HC Deb 06 May 1953 vol 515 cc391-5
Mr. Attlee

May I ask the Leader of the House, on business, whether his attention has been called to the drafting of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which we understand prevents general Amendments being considered? Will he explain the reasons for departing from the usual practice?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank)

I am, of course, aware of the form of this Bill. It has the usual long Title, and the only difference in the Bill from those of other years is that no specific Amendments to the Acts have been included. The House will be aware that the Select Committee although they have made great progress with this formidable task, have by no means finished their work and have themselves recommended in a Special Report that no attempt should be made, by piecemeal amendment of the Acts, to deal with their recommendations to date. In those circumstances, the Government felt that it would be undesirable to put down routine Amendments of their own this year. Whether any particular Amendment which hon. Members may desire to put down would be in order is. of course, a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Attlee

Might it not have been better to have taken the usual course in a matter of this kind and to have mentioned the matter to the Opposition through the usual channels?

Mr. Crookshank

If the Opposition feel aggrieved I am sorry about it, but this is exactly the same form as is usually adopted. Last year it was different because there were certain Amendments put down which had to be covered by the long Title, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look back to the time when he was responsible for affairs, he will find that this was the normal Title in each of these years, and, in spite of that, it is quite possible to have Amendments inserted into the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell

Is not the drawing up of this Bill unprecedented? I am not referring to the Title at all but to the drawing up of the Bill in such a form as to prevent any Amendments of any kind being put upon the Paper. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman said that the question of whether specific Amendments would be permitted was a matter for the Chair. That is unprecedented in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. May I ask further whether it is not a false assumption on the part of the Government that because a Select Committee has been appointed to deal with certain aspects of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill there should be a prohibition of any Amendments of a kind which do not come within the purview of the Select Committee? In all the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the form of this Bill so as to enable specific Amendments to be put upon the Paper if the Opposition regard them as necessary?

Mr. Crookshank

I am sorry if there is any confusion. Whether Amendments are in order or not has, as I have said, always depended on the Chairman's interpretation of what is within the scope of the Title. This is exactly the same Title as has been used in years past, with the exception of last year and one other year. The same Title was used in 1948, 1949 and 1951. That did not prevent hon. Members from putting down Amendments, and, if the Chair called them, having them debated; and if the House accepted them they were inserted into the Bill.

The reason why it is necessary to have this particular, though usual, Title this year, is because the Government, having decided not to put down any Amendments of their own, could hardly bring in a Bill with a Title to make Amendments in the body of the Bill, when there were in fact no Amendments. But that does not affect the rights of the hon. Members opposite —I have taken the fullest possible advice on this matter—any more this year than the corresponding Title did when it was employed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their term of office.

Mr. Bevan

This matter was the subject of an undertaking given last year, in view of which the Opposition withdrew all Amendments to the Bill in order that the Select Committee should be appointed. Would it not have been much more courteous to let the Opposition know the form the Bill was to take this year. rather than to take action without informing the Opposition at all? In view of the fact, also, that the undertaking cannot be carried out this year—for no reason for which the Government is responsible, but because the Select Committee has not completed its findings—the House may still feel that it wanted to amend the Bill— [HON. MEMBERS: "It can."]—really hon. Members must wait in this matter. When we draft Amendments to the Bill we may find ourselves once more in collision with the Chair, and that could easily have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had first consulted the Opposition.

Mr. Crookshank

I have explained the position exactly with regard to the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman says he has never seen a Bill like this—he says it last night—it really is not so because he will have done if he has looked at the Bills drafted during the time he was a Cabinet Minister. As I say, if the Opposition feel that in adopting this very normal and ordinary practice I have been in error in not having told them ahead of time, I am sorry. In point of fact, it is, of course, a purely normal Bill. We acted on the advice of the Select Committee, which is composed of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Naturally we assumed that recommendations from so weighty a body would be acceptable. If they are not acceptable to the whole House they have certainly been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Marlowe

Can my right hon. Friend say whether on these three previous occasions when the Socialist Party were in power and introduced an identical Bill, they bothered to consult the Opposition?

Mr. Crookshank

I cannot charge my memory with that, but it is such a normal matter that I should not think so.

Mr. Attlee

There was no reason to. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand. The Bill was drafted with Amendments in each case.

Mr. Wigg

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on Second Reading of this Bill those who wish to speak have to do so within a very narrow limit. If this Bill goes forward in the form in which the Government are presenting it, whether they intend it or not, the effect will be to gag the Opposition, or any hon. Member who wishes to say anything on this Bill, both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage. Is it not perfectly true that the Government, though probably not aware of it, have, by omitting the words "to amend" from the Title of the Bill, made it impossible for any hon. Member to put down general Amendments?

Mr. Crookshank

I am advised that that is not the case, and that it is still open to hon. Members to put down Amendments. As for gagging the House, the Government certainly have not the slightest intention of doing anything of the kind. I would remind hon. Members that if there is a Bill with no Amendments in fact there cannot be a Title asking for amending powers when the Bill is introduced, irrespective of what may happen afterwards. On the introduction of the Bill, if the words "to amend" are in the Title there must be some Amendments in the body of the Bill. There are none in this Bill and it is therefore obviously impossible to put that in the Title. But I am advised it does not prevent Amendments being put down and carried, if they are in order.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of what has been said by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the custom of the House is, and always has been so far as I can recall, that the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is a matter which comes under your supervision, and there is usually no debate. The debate is left to the Committee stage. I do not know whether you can offer any guidance, or whether this is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, on the occasion of the Committee stage, would have to be consulted about whether specific Amendments may be accepted. But I do not know if you can give us any guidance at this stage.

Mr. Speaker

What the right hon. Gentleman has said about Second Reading is perfectly true. The limits of debate on that occasion are always very narrow indeed, and are normally confined to the question of whether we are to continue to have a disciplined Army and Air Force. As to Amendments that may be accepted on the Committee stage, it would be wrong for me to express any opinion, as it would be for the Chairman to exercise his discretion about that.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

Further to that point of order. If the statement of the Leader of the House is correct, that if and when Amendments are submitted to this Bill in Committee they will be accepted and if you, Mr. Speaker, cannot indicate that such a statement is correct, how can the correctness of that statement be questioned? Can it be questioned here or in Committee?

Mr. Speaker

I think that what the Leader of the House said was correct, that if Amendments are in order they may be accepted. But I must decline to express any opinion about Amendments which I have not seen, or to give any Ruling in advance about the decision of the Chairman. It would be quite wrong for me to do so.