HC Deb 12 November 1953 vol 520 cc1143-7
Mr. H. Morrison

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the defeat of Her Majesty's Government last night on a Motion moved by a Government supporter, as neither he nor the Leader of the House were present, whether he will now be good enough to make a statement on the Government's intentions, having regard to this serious occurrence?

The Prime Minister

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given some indication that he intended to raise this matter today. I will certainly do what is required of me in the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I think we shall all agree that it seems to have been rather a sharp piece of work, although I must admit that there are precedents for this sort of thing in former Parliaments. I understand that the Opposition Whips were not officially involved but that 13 Members of what I may, perhaps, call the Bevanite faction, emerged suddenly from cellars and other hiding places and so were able to play a noticeable part in Parliamentary business. We know that they are in favour of the maintenance of controls, but perhaps they are not aware that they have committed their party to making it an offence for manufacturers to sell on the home market such things as glassware, pianos and organs, except under special licences of the Board of Trade.

The House will realise that the matter will require to be put right. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly make a new Order revoking these various controls, which would otherwise have to be reinstituted on the responsibility—perhaps I might almost say on the irresponsibility—of the party opposite. The new Order will be laid before the House as soon as convenient, and I hope that by then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will find himself able to reestablish sufficient discipline in his party to enable it to show proper respect for the dignity of the House and for the comfort of the general public.

Mr. Morrison

This is a string of unconstitutional irrelevances. Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the question whether or not a Government is defeated is determined by who happens to vote against it? Is he aware that this was no move on the part of any section of the Labour Party? We acted as a party and we were entitled so to do. Is he arguing that because the official Whips were not on, therefore he need not take any notice of it? Why does he go in for all this street corner stuff? May I remind the Prime Minister—indeed, I wonder that he has not rubbed it into us—that we had a similar defeat brought about by his hon. Friends and at once, that very night—I did it myself—we said that we would accept the decision of the House? The Prime Minister has not said that. He says, "I will go away and I will see that the House alters its decision," instead of accepting the decision of the House. I ask the Prime Minister to take this matter seriously and not turn it into one of his accustomed larks.

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the defeat on the snap Adjournment Division on the coal question in the late Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheese."] There was also one on coal. That is the one about which the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself in very memorable phrases—only not, I must admit, in this House. He described it as "an irresponsible bit of foolery" and "a schoolboy conspiracy." I really think that he has got one of his own back, with repercussions in a particular quarter to which I have already referred.

Sir H. Williams

rose—

Hon. Members

Egg.

Mr. J. Hudson

On a point of order. Is there any precedent for an hon. Member, having, last night, offered an affront to the House—an affront which, at the time, as you were leaving the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we realise it was difficult for you or anyone else to deal with, and the marks of which still stain the Floor of the House—being allowed, without apology, to address the House now either on an important or unimportant occasion? Is there anything that can be done to mark the opinion of the House about the affront that has been offered to the dignity of this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker

I regard the incident to which the hon. Member has referred as a very unfortunate one, and one which I hope will not occur again, but I cannot establish where the blame lies. Some responsibility rests with the hon. Member who brought the egg into the Chamber. I must again repeat what I said last year—that it is not good practice for hon. Members to bring anything into the Chamber which is not necessary for the debate. In any case, in answer to the hon. Member's point of order, the object in question cannot be considered as fresh or topical at this moment, so I think we should pass from it.

Sir H. Williams

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the latter part of his statement, in which he said that it was proposed to make the Order afresh? As I understand the situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "The egg situation."] Just a moment, I am serious. The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 provides that when an Order has been prayed against, and the Prayer is carried, everything done prior to the Prayer remains validated, and the Order then ceases to be effective with regard to the future. This particular Order did certain things in July. It revoked certain Orders. Last night's Prayer cannot revive those Orders. In accordance with well-established constitutional practice, the repeal of a repeal does not revive the original Act. Equally, last night's Prayer does not revive the Orders which were revoked last July.

The Prime Minister

I shall ask the President of the Board of Trade to deal with that technical point himself.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

In reply to my hon. Friend, we have looked carefully into this matter and have come to the conclusion that the better view is that as the original Order is revived the proper course would be to table a new Order revoking the original one.

Mr. Willey

Is the Prime Minister aware that he has been completely misinformed about this matter? Last night's vote was an all-party revulsion at the conduct of the Government. The Motion was moved by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and seconded by myself. The Motion would not have been carried but for the deliberate abstension of the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends. Is the Prime Minister now stigmatising some of his hon. Friends as Bevanite plotters?

The Prime Minister

I can certainly relieve them of such an imputation.

Mr. Snow

On a point of order. The Prime Minister stated, just now, that a new Order would be made. Constitutionally speaking, am I not right in saying that the decision of the House of Commons must be communicated to Her Majesty the Queen forthwith? May we have an assurance that that will be done?

Mr. Thorneycroft

The hon. Member is perfectly right. The ordinary process of annulment must go through, and then a new revocation Order will be tabled.

Mr. Mitchison

Is it not the gravest disrespect to the Crown that this House, being in the course of petitioning the Crown to annul an Order, is now taking steps to do the very opposite to that which it is asking should be done?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of opinion.