BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 7 May 1953)

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

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH MAY—Debate on Foreign Affairs, which will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY, 12TH MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee (which it is proposed to take formally).
Conclusion of the debate on Foreign Affairs.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH MAY — Lords Amendments: Iron and Steel Bill.
Second Reading: Therapeutic Substances (Prevention of Misuse) Bill [Lords], if there is time.
THURSDAY, 14TH MAY—Report and Third Reading: Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages: Births and Deaths Registration Bill [Lords].
Motion to commit the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords] to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Motions to approve: Draft Transferred Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations.
570 Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations; and similar Regulations for Scotland.
FRIDAY, 15TH MAY—Private Members' Motions.
On Monday, at the end of the Foreign Affairs debate, we should like to obtain the Report and Third Reading of the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill, which is an urgent Measure. The Bill has proceeded so far with the general co-operation of the House, and I hope that it will be agreeable to dispose of the Bill on Monday next as I have suggested, with a view to its early passage into law.
It may also be convenient for me to inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Friday, 22nd May, and meet again on Tuesday, 9th June, after Her Majesty's Coronation.
I may also add that that the Government will propose in due course that: the House should not sit on 15th June which is the day of the Naval Review.

§ Mr. Attlee
May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House are quite agreeable, in view of the urgency of the matter, that the Report and Third Reading of the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill should be taken on Monday?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am much obliged.

§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood
Could the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to find time for a discussion of the excellent and constructive Motion on Purchase Tax which stands on the Order Paper in the names of other hon. Members and myself?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I could not set a date for that.

§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough, last Thursday, during the discussion on business, to promise a White Paper on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council meeting. As it has not yet emerged, can he say why?

§ Mr. Crookshank
It is in an advanced stage of preparation and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see it very shortly.

§ Mr. Shinwell
This week?

§ The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill)
I hope tomorrow.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I am obliged.
Arising out of the business on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which is due for Second Reading today, may I remind the Leader of the House that the position has disturbed some of my hon. Friends, as well as some hon. Members opposite? In view of the fact that there is no hurry about the Bill, because of the decision we reached last year, is it possible so to reconstruct the form of the Bill as to enable hon. Members to insert Amendments if they so desire? Is he aware that because of the form in which the Bill has been drawn—the Government not having inserted Amendments—hon. Members have been informed that they cannot insert Amendments?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I thought I dealt with the position yesterday. I have been advised that certain Amendments can be moved.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he made his statement and since he had conversations with certain hon. Members, after he made his statement, the Table has said that no Amendments can be submitted? I understand that that is the position—that no Amendments can be submitted? May I address myself to you, Mr. Speaker? Very careful inquiries have been made about this, and I understand that that is the position—that Amendments will not be accepted because they are regarded as being out of order for the reason that no Government Amendments have been inserted in the Bill?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have not seen the Amendments and I had heard nothing of this until the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it now, but I should think that Amendments would be in order— Amendments in Committee. Whether any precise Amendment is in order is a matter for the Chairman.

§ Mr. Shinwell
It is not a question of whether Amendments are in order. The question is whether any Amendments may be submitted. After inquiries have been made in the appropriate quarters of the House, I understand that hon. Members have been informed that because the Government have inserted no Amendments in the Bill, no hon. Member is entitled to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed, but if there is a misunderstanding I will try to clear it up. My understanding of the position is that it is open to hon. Members to put down Amendments to the Bill.

§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton
Can my right hon. Friend say when any time can be found for the discussion of the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of nearly 100 hon. Members concerning the Committee of Privileges?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I saw that Motion, of course, and the amount of support which there was in the names on the Order Paper, but I have looked at the time available to us very carefully and I do not see any prospect of being able to deal with it in the immediate future.

§ Mr. Ede
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the business which he has put down for the later stages of next Thursday is regarded as formal because, in view of the Government Amendments which appear on the Order Paper, the first item which he has put down appears very likely to take a considerable amount of time?

§ Mr. Crookshank
If it takes a considerable time it may not be possible to reach the conclusions which I had hoped. But some of it is certainly formal.

§ Mr. Swingler
On a point of order. I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. The position is that since the statement of the Leader of the House yesterday some hon. Members have sought advice on the subject of submitting Amendments to the 573 Bill, and we have been advised that since the Bill contains no Amendments as brought forward by the Government, notwithstanding the title of the Bill, no Amendments submitted by hon. Members would be in order and it would be impossible, therefore, to have any discussion in Committee. I should like to have your guidance, therefore, as to whether that is the position or not and whether hon. Members will be entitled to submit Amendments of substance which will be in order.

§ Mr. Wigg
Is it not a fact that we have now reached the position with this Measure, which is of great constitutional importance, that because the Government have put down no Amendments the Opposition can put down no general Amendments either? Does not the Leader of the House accept that that is a most unfortunate situation?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must reply to the point of order. As I said in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who raised the matter first, it is contrary to my understanding of the rules of order, and there must be some misunderstanding somewhere. I will endeavour to clear it up. It is my firm belief that proper Amendments which are otherwise in order can be put down. I have never known to the contrary.

§ Mr. Wigg
Does this not arise because the scope of the Bill as drafted does not permit the putting down of general Amendments?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must not be taken as making a precise statement as to what kind of Amendments are in order, and the House must let me have an opportunity of studying what has been actually said, because it seems to me that there must be some misunderstanding.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
It is obviously inconvenient that hon. Members should be in doubt, before the commencement of the Committee stage, at any rate, if not immediately after the Second Reading, whether they can put Amendments down, and, if so, within what scope. I am told that there is a slight alteration in the Long Title of the Bill, which might exclude certain possibilities. Would it be possible for you to consider the 574 matter, Sir, and, perhaps, give the House an indication of your views before the Second Reading is taken tonight?

§ Mr. Speaker
Certainly.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
In view of the statement of the Leader of the House that there is no time, would he not consider changing the date of the Naval Review, and giving up 15th June for business in this House? Is he aware that some of us do not want to go to the Naval Review, but will be quite prepared to meet here and deal with the Judges' Salaries Bill, any Lords Amendments or anything else?

§ Mr. Crookshank
That may well be, but I think the hon. Member might find himself alone in the Chamber.

§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton
May I ask the Leader of the House whether, if he cannot possibly find time for my Motion in the ordinary business of the House, he could find it on the Whitsun Adjournment debate?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I have nothing to do with the allocation of time for the Whitsun Adjournment. That is a matter within the discretion of Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. Although, in this particular case, you, Sir, felt unable to certify whether this Motion ought to be debated in advance of other business, nevertheless, is not the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the noble Lord's name a Motion as to Privilege, and, where matters of Privilege are on the Order Paper, are they not entitled to a measure of priority over other business?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for the Government, and they must deal with the matter as they find themselves able to do. There are all sorts of things for which the House is asked to find time, but perhaps I might say one thing about the hon. Member's question concerning the Whitsun Adjournment debate. I do not think that a matter of Privilege can be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, because, on that Motion, there must be some Minister responsible for the matter raised, and that cannot be the case in a matter of Privilege.

§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton
Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to suspend the Rule so that we may discuss the matter?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not for me.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
I do not wish to discuss a matter which is domestic within the constituency of the noble Lord, but I did read, in OFFICIAL REPORT, what was raised, and, without prejudice to any final conclusion, I said that the noble Lord had raised a matter of substance, as touching the rights of hon. Members of this House. I want to put it to the Leader of the House whether there could not be conversations between his hon. Friends and himself or between the usual channels so that this matter might be ventilated, and entirely without prejudice to whatever conclusion that the House might ultimately reach. I did think that a matter affecting prima facie the rights of hon. Members of the House, duly elected, did arise on the case raised by the noble Lord.

§ Mr. Crookshank
That may be, but I was asked about time, and I said that I did not think there was any time in the immediate future to discuss this matter.

§ Mr. Pannell
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, in a domestic matter of this kind, he does leave himself open to a charge of political partiality in keeping it away from the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Beswick
Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he does not propose to accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend to discuss this matter through the usual channels?

§ Mr. Crookshank
It was not an invitation that needed to be given, because conversations are always going on, not only through the usual channels with the Opposition but also between ourselves, which was the alternative suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Stokes
May I support what my right hon. Friend has said? Surely, in a matter which concerns an hon. Member of this House in a Motion contained on the Order Paper, it has been the custom to get it off the Order Paper as soon as possible, and to provide time for its discussion? Surely the Leader of the House knows that?

§ Sir D. Robertson
While I am perfectly certain that there is no desire on the part of the Government to get the matter off the Order Paper, as suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), is it not a fact that only the people can elect a Member of Parliament and that only the people can reject him? Is it not apparent from the wording of this Motion that the constituency chairman of the noble Lord has abrogated to himself the right to reject the hon. Member and to come between him and his constituency duties?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that question is premature. It is directed to the merits of the matter. What is really before the House is the question whether time could be found for discussion of the Motion.

§ Mr. Donnelly
May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I am not very clear about this matter? Is it not a fact that this Motion raises a matter where a question of Privilege is concerned, and that, in the last analysis, it should rest with the House whether time is allocated to the discussion of very important questions involving the rights of the House as a whole?

§ Mr. Bowles
In the statement of the noble Lord last Friday, he said that another hon. Member was dealing with his correspondence, and, therefore, that other hon. Member, whose name is not known to me, is also under a cloud. That makes the matter more urgent still.

§ Mr. Stokes
Is it not a fact that it has always been the custom of the House that, on matters concerning hon. Members of this House, somehow or other, time is found to debate the matter and get the Motion off the Order Paper? Surely that has been the custom.

§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton
On a point of order. Last Friday, in my statement, I did not say that an hon. Member was dealing with my correspondence, but merely that the chairman had indicated that an hon. Member would be available to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on general principles, in my experience, if there is a matter of this sort, it is dealt with as soon as practicable, and either some accommodation is 577 reached or the Motion is withdrawn. Of course, these matters are relative. All matters of business are relative, and it does not lie in my hands, thank goodness, to arrange the Business of the House.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
In these circumstances, and I appreciate the reservations which you made in your observations, Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter which happens to affect an hon. Member opposite, but which might well affect any hon. Member in any part of the House, would not the Leader of the House be good enough to give further consideration to it, so that it could be suitably ventilated, without prejudice to the conclusions of any of us at the end of the discussion?

Mr. Crooksbank
It is only a question whether there was any time in the immediate future, and what I said was that there was not. Of course, all that has been said this afternoon I will carefully consider.

§ Mr. Wigg
Is not the reply of the Leader of the House nothing less than offensive humbug?