HC Deb 27 July 1955 vol 544 cc1184-98

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th October.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

Having regard to the Standing Order about calling the House together, if necessary, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we may take it that if the need should arise and, in the public interest, in some unexpected event or emergency, the Government will avail themselves of this Standing Order to recall the House?

Mr. Crookshank

Yes, Sir, of course. It is in a Standing Order, and therefore it does not have to appear in the Motion moved at this time of the year. The right hon. Gentleman has my full assurance that if there were any such necessity we would approach Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Morrison

In those circumstances, having consulted my colleagues who sit with me on this Bench, I say that we recommend our hon. Friends not to challenge a Division on this Motion.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

I have often admired the ingenuity of the Leader of the House, but I must confess that on this occasion I did not admire his somewhat negative attitude. This is a very important Motion to present to the House. We are being asked to adjourn for a period of three months. In my recollection and, I think, in the recollection of many hon. Members, this is somewhat unusual. We have adjourned for nine or ten weeks but I cannot recollect a period of three months, at any rate since the War. Perhaps the Leader of the House, if he deigns to reply, will correct me if I am wrong.

I must say, with the very greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition, that merely to ask for the application of the usual formula that the Government should recall the House in the event of an emergency is hardly enough. I do not believe that it is desirable that this Motion should go by default, and I venture to give my reasons for that belief. There are two matters that ought to be mentioned. One is that if one cares to oppose a Motion of this kind one may be accused of seeking publicity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is precisely what I expected—but what is one publicity-monger among so many? [Interruption.] I am delighted to find that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has now associated himself with me. That is what might be regarded as a true affinity.

I suggest, however, that this proposal to adjourn for a period of three months ought to be treated with the seriousness which it deserves. After all, we are always exhorting the workers outside to work harder. In the course of a debate on the coal situation the other week—the merits of which debate I will not discuss, as I have no desire to infringe the rules of the House—hon. Members opposite, if not directly, at any rate by implication, exhorted the miners to work harder. Indeed, it is a commonplace nowadays when there is talk of economic difficulty and the like to assume that all that is required is that those outside this House should pull their full weight and everything would be lovely in the garden. In those circumstances, it appears to me to be invidious—to put it very mildly—that we should ask those outside to work harder and then ourselves adjourn for three months.

A point that might be urged against me—it is always wise to anticipate the arguments that may be used subsequently —is that previously, under a Labour Administration and under other Administrations, we adjourned for a period of nine or ten weeks. I have always regarded that as too long. If one is presented with circumstances over which one has no control, it is essential to acquiesce, but I say in all gravity that even nine or ten weeks is far too long a Recess if we are to set an example to the people.

I make the humble submission to hon. Members that two months is adequate, and perhaps I may give my reasons, as otherwise that might seem to be an arbitrary figure. I believe that hon. Members need a holiday. Obviously, the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are very much in need of a rest. They have been assailed very hotly in recent weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"] If the hon. Members on the back benches opposite do not recognise it, their right hon. Friends certainly do. I presume that one of the reasons for the long adjournment is that they require more holiday. Some of us would be only too willing to concede an even longer holiday to the Government as a whole, but that is not the proposition before us. [Interruption.] It is quite obvious that, although the hon. Member opposite who is speaking up—I think it is the hon. Member for Louth, is it not?

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Yes.

Mr. Shinwell

Why, I do not know—although the hon. Member looks very healthy, that cannot be said of every hon. Member on the other side. I have no doubt that the Government need a holiday, but one month would be sufficient for that. We are told that we cannot afford more than one month's holiday. We are told by the Chancellor not to promote further inflation. Therefore, having regard to the expenditure entailed, one month's holiday would be ample.

What about the other month—the other four weeks of the eight? Hon. Members go to their constituencies. They avail themselves of the opportunity in order to undertake the work of their constituencies which, on other occasions, they are unable to do. That is my reply to those who would suggest that because we have had a two and a half months' holiday on previous occasions there is no reason why we should not extend it by another ten or fourteen days.

May I now venture to touch upon the merits of questions which, I think, ought to come before the House from time to time and should certainly be under review in the next few months? I would suggest certain questions which I think are important. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had a long and very necessary debate on the economic situation. Although he endeavoured to put up what he thought was an adequate defence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to admit that the situation, while not to be regarded in the nature of a great crisis, might contain very serious consequences for the country. Surely that is a matter which calls for consideration by the House in the course of the next few months. There may be no guarantee given by the Government that the inflationary situation and its consequences will not drive the country into serious difficulty.

What is the position of hon. Members in those circumstances? We can address letters to Ministers of the Crown; we can telephone them; we can approach them personally to ascertain their views, but there is no platform—no proper platform—upon which hon. Members on either side of the House holding strong views about the economic situation and its development can express themselves during those three months. So far as the economic position is concerned, I believe that there is a case for a shorter adjournment.

What about foreign affairs? There is to be a debate today, and I do not want to hold it up—I have no doubt that hon. Members have a great deal to say. Presumably, the Prime Minister may wish to make a statement. That I do not know—we are not fully informed of the Government's intention—but, arising from what occurred at Geneva, surely we may expect some consequences in the course of the next two or three months—about which, if this Motion is carried, hon. Members will not be permitted to express a single opinion here. We know that the matters considered by the representatives of the various nations at Geneva have been referred to the Foreign Ministers, but a situation may develop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, they are going to have it, and if they want to begin their holiday now they have my consent. They can leave now if they wish.

I repeat that on this matter of foreign affairs the situation may develop in such a fashion as to justify—I put it no higher than that—this House dealing with it but, if this Motion is accepted, all we are entitled to in such circumstances is the usual formula that if, in the opinion of the Government, it is thought necessary, the House can be recalled from time to time. That is not enough.

What about the question of National Service? I know that we cannot discuss the merits of that subject now, but I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal to this matter. First, may I have his attention? He has not started his holiday yet, has he? I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to turn his face in my direction. I am only asking him to look intelligent and to appear to be awake and alive to the situation. I would direct his attention to the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by over fifty hon. Members, calling for a reduction of compulsory National Service. I have not appended my signature to it. I never do sign. There is also an Amendment signed by a score of hon. Members. This is a matter of high and acute controversy, and, judging by the letters we all receive from time to time—even hon. Members opposite, although they do their best to conceal them—it is obvious that there is controversy in the country on this important and vital topic of National Service and how long it should continue. Nothing will be done in the next three months if the Government get this Motion. I think it quite wrong.

I want to mention another matter which arose recently and which caused considerable controversy and aroused emotions, and that is the subject of the death penalty. Here I am on firm ground, because I know that hon. Members opposite are in accord with hon. Members on this side of the House in seeking either the abolition of the death penalty or its modification. For the next three months we have no redress at all. Nothing can be done.

Apart from these issues, which I regard as important, let me put the final issue, which is this. We must exercise the greatest care to ensure that this House of Parliament, and, in particular, the House of Commons with which we are primarily concerned, is not brought into disrepute. One means of bringing the House of Commons into disrepute and reflecting on the integrity of hon. Members is to take a holiday much in excess of the requirements, and, in my judgment, a holiday at the expense of much needed discussion, if not legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman may feel that one of the reasons for a long adjournment is that the Government have nothing to bring before the House. I listened with great attention to his recital of the items that are to come before us in the first week after the Recess, and it seemed to me that it contained a vast number of miscellaneous items which call for prolonged debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and others have indicated how necessary it is in the interests of Scottish education that they should not be fobbed off with a half-day's debate. Why could we not return the week previous in order to have a full debate?

Are the Government so barren of ideas, so lacking in political fertility—I am speaking politically—and the necessary ingenuity that they cannot promote discussion or legislation? Is this the sort of thing that is to happen in the next three or four years? Is the House of Commons to be completely barren? Surely that will not help Parliamentary institutions of this kind.

I do not know whether some hon. Members opposite regard this as a matter for amusement. Let them tell their constituents so if they like. I say in all seriousness that these very important and vital topics to which I have referred ought to receive, I do not say the daily consideration of this House, but the frequent consideration of hon. Members, and it seems to me that three months is far too long. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman, even at this eleventh hour, to consider a shorter Recess.

I must say that if I am asked in my constituency why we are having a three months' holiday, although usually I am not lacking in finding an answer, I should find myself in a very difficult situation. I do not know what hon. Members will say to their constituents if they are asked that question. What is to be the answer? Do they need a holiday of three months? Surely not. I challenge hon. Members opposite, particularly those who have just come into the House, to say, if asked that question by their constituents, that a holiday of three months is essential. What answer will they give? Will they refer to what has happened in the past few weeks? If so, they will be told by their constituents, and quite rightly, that if the workers and others outside this House are rarely granted a holiday of more than two or three weeks, or in the case of a privileged person four weeks, there can be no case for Members of Parliament having a holiday of three months' duration. In those circumstances, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter.

If I am asked whether I am going to vote against the Motion—and it may very well be asked by the Lord Privy Seal; I know him only too well, for we have been in the House together for a long time, and I know his adaptability in these circumstances—I tell him at once, quite honestly, that I am not. If he wants the reason I will tell him. The reason is that I have the common sense to know that if the matter has been considered by my Front Bench and, in their opinion, it is unwise to challenge the Motion by going into the Lobby, I should not vote against the Government, but I think it would have been a mistake to allow this Adjournment Motion to go by default without any protest.

Although I have not the least doubt that asking to have a shorter Recess than three months will not enhance my popularity, that is of little concern so long as, at any rate, some Members on this side of the House, if not on the other side, make their protest.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) with attention if not altogether with interest. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he will find some difficulty in explaining to his constituents the fact that he has a three months' holiday. I can imagine that that may well be so, if he does take a three months' holiday. Some of us on this side of the House may not find it quite so difficult, because many of us on these benches and, I have no doubt, on the other side as well, use that three months' interval to get back to some of our professional and business activities so that we can make a constructive contribution to the productive effort of the country. Furthermore, it does not do any harm to get back into contact with our professional and trading interests so that we can see the effect of the legislation that has been passed in this House.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if we came back earlier we might have more time and more legislation. He seems to desire more legislation. It seems to me that over the last few years, since 1945 at any rate, the country has suffered not from too little legislation but from far too much. It does us all a lot of good if we are able to get away for a period and get down to some constructive thought, instead of being constantly bedevilled by the activities of the House, to which we can return refreshed and perhaps with new ideas, on both sides of the House, which may be to the benefit of the country.

I do not know the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention unless it be to take up a good deal of time, but let me assure him that it would be wrong for the country to get the impression that hon. Members leave this House for a three months' holiday. They do not.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daises (East Ham, North)

There is much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said with which I am in complete agreement, though I must say that I made a mental reservation that if he objected to long Recesses when he was a Minister, then his thoughts must certainly have been expressed in silent prayer and not vocally.

There is no great difference between Labour and Conservative Governments on this issue. It is in the nature of Governments, after they have been under pressure from the House, to want to send us packing and to breathe the air quite freely. I think that a quite natural thing, and I have not the slightest doubt that the Lord President will find, when he goes through the precedents, that there is possibly only a week or two difference between this Recess and those which we have had in the past.

But what we have to consider this afternoon is not the question of past precedents, but what is the situation which faces us today, and it is from that point of view that I propose to approach this problem. I would also say to some of my hon. Friends that if the sole criterion of Opposition has always to be what we did when we were the Government, then we shall not get very far without spiking our own guns. [Laughter.] There is nothing very funny about that. I do not see any reason why we should allow our past to inhibit us so that we cannot evaluate the situation with which we are actually faced.

I say quite seriously to the Government that quite a lot of very vital and serious questions were put yesterday to which no answer was given and which the country wants answered. I notice that Mr. Speaker's face does not exactly register pleasure at this state of affairs this afternoon, so I must be extremely guarded, but, without going into the merits of yesterday's debate, I think that there are many loose ends which this House should still debate. There are great administrative problems. How does it come about that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation can announce a large programme, the Minister of Education can make a public statement which also involves a great expenditure of public money, the Minister of Health can do the same, and then bang, right in the middle of it all, we can have the Chancellor's statement of yesterday which may have torpedoed the lot?

Are we to go away for three months and ignore all these problems? Are these not questions upon which the public demands information, or are we to have from the Government a series of Ministerial broadcasts which are not party broadcasts? I do not know whether the House realises that by this weekend we shall have had six non-party broadcasts to the country by the Prime Minister since the General Election. Is that to be the role of Government or are we to have answerability to the House? Are we to adopt the Roosevelt system or the system which is applied behind the Iron Curtain where the chief figure of Government is above question and is, therefore, not answerable to a Parliament?

These are great questions which the House should face. I would say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that I cannot go out and follow a profession, get acquainted with business circles and come back financially refreshed as can some hon. Members. That goes for most of my colleagues on this side of the House. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that we are here and prepared to work and make our democracy flourish. It is not only a question of unfinished Bills. There is a lot of work which wants doing upstairs in Committee and which cannot afford to wait if the welfare of the country is really the paramount interest of Members.

I strongly object, as I did when I supported the Government, to a three months' holiday. It is far too long. I would make one constructive suggestion. If hon. Members are not wanted in the House for three months, why not send some of them to look at the mines which we so often discuss? Why not let them see the opencast system of mining and the railways at work? [HON. MEMBERS: "You do."] We do not, because we cannot afford to do so. That is the simple fact. We need a revolution in the sense of taking us away from a paper and ivory-tower type of existence in order to do practical work. I object to the waste of the time of so many of us who are prepared to give service to the country and who are prevented from so doing because of an effete and out-of-date system of controlling this House, a system which reflects the conditions of a hundred years ago and which has no reference at all to 1955.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I understand that many hon. Members are here for the foreign affairs debate, so I can quite understand their impatience at this debate continuing. But the remedy is in the hands of the Government. All that the Leader of the House need do is to rise in his place and announce that there will be a holiday of two months instead of three, when the way will immediately be open for the historic debate on foreign affairs.

It is not our fault that this debate is taking place. It is entirely due to the mismanagement of the business of the House by the Leader of the House and the feeling of many hon. Members on this side that the Government would prefer to have the country run without Parliament sitting at all. The Government do not like to be questioned day after day on matters affecting the interests of the country, because they have no adequate answer to the questions put to them. Therefore, it is much easier for them to become modern Cromwells, to take away their bauble and to close the place for three months than to have the House meeting and discussing international and domestic affairs.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has done a very great service to the House and to the country by focussing attention on the fact that a very large number of hon. Members do not want a prolonged holiday. They believe that after two months' absence they will be refreshed, healthy, intellectually alert and able once again to devote attention to the pressing matters that affect the country.

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) talked about the following of occupations during the Recess. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman contemplates going into the mines during the Recess, but, after all, two or three months would not be long enough for that. Most of us represent the interests of people who, quite honestly, do not begrudge Members of Parliament a decent holiday, but when they see us getting a holiday of three months they think that we, as legislators, have too good a time. Of course, this habit of having a three months' holiday is dictated by the fact that hon. Members opposite used to migrate to Scotland from 12th August onwards. They will probably migrate there during this Recess, when they will no doubt find the answer to the question why common land does not exist in Scotland.

The Leader of the House will, I hope, have an opportunity during the Recess of carrying on his researches, when he may well discover that the reason there is no common land in Scotland is that his predecessors on the benches opposite "pinched" it a very long time ago. That was the answer which I tried to get from the Prime Minister yesterday, but neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House understood my question.

I suggest that the grouse-shooting season does not last from 12th August to 1st November. Hon. Members on this side of the House could finish their grouse shooting within 24 hours of its commencement. There is no excuse at all for carrying on grouse shooting for so many weeks. I speak on behalf of the grouse of Scotland as well as on behalf of the grousers of Scotland.

A long summer vacation originated in the past when times and habits were different, when social conventions were different and problems were different. I appeal to the Leader of the House to let the foreign affairs debate proceed immediately by announcing, magnanimously and generously, that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will leave Scotland at the end of September and come back to Westminster to do some honest work.

4.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I am not impressed by the arguments which have so far been advanced from the Government benches in favour of the Motion. Such as they were, they have been more than effectively demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines).

We are adjourning for a longer period than three months—no fewer than 88 days. I think we ought to talk about 88 days rather than three months so that the public may understand what a liberty we are taking on this occasion. It is a liberty we are taking in allocating to ourselves such a lengthy period of absence from our duties here in Westminster. In a few days' time we shall discover the position of our gold and dollar reserves. I am afraid that that will reveal a very unpleasant state of affairs. Could we not at least carry on deliberations in the House until those figures become available? I think they will indicate an even more serious state of affairs than was disclosed in the course of the debate yesterday.

What is to happen as a result of our disappearance from Westminster for 88 days? In effect, we shall be handing over the economic destinies of this country to the bank managers of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Wales."] and Wales. Instead of the elected Members of the House exercising some control over the economic destinies of the country, in effect that control will be exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the cohorts of bank managers throughout the country. That is a dereliction of duty on our part. Many other maters require much earlier consideration than can be given them if we go away until 25th October.

For all these reasons, I hope that when the Leader of the House replies he will be able to afford us a little satisfaction. If rumour be correct, this will be the last occasion on which he appears before us as Leader of the House if various changes contemplated during the Recess take place. Let us at least ensure that his swan-song will take the form of a concession to the democratic principles we have been trying to advocate during the last few minutes.

4.14 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Perhaps the House is getting ready to pass to the more important business to follow discussion of this Motion, but I must say a word or two in reply to the speeches which have been made upon it.

The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that anyone who took part in this debate was likely to be accused of seeking publicity. I take it that that applies to other hon. Members who have spoken, but I can assure the right hon. Member that I do not need to seek publicity in that way in this House. I have plenty of other opportunities of speaking should I feel moved. He went on to say that at the end of the discussion he would not vote against the Motion. In fact, he would have the best of both worlds, publicity on one side and restraining himself from the unpopularity—indeed, from disobedience to his Front Bench—involved in carrying the matter to a vote.

I rather wondered, when I heard the right hon. Member, whether the deputy Leader of the Opposition was now glad or sorry that the right hon. Member for Easington was no longer a member of the Opposition's Shadow Cabinet. It was clear from the observations of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that it was intended to let this Motion go without anything being said upon it, as was the case in 1951, the last time that a Motion of this kind was moved by the Labour Government. On that occasion it was not a Motion to rise for a two months' Recess, which the right hon. Member for Easington thinks adequate, but for a Recess only a fortnight short of what we are now proposing. The right hon. Member was a member of the Cabinet and can reflect on his own inconsistencies.

There is only one point I think I need deal with in the speech of the right hon. Member. He has dealt with a number of topics which we might debate if we did not rise. Of course, anyone can think of innumerable subjects which it might or might not be useful to discuss, but the chief point was the personal difficulty in which the right hon. Member will find himself. He said that it was common in this House to urge upon the nation as a whole the need for more productivity and harder work. What was to be said if he and the rest of us left the Palace of Westminster for a period approaching three months? The inference was that the work of a Member of Parliament is done only by sitting in this Chamber. That, of course, is not the fact.

The right hon. Member wondered what answer he was to give his constituents if they asked him why he was in his constituency. One answer he could give is that they have elected him and that it is his duty from time to time to visit them. I cannot put it better, if the right hon. Member wants the real answer to his constituents, than in the words used by the deputy Leader of the Oppositon when dealing with a somewhat similar debate. I will read out the words and the right hon. Member, if he likes, may write them down and have the answer ready for any constituent who approaches him. This is what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South said and it is a classic statement of the case: Members need to renew contact with their constituents to lead them in the path of light and learning,"— I am not quite sure whether "they" means constituents or Members— and that refreshing renewal of intimacy will be all to the good. That is all right. The right hon. Member for Easington can also tell his constituents this on the authority of the deputy Leader of the Opposition: Members of Parliament need time for reading. We should all have time to read the right hon. Member's book and also the classic on Parliament written by his right hon. Friend. It is true that hon. Members need time for reading and the right hon. Member can tell his constituents that. The deputy Leader of the Opposition also said: They will need to read during the Recess to improve their minds. I am sure that all the constituents of the right hon. Member will appreciate that and that he has to go off and improve his mind. The last hope which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South expressed was: I hope, also, that all Members will busy themselves in the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2476.]

Mr. Shinwell

Two months is enough for that.

Mr. Crookshank

The right hon. Member has now got his marching orders and he knows what to tell his constituents when they object to seeing him. If they object so much, he can remind them that some day—not just yet, but some day—there will be another Election and they can get rid of him altogether.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th October.