BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 6 May 1954)

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal 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, 10TH MAY—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on the National Health Services, England and Wales, and Scotland.
Motion to approve: Ships' Stores (Charges) (Amendment No. 2) Order.
582 TUESDAY, 11TH MAY—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a Time-table Motion for the Television Bill. The Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow (Friday).
WEDNESDAY, 12H MAY—Second Reading: Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill until 7 o'clock.
Committee stage: Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY, 13m MAY—A debate on Members' Expenses has been arranged as the result of the request made last week by the Leader of the Opposition. It will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment.
FRIDAY, 14TH MAY—Private Members' Motions.
I have also to inform the House that the Government will shortly be submitting a Bill to indemnify the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) from the consequences of his having accepted an appointment which, I am advised, constitutes an office of profit under the Crown.
The hon. Gentleman was invited to accept, and accepted, the appointment of Chairman of the London Agency of the Dried Fruits Control Board, which is constituted under an Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. Directly he became aware that such an appointment might be an office of profit, he asked to be suspended from that office and took counsel's opinion on his position. I am advised that, in view of the duties and functions of the Board, it is an office of profit, and, consequently, the Government now propose to introduce before the end of the week a short Bill to indemnify the hon. Gentleman from any penal consequences he may have inadvertently incurred and to remove any disqualification for membership of the House that may have come through his tenure of the office in question. In view of this advice, the hon. Member has also informed the Board that he is unable to act as a member of its London Agency.
The House will recall that in 1941 the Arthur Jenkins Indemnity Act was passed in somewhat similar circumstances.

§ Mr. Attlee
With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, 583 we all know how extremely tricky this matter is. I understand that it is being examined. It is quite possible inadvertently to accept an office of profit to one's own great loss. In view of the precedents, we shall certainly offer no objection to the Bill.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Attlee
On Thursday's business, may we take it that the object of the debate is that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be able to express their opinion freely, and that the Government will then consider the views expressed and come to a decision but that no Government decision will be announced during the debate? I understand that it is a preliminary debate in order to "collect the voices." Is that right?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I do not think that it necessarily follows. We shall have to see how the debate goes. It is, of course, exploratory, and, certainly, every hon. Member can say what he likes — within the rules of order.

§ Mr. Attlee
Yes, but I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to consider the views expressed by hon. Members and not come to the House with a decision which the Government are going to announce no matter what hon. Members say, it being, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, very much a House of Commons' responsibility.
With regard to the Time-table Motion for the Television Bill, surely this is a quite outrageous action. Look at the facts. The Government are having the very greatest difficulty in getting a majority of even three. Now the Government apparently want to adopt the drastic measure of dragging reluctant hon. Members along to vote for a Bill which they do not want. It is an outrage. There is no precedent for doing this on a Bill which is obviously becoming, as we saw yesterday in Division after Division, increasingly unpopular.

§ Mr. Crookshank
The considerations which the right hon. Gentleman so kindly puts before me would, I imagine, apply in either case, whether there was a Time-table Motion or not. However, we have spent two days on the Bill—15½ hours — and we are still nowhere near the end of Clause 1.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the circumstances which I will now put before him? First, this is a Bill which, by its nature, has no electoral mandate whatever. Having regard to the critical non-party opinion about it outside, this is the last sort of Bill that should be guillotined.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our conduct as an Opposition on the Bill has been so moderate that not once have the Government moved the Closure? They have not moved it, I imagine, because they knew that the Chair, in its impartiality, would not have accepted the Closure because our debates had not been long enough.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, having regard to the feeling in all parts of the House, including a fair amount of feeling on the benches opposite. the right thing to do about the Bill, upon which the Government nearly came to defeat last night, surely is to drop it? I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if he drops the Bill I will not push him around too hard.
I submit that there is no justification on the merits so far for employing the Guillotine and that the Bill, by its very nature, is the kind of Bill to which the Guillotine should not be applied merely in the interests of hon. Members who are associated with advertising agencies.

§ Mr. Crookshank
Attractive though the offer is of not being pushed about by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he has not anticipated the debate to the extent of precluding his making similar remarks on Tuesday. He had better leave it to my right hon. Friends and myself to test the feeling on our own side of the House.

§ Mr. H. Hynd
Reverting to the Macpherson Indemnity Bill, why is it that an hon. Member cannot accept a post such as that of Chairman of the London Agency of the Dried Fruits Control Board, while serving Members of Parliament can be appointed to paid public positions as that of a Recorder? It does not make sense.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am afraid that I cannot offhand try to make sense of all the disqualifications which may apply to hon. Members, but in this case, I am advised that there has 585 been a transgression, and that is why I hope that the House will unanimously pass the Bill as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Morrison
Presumably the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) will not be able to take part in the proceedings of the House until the Indemnity Bill is passed. Is that so?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I can assure the House that as soon as this situation emerged the hon. Member ceased attending the House.

§ Mr. Attlee
In view of the size of the Government's majority, would it not be well to postpone the Television Bill for a bit?

§ Mr. Crookshank
It might be a better reason for hurrying on the Indemnity Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall
Is the right hon. Gentleman now able to say when the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill will be before the House and whether it will need a Time-table Motion?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I did not say any-thing about it for next week.

§ Mr. Hobson
In view of the importance of the rights of Private Members on Adjournment debates, can the right hon. Gentleman find time for discussion of the Motion on the subject standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) and other hon. Members?

§ Mr. Crookshank
No, Sir, I do not think that I could find Government time for that Motion.