HC Deb 26 February 1953 vol 511 cc2311-4
Mr. Attlee

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

  • MONDAY, 2ND MARCH—Supply [6th Allotted Day].
  • Report stage:
  • Civil Vote on Account, 1953–54.
  • Debate on the problems of blitzed towns until 7 p.m.
  • Debate on prisons.
  • TUESDAY, 3RD MARCH—Second Reading:
  • Royal Titles Bill.
  • The Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Committee and remaining stages on the same day.
  • Second Reading:
  • Local Government Superannuation Bill.
  • Committee stage: Money Resolution.
  • Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 2) Order.
  • Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations.
  • WEDNESDAY, 4TH MARCH—Report stage:
  • Iron and Steel Bill.
  • THURSDAY, 5TH MARCH.
  • Debate on defence.
  • FRIDAY, 6TH MARCH.
  • Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Attlee

Is it proposed that the debate on defence should take place on a Government Motion?

Mr. Crookshank

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger

What form of Motion will that be? If it is not possible to give an indication of it today can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Motion will be put on the Order Paper?

Mr. Crookshank

I cannot say today exactly when it will be put on the Order Paper, or what its final form will be.

Mr. Rankin

I understand that Tuesday is to be devoted to the Bill dealing with Royal titles. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill is not yet available to Members? Can he say when we shall have it?

Mr. Crookshank

Yes, Sir. It is being presented today and copies will be made available in the Vote Office early this evening together with a White Paper.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Without making any reflection on the Chair, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will bear in mind, when arranging future business, that for many days the House has been in Committee and that yesterday, when we were considering one of the most important economic problems facing the country, scores of hon. Members on both sides desired to make their contributions to the debate—

Miss Ward

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ellis Smith

—and feel very disappointed and frustrated at not being able to do so. In order that the country's needs can be given maximum priority. will the right hon. Gentleman in future so arrange the business that consideration is given to every area in the country?

Mr. Crookshank

How the debate is conducted or how Members are called has nothing to do with me. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ellis Smith

That is most unfair. I said "without making any reflection on the Chair." Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that next week we are to discuss one of the great controversial and economic questions facing this country, namely, the enormous expenditure on defence, and yet only one day is being given to it? That will again mean that scores of hon. Members on each side, who are as well-informed as anyone, will not have an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Yates

I want to put a similar question to the right hon. Gentleman. A considerable number of hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to take part in the debate on defence, especially in view of the inclusion in the White Paper of the recommendation to continue National Service for another five years. It is, in our opinion, a vital matter. We never have adequate time for a discussion on defence, and I ask that the debate be extended, as we ought to have two days on it.

Mr. Crookshank

Anything to do with extending the period of National Service cannot be done as a result of the White Paper, but, by legislation or Orders, on which debate can take place as well.

Mr. Yates

If one accepts a White Paper, it is almost tantamount to accepting the Second Reading of the Bill which sometimes automatically comes on later. It is a vital matter, and we protest against this crime against the youth of the nation. We are entitled to express our views.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is hardly a question of business.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and your Ruling about a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister which I submitted for your consideration this morning, and which asked him to make a prompt statement accepting President Eisenhower's suggestion for a meeting with Premier Stalin.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is an abuse of the rules of the House—the hon. Member does not mean it so, I know—if a Private Notice Question has been disallowed to try to raise it on a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman really challenges my decision on the matter, he ought to go the proper way about it. I would point out that this Question has been asked and answered several times and that the hon. Member himself has given notice of a Question on Monday on a similar topic. I could not possibly allow his point of order.

Mr. Hughes

I submit that matters on the Order Paper have no relevance to this point of order, because the situation only arose this morning as the result of a statement by President Eisenhower. I do submit—

Mr. Speaker

It will be the same situation on Monday.

Mr. J. Hudson

On the same point of order. The situation of urgency in connection with the Question of my hon. Friend arises now because two principal Cabinet Ministers are leaving the country to discuss with the President of our principal ally issues in which this country will be involved, because the Prime Minister has been in full retreat from his many promises to the electorate—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is doing what I protested about. I must protest again that if a Question is disallowed as a Private Notice Question it is out of order to try to bring the matter before the House in this way. It is an abuse of the rules relating to points of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no more to be said about it.