleman any precedent for an action of this kind when a Government has made a grave fault and tries to put all the blame on the rest of the House?

§ Mr. Crookshank
Whether or not there is a precedent for this particular case, the Government desire to get this business, and the Defence Regulations must be passed by this House this week.

§ Mr. Attlee
There is Monday. There is no special urgency for the business put down on Monday. I understand it is not urgent or necessary business.

§ Mr. Crookshank
But the Defence Regulations must be got through this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In order that they may become effective. That really is the case and that is why I repeat that statement.

§ Mr. Attlee
This is just another instance of mishandling the business of the House. We all know there is essential business that has to be got through by a certain time, but it is quite unnecessary for the Government to have put down two Bills, one of which the Government supporters care for so little that they cannot even stay. It is obviously a matter of sheer incompetence in the handling of the business of the House.

§ Mr. Crookshank
There were quite other reasons. The presence of only four Socialists is one of them.

§ Mr. Attlee
That is the first time a Leader of the House has tried to excuse his failure to keep a House by trying to suggest that other Members were not present. In view of the treatment meted out to the House by the Government, I shall be obliged to put a Motion of Censure on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Simmons
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should like to have your guidance. The occupant of your high office has always in the history of this House been the guardian of the rights and the privileges of private Members. The business for tomorrow, by Resolution of this House, was reserved for private Members. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give us any guidance to prevent the rights and privileges of private Members from being infringed by the Government because of their own incompetence?

§ Mr. Colegate
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember that once I had a Private Member's Bill on a Friday and, owing to the Labour Government carrying on the debate until 20 minutes past 12 o'clock on the Friday from the previous day, the Bill had to be postponed?

§ Mr. Speaker
In answer to the point of order, of course if the House finishes its business in time, there is no reason why the Private Member's Bill should not be taken.

§ Mr. Crookshank
May I say on that point, that the only intention of the Government is to get Government business. That is our first thought. There is plenty of time to cope with that long before there is any question of Friday's business.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Price
On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for a leading Member of the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, whose duties extend to these benches as well as to those benches, to abuse his post by taking part in a common act of revenge for something that happened yesterday?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not see any point of order in that, and I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has given notice of a Motion of censure upon this matter. Therefore, these matters can be considered at that time.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Bing
No, Sir. I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to address a question to the Leader of the House with regard to tonight's business? Have I your permission?

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes.

§ Mr. Bing
Would not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more frank with the House and say, first, that the Defence Regulations have only to be passed by 10th December and that the only reason 622 for hurry is that certain of his hon. Friends who are Privy Councillors have made arrangements that make that difficult, and have thus abused their office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put down so much business as to compel a matter that deals with the Press to be cut out, does he not consider that the more honest course would be to put down a Motion to suspend Private Members' time for tomorrow and thus give hon. Members who have some knowledge of the matter an opportunity of discussing the motives which have led some hon. Members opposite to decide to prolong the debate to such a stage that matters relating to their friends of the Press cannot be discussed?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
It is a serious charge.

§ Mr. Crookshank
There is really no need to anticipate any of those things occurring. There is no necessity for this debate to go on until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning by any manner of means.
Regarding the Regulations, I assure the hon. and learned Member—I hope he will take it from me—that in fact next Thursday is the last effective day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, first, the other place is not discussing these Orders until it has seen what Amendments we may make in them. Second, after they have been passed by Order in Council, there have to be certain days—purely mechanical days—in order that they may be printed and all the rest of it, so as to become effective within the statutory limit. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have looked into this matter very carefully after certain representations were made to me yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, and I found that we had to deal with and complete this business this week.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
In the circumstances, in the light of all these arguments, is not the remedy perfectly simple: namely, that there is no urgency about the Iron and Steel Bill?

§ The Prime Minister
You did not turn up.

§ Mr. Morrison
It is not a question of our turning up. The Prime Minister ought to know by now that it is up to the 623 Government Whips and the Leader of the House to protect Government business. I am sure that by now he has told the Chief Whip what his job is. May I ask the Leader of the House: Is not the simple thing to hold over the Iron and Steel Bill for the moment—there is no date with regard to it, as there is with the other items—and let us go about the business that was to have been gone about as intended last week?

§ Mr. Crookshank
Of course, that would be an alternative way of proceeding. It is not the way in which I advise the House to go.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Wigg
Yes, Sir. Several times in discussions in the House there have been references to the number of my hon. Friends who were present when the House was counted out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] As I am the only person who knows how many Members of the Labour Party were in the House, may I say that the number was nearer 100 than four?

§ Mr. Speaker
That most certainly is not a point of order.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I desire, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, to return to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who is the promoter of a Private Member's Bill for tomorrow. He put to you as a point of order the question whether Private Member's time ought not to be protected and whether it was not being jeopardised by the method proposed. Before you could give any Ruling on that matter, the Leader of the House said that he had no desire to impinge upon Private Members' time and that all he desired was to get Government business.
In view of the fact that the Government's failure to get their business has been due to their neglect to keep sufficient of a House in order to enable them to get their business, and that that was no fault of any private Members, and certainly no fault of my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, is it not clear that no answer has been given so far to the point which my hon. Friend made?

§ Mr. Speaker
I answered the point of order of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) by saying that there was no reason why we should not reach his Bill in time, and that if it is reached in time, it will be taken. To act otherwise would require an amendment of the Standing Orders, and I am not empowered to do that.

§ Mr. Bevan
Further to that point of order. Is it not, therefore, the case that as the Government have put down so much business on the Order Paper for today, the only way in which my hon. Friend's Bill can be protected is by the Opposition giving up their opposition rights?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter of opinion. It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Silverman
Further to the point of order. You have said, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the point, that there is no reason why Private Members' time tomorrow should be lost provided the House of Commons does in one day the business which the House, under the guidance of the Leader of the House, has already decided is the business for two days; that is to say, that Private Members' business can be reached tomorrow only at the expense of neglecting public business in the meantime.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that that follows. It may mean a prolonged Sitting tonight. That is all that I say.

§ Mr. Bevan
With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a rather serious matter. I am sure you would like to reconsider what you said, because what you actually said was that in your view there was no reason why the business could not be all carried through and still leave tomorrow's Sitting intact, which really means that what Mr. Speaker is saying is that the House of Commons should carry in one day's Sitting what was intended for two days.

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot have that said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of anything. The Standing Orders normally provide that the Sitting of the House should stop at 10 o'clock, and business is then interrupted. What we have on the Order Paper is a Motion to exempt certain business, and the business of the 625 Regulations is exempted business. What I mean is that there may be an equal time at night when normally we should not be doing business at all.

§ Mr. Bevan
This is really a rather serious matter. With all respect, the House of Commons in its conduct of business can easily be put in a very great difficulty. The informality of the House can only be maintained if we have certain definite rules and understandings; and the Chair, towards the early hours of the morning, will find itself put in a very great difficulty in maintaining the order of the House if there is a grave sense of injustice on this side.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Chair is frequently placed in a position of great difficulty, but I shall endeavour to surmount any difficulty to the best of my ability.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

§ Mr. Silverman
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
A real one?

§ Mr. Silverman
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the point that I have to make a substantial one, otherwise I should not have presumed to raise it.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), you said that the business normally finishes at 10 o'clock and that, therefore, there is no necessary hardship involved or loss of time tomorrow, because the extra business put down will be taken, if this Motion is carried, after 10 o'clock. I submit to you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion was based on a fallacy. The business that the Leader of the House advises the House to take today is business that normally does not stop at 10 o'clock; it is the business of Defence Regulations by Prayer, which is exempt from the Standing Order which says that we must stop at 10 o'clock.
Therefore, I submit to you with respect that my right hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that we were being asked to do the business already allotted for two days of Parliamentary time in one day's Parliamentary time, unless we are prepared to sacrifice the rights of private Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did state that this was exempted business; I was quite aware of that, but what I was trying to express was that by sitting late we can do work which would normally take two normal days. That is all I am saying and these points of order, although they are very interesting, are not really points for me at all. The House must protect itself on these matters.

§ Mr. Bing
On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS. "Oh."] If I may venture to say so, it is a real point of order. It has been the custom of Speakers in this House not only to rule on order, but to give advice to the House. Indeed, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, yesterday quoted advice given to the House, even though it was not a point of order.
This House is presented with a position in which four Orders of the Day are set down as exempted business Before three of those Orders of the Day can be entered upon, including the Second Reading of a very important Bill, the House have to dispose of a Motion for an Address to the Crown upon which there are 70 Amendments. It is quite impossible for the House to deal with that business adequately in less than two days.
If the House decides to do away with Private Members' time, of course it is open to the House so to do, but I do suggest to you that it is your duty to say to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in my respectful submission, it is your duty to say to the House—that in these circumstances there should be a Motion moved to suspend Private Members' business if that in fact is the intention of hon. Members opposite. Otherwise, unless there is an undertaking given that the House is to be adjourned prior to the hour for Private Members' business being entered upon, in my respectful submission this Motion is an abuse of the process of the House, and it is the duty of anyone presiding over the House to deal with it.

§ Mr. Speaker
This has happened before on many occasions and none of my predecessors has thought it his duty to intervene in that way. I should be making a new precedent if I did so.
Does the Leader of the Opposition wish now to ask the question about next week's business?

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

§ Mr. Crookshank
Yes, Sir, the business for next week will be as follows:

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask about the Town and Country Planning Bill? This is a very important matter, dealing with a very big subject, on which there was a great deal of discussion of the original Bill and, therefore, there ought to be more than one day on this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the general view that the Bill involves the rights of a large number of people and that it could be taken on two days at a later stage. That would set us free.

§ Mr. Crookshank
The Government have considered representations made by the right hon. Gentleman and we think that, as this is not the final Bill—there is to be another Bill subsequently—one day on this Second Reading would be sufficient time for it to be debated.

§ Mr. Dalton
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the White Paper issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? As paragraph 57 says: Owing to the Government's desire to allow plenty of time for discussion of their proposals and to the need for examination of the technical difficulties inherent in them … would it not be a good thing to begin that discussion with a period of two days rather than one?

§ Mr. Crookshank
That is a matter of opinion.

§ Sir E. Keeling
May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will consider giving time to the Motion on the Order Paper condemning the practice of raising false points of order? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last complete month in which the House sat no fewer than 42 alleged points of order were ruled by the Chair not to be points of order?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I was not aware of those figures, but I do not see a chance of an early debate on this subject.

§ Mr. Bellenger
On a point of order. Are not the question of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), and the Motion to which it refers, impinging on the prerogative of the Chair, which has the sole right of deciding points of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not recall the terms of the Motion.

§ Mr. Shinwell
May I ask the Leader of the House what disciplinary action he contemplates taking against members of his own party who failed to keep a House the other night?

§ Mr. Lindgren
Further to the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for two days' debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill, does the Leader of the House not admit that the essence of town planning is that of compensation and betterment? While it is true that this Bill deals only with one portion—that of deferring the development charge—and the Government promise legislation in regard to betterment, effective means of planning will be denied to local authorities. Therefore, ought we not to have two days in which to discuss the Bill so that the points of view expressed in the House could be considered for future legislation?

§ Mr. Crookshank
That, of course, is the object of the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The hon. Member seems to be making some of the points which, no doubt, he will wish to make on Monday.

§ Mr. L. M. Lever
I should like to ask the Leader of the House when the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1952, will be before the House for approval and when they will be debated?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I have not announced that for next week.

§ Mr. Lever
The matter has been on the Order Paper for some time and we should like to know.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Why have the Government chosen Thursday—the day on which our proceedings are always delayed—to start the Transport Bill, which is subject to a severe Guillotine? Will they not reconsider that and transfer the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is broadly non-contentious, to Thursday and give a full day to the Transport Bill, seeing that we are subject to a heavy Guillotine in Committee?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I think the hon. Member is a member of the Business Committee where these matters are being discussed, but, of course, the Order of the House, which I explained the other day, did give half an hour's tolerance compared with the normal routine. Although the hon. Member makes the suggestion that the Bill should come forward to Wednesday, I think perhaps the House would want one day more in which to discuss the Bill and put down Amendments.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would suit us equally well if the Bill went back to the following week? I make a serious point: is it not the case that from today's proceedings we are liable to eat into the time for our proceedings on Thursday and did not the Leader of the House say he hoped to avoid Thursday on the Transport Bill in order that we should not have our very limited time taken in this way?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I was only trying to meet the convenience of the House about 630 giving more time before starting the Committee stage. If the hon. Member feels strongly about this I am not averse to looking at the matter again through the usual channels. But he will realise that it would cut into the interval and I tried to give as much time as possible between Second Reading and Committee stage. We try to be as reasonable as we can.

§ Dr. Broughton
Will the Leader of the House allow time next week for a short debate on the Motion standing in my name, and the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to clean food?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I do not see any prospect of being able to give time to that. The hon. Member knows that we are in the period when hon. Members ballot for Motions for Private Members' Day, and that subject might perhaps be suitable for that.

§ Mr. Benn
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect to debate the Guillotine on the Iron and Steel Bill, as the absence of that Motion from next week's business is causing a certain amount of anxiety among his hon. Friends, who are nervous that, not knowing when Divisions may take place, the Bill may be defeated owing to the apathy of his hon. Friends?

§ Mr. MacColl
Reverting to Monday's business, may I reinforce what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said about the Town and Country Planning Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible to discuss that Bill except in the context of the White Paper which the Government themselves say requires very careful and detailed discussion? If we pass the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, with just a few people being able to take part in the debate, major decisions affecting the whole of the planning of the country will have been decided because compensation will have been withheld from people who, under the present law, are entitled to receive it. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider giving another day and putting the Bill back for further consideration?

§ Mr. Crookshank
No, Sir. I think that one day will have to suffice.