HC Deb 10 November 1955 vol 545 cc2008-14
Mr. H. Morrison

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business which it is proposed to take next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 14TH NovEmBER—Consideration of Motions for Addresses to continue in force for a further year certain emergency legislation which is already on the Order Paper.

Second Reading of the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office and Telegraph [Money] Bill.

Afterwards there will be an opportunity to debate the Report on Post Office Development and Finance which will arise on a Motion to be tabled by the Government.

TUESDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER, and WEDNESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

FRIDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Morrison

Is it not really improper that the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill should be given only one day? It is a Bill which affects the wellbeing of millions of people—municipal tenants, local authorities, and, indirectly, people who are buying their own houses. In these circumstances, ought not we to have two days for the Second Reading?

Mr. Crookshank

The Government thought that in all the circumstances one day for the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution would be adequate, but if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends feel very strongly about the matter we shall be quite ready to meet their wishes and have a second day. I suggest, therefore, that we adjourn the Second Reading debate on Thursday and resume it upon the following Monday and then bring it to a conclusion. I hope that it will be understood that we should also finish the Committee stage of the Money Resolution without sitting unduly late.

Mr. Morrison

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like to put this to him. It is not too convenient to interrupt the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill. It is not a tidy Parliamentary procedure. As there are to be two days for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, the interruption of which really does not matter anywhere near as much as the interruption of the Second Reading of what really is a first-class Bill—[Laughter.] I am not saying that it is first-class in quality; I am saying that it is first-class in statutory importance. Hon. Members opposite know that, but I am all in favour of their trying to cheer themslves up.

In view of the importance of the Housing Subsidies Bill—perhaps that will get it right—and the lesser objection to interrupting the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—which in any case, I imagine, will not be finished next week—cannot the right hon. Gentleman postpone one day of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and give us two consecutive days for the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill? I submit that that would not be an unreasonable arrangement, and would be more in accordance with Parliamentary practice.

Mr. Crookshank

I do not know that I can accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that his suggestion is more in accordance with Parliamentary practice; what I have suggested has often been done. The right hon. Gentleman is being a little ungrateful, because I readily conceded the second day, although, in my opinion, it is not really necessary. I hope that, upon consideration, he will be prepared to accept this arangement, which has its points.

Mr. Bevan

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman one very undesirable feature of the proposed arrangement? The Finance Bill is almost certain to be carried over to the following week, as my right hon. Friend has said. It is in Committee, and, therefore, the discussion is bound to be interrupted, whereas it would be possible to allocate Wednesday and Thursday to the Housing Subsidies Bill, thereby having a continuous debate. I suggest that it would be highly undesirable if hon. Members and members of the Government did not have an immediate opportunity of replying to what was said upon the previous day, but had to wait right over the week-end. The 14-day rule is far milder than that. Points raised by hon. Members could be answered outside the House without hon. Members being able to have a chance to answer and debate them inside the House, or the Government being able to wind up the debate. That would be a most undesirable, untidy and unparliamentary affair.

Mr. Crookshank

I have often heard a speech being made from the Government Front Bench to conclude the first day of a debate.

Mr. Morrison

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether there is a real difficulty about holding over one day of discussion on the Finance Bill in Committee? I cannot imagine that there can be. It does not make any difference, because the right hon. Gentleman can substitute another day for the Committee stage of that Bill. In those circumstances, as I cannot see any material objection to it, will not he be good enough at least to consider the arrangement I have suggested, whereby we can have two consecutive days' debate upon the Housing. Subsidies Bill? I do appreciate the offer which he has made.

Mr. Crookshank

I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his views upon these matters and put them before me for consideration by the Government—but we also have to consider our handling of the business. I try to accommodate both sides of the House as well as I may, and my contribution to that today has been to give an extra day to the Opposition upon the ensuing Monday, without disturbing plans which we had already made for the week.

Mr. Morrison

I appreciate that, but I also appreciate the reasons for my right hon. Friend's interjection concerning these three days' interruption. I still do not understand why it is not preferable to postpone one of the days allocated to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the material difficulty about that?

Mr. Crookshank

If the right hon. Gentleman feels in difficulty about the three days' interval we can always go back to the original arrangement and deal with the matter in one day.

Mr. Hirst

Can my right hon. Friend allow time at a reasonably early date for a discussion of the Phillips Report? We have been promised it many times, and many of the interests involved are beginning to feel that they are being rather put on the shelf. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a discussion of the matter before Christmas?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not think that I can make any statement today upon that subject.

Mr. Grimond

In view of recent developments, has the right hon. Gentleman given any more thought to a possible debate upon the 14-day broadcast and television ban?

Mr. Crookshank

Everybody else seems to have given the subject thought and issued statements upon it, but the matter remains as I put it before, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put it. We shall be quite ready to have a debate if there is a general desire for it and it is made through the usual channels.

Mr. L. M. Lever

In view of the refreshing and forthright speech which the Prime Minister made outside the House last night, relating to the serious situation in the Middle East, will he make an early statement in the House upon the subject, and upon the question of giving arms to Israel in order to maintain a balance and save the peace in the Middle East and the world?

Mr. Crookshank

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for the tribute made to his speech by the right hon. Gentleman. As he is not very far away, I have no doubt that he has noted what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Lindgren

May I add to the appeal which my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition has made about the debate upon the Housing Subsidies Bill? From the back benchers' point of view it is much more desirable that it should be a continuous debate, and I assure the Leader of the House that my right hon. Friends were not speaking for the Opposition Front Bench only but making a request for a concession which would be much appreciated by the back benchers if it were granted, namely, two days for the debate in one week. We do appreciate the Government's allowing us a second day for the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. I should like your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has declined, in spite of efforts on the part of my right hon. Friends, to reconsider his decision, which seems to me to be quite arbitrary, and will not allow two consecutive days for the discussion of a very important matter. What redress have hon. Members? Can I move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the decision of the Leader of the House? Or are we bound to accept an arbitrary decision by the Leader of the House on a matter of this importance?

Mr. Speaker

I can be of very little assistance to the right hon. Gentleman. This is certainly not a subject on which the Adjournment of the House can be moved. The Government have always had the right to state the business for the day or the week, as the case may be. I am afraid that there is no remedy, other than the normal Parliamentary one, for the situation with which the right hon. Gentleman disagrees.

Mr. Shinwell

I do not deny that the Government have a perfect right to organise their business. [HON. MEMBERS: "We thank the right hon. Gentleman."] I am well aware of that. I have been here long enough to know that. Some hon. Members seem to have a grasp of the obvious. The point is that although it is within the prerogative of the Government to organise the business of the House, it is surely not going too far that private Members should seek to dissuade the Government from what is a wrong intention. What means have we to enable us to do so?

Mr. Speaker

No means other than the normal Parliamentary ones. In the last ten minutes I have heard a good deal of dissuasion of the Government on this very topic. Whether it will be successful or not is not for me to say.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Has not the Leader of the House responsibilities to either side of the House, Sir, and is it not his duty to consult the convenience of Members on both sides and not merely the convenience of the Government when fixing business?

Mr. Speaker

It is certainly the normal practice that these matters are arranged by consultation, but I heard one change made in response to a request by the deputy Leader of the Opposition. But I cannot intervene in this matter. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. H. Morrison

While protesting very strongly against the decision and the response of the Leader of the House, who has a responsibility to the whole House in this matter, may I put another point to him? As the Housing Subsidies Bill is substantially a financial Bill, can we take it that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Crookshank

I think we had better get through the Second Reading before making any announcements about that. I really must say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is not being quite fair in saying that I am resisting his request, because I have offered him a second day.

Mr. Gower

Would not a week-end break be an advantage? Can we not anticipate wiser speeches if hon. Members have the time to think about them?

Dr. Stross

On a point of order. May I ask for your advice, Mr. Speaker? You were asked a few moments ago what rights back benchers have to express dissatisfaction with the statement made by the Leader of the House. Would it not be fair to say that there is a very easy method available to us, in that we can vote against the Government in a few moments to express our displeasure with them when they ask us to agree to a certain Motion, as they intend to do?

Dame Irene Ward

Before you give a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you: are not private Members on this side of the House also back benchers?

Mr. Speaker

I do not feel bound to give any Ruling, because no point of order whatever has been raised.

Mr. Lewis

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's question, can the Leader of the House now say what physical objections, what reasonable objections, there are to the Government's agreeing to the legitimate request to let us have two con- secutive days for the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill by postponing one of the days for the Finance Bill? Can he tell us, in a sincere, honest and straightforward way, why the Government cannot agree to it? What is in their mind?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not know what a physical answer to a question of that sort may be.

Mr. Lewis

Can we have any sort of answer?