BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 17 November 1955)

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business which it is proposed to take next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-Shank)
Yes, Sir. May I say, first, that arising out of the Motion, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair forthwith," which was passed this morning with the co-operation of both sides of the Committee in order to avoid a difficulty, it is, of course, necessary, under the procedure of the House, to reinstate the Finance Bill on the Order Paper. This Motion can be made without notice, but we do not propose to move today, which is the first day of an important debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill. Therefore, we propose to move the Motion at the beginning of business on Monday. The Ten o'clock rule will be suspended, and thereafter we will complete the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill, the 781 Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, and the Committee and remaining stages of the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords].

§ Mr. Attlee
It is obvious that the Government were caught napping on the Finance Bill. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered what an admirable chance has been offered to the Chancellor to show repentance in this matter? By mere chance, the Bill has fallen by the wayside. The Chancellor could take it away and, to quote the phrase once used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), "cut its dirty throat." The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is general dissatisfaction with the Bill throughout the House, and it would be a pity to lose the opportunity vouchsafed by Providence to make a better effort.

§ Mr. Crookshank
The Government were not caught napping at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were here know exactly what the difficulty was. It was no responsibility of the Government at that stage, and we therefore cooperated to get the House up, because it was obviously the desire of all those who were here that we should then bring the sitting to an end. We therefore adopted 782 a certain procedure, the consequences of which were well known at the time. As I say, the Motion will be moved on Monday.

§ Mr. Attlee
Do I understand from the Lord Privy Seal that he arranged for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to move that particular Motion?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I did not say anything of the sort, but the consequences of that Motion are well known, and the right hon. Gentleman might as well remember that if agreements are made we expect them to be kept.

§ Mr. Attlee
It is quite true that the consequences are well known today, but they do not appear to have been so well known last night. If they had been, the Government might have accepted the Motion to report Progress as the proper one.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not seized of the facts.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
May I ask what the Leader of the House meant by his extraordinary statement, just now, that agreements have to be kept? What agreement is he referring to? What is he charging us with? Perhaps he will give us an explanation.

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious charge against hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. He has accused us of breach of faith. He refuses to substantiate his charge, and I must ask him either to substantiate or to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Crookshank
There was a procedural Amendment on which, I understood, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed certain views.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I have expressed no views whatever, of any kind. The only thing that really disturbed the harmony of our proceedings last night was the very unfortunate intervention of the Patronage Secretary. While I am on that point, in view of the apparent desire of the Government to proceed with the 783 Finance Bill, may I ask whether the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary will, in future, keep themselves away from our proceedings?

Mr. H. Wilson
Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the only agreement that was promised last night was the agreement between the Chancellor and the Committee, made on Tuesday night, that there would be, to paraphrase the Chancellor's own words, a full debate to the heart's content of all hon. Members on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," on all those questions which had not been debated because of our willingness to set them aside the previous evening?

§ Mr. Crookshank
All that was discussed last night.

§ Mrs. Braddock
Is the Leader of the House aware that that promise was made by the Chancellor in relation to a matter that I raised, and that, had not my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) accepted it—I think wrongly, because I would not have trusted the Chancellor at all—or if the promise had been kept, there would have been no difficulty, and the Government would not have got themselves into the mess in which they find themselves at the moment?

§ Mr. Crookshank
The hon. Lady need not worry. The Government are not in a mess at all.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. These exchanges do not seem to me to have a bearing on the business for next week, which we are discussing, but refer to the business of this morning. I should have thought that hon. Members would have had enough of that by this time.

§ Mr. Hale
Has the Leader of the House considered the legal position arising out of last night's decision? Is he satisfied that the Orders that have been made and the Resolutions passed under the Budget initiated by his right hon. Friend now stand, in view of the unanimous acceptance by the House of a decision which takes the Finance Bill off the Order Paper and leaves it in a state of suspense, from which it can only be revived if the House rejects the unanimous decision to which it came last night on 784 the advice of the Chancellor? In these circumstances, can he reassure traders in the meantime, because the absence of the Finance Bill from the Order Paper is an unprecedented event? Will he also bear in mind that, in courtesy to the House, he should make some alternative arrangements for next week's business, in case the Motion to be moved on Monday is not carried and the House adheres to its decision?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I can answer the hon. Gentleman straight away. It makes no difference whatever to the legal position.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
On a point of order. As I understand, there is no Finance Bill, and, therefore, in announcing the business for next week as including the Finance Bill, is not the right hon. Gentleman anticipating the decision of the House that we are going to put it back? Is not that completely out of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that on Monday he would move a Motion to restore the Finance Bill to the Order Paper, and I presume that the subsequent arrangements about the Finance Bill were conditional on that Motion being accepted. That is quite in order.

§ Mr. Pannell
Further to that point of order, Sir. Does not that infringe the rule about anticipation?

§ Mr. Speaker
No. The rule about anticipation applies to debate, and debate at Question Time is out of order, so there could be no infringement of the rule.

§ Mr. Collins
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he recalls that last week, after considerable discussion with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he promised a second day for the consideration of the Housing Subsidies Bill? Is he further aware that, in the opinion of many of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, this is one of the most important and far-reaching proposals of Her Majesty's Government? That being so, does he not regard it as a complete breach of the promise made to the House that we should consider this Bill only after seven o'clock on Monday night? In view of the importance of the subject, will he not reconsider the matter, and adhere to the original promise to give another day to discussion of this very vital problem?

§ Mr. Crookshank
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. We are taking the Second Reading on Monday. I never said anything about after seven o'clock at all. I merely said that it would be, not after the Finance Bill, but after we had disposed of this procedural Motion.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
May I ask the Leader of the House, on business, a question relating to another matter on which the House expressed a unanimous opinion this week? He will remember that the House unanimously gave me leave to introduce a Bill dealing with the proposed abolition of the death penalty, and that since then there has appeared upon the Order Paper a Motion, signed by 166 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, expressing the desire of the House for a day for the discussion of a Motion for the Second Reading of that Measure? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that? If so, can he tell us whether the Government will provide time for it? He will remember that in 1948 that precise course was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on the same matter in connection with the Criminal Justice Bill.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I make it my business to look at all the Motions on the Order Paper, and, naturally, I noted that one, but there is no question of the Government giving time for a debate on a Bill which, after all, is only at the stage of having received leave to be introduced, and which, moreover, is a Private Member's Bill. I have to consider the rights of other private Members who have Bills as well.

§ Mr. Silverman
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the course I am suggesting has a quite recent precedent, that the House gave leave to introduce a Bill and the Government subsequently not merely provided time to debate it, though it was a Private Member's Bill, but adopted it. This is a case in which the House has been completely unanimous. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was completely unanimous. I do not know whether anyone has had second 786 thoughts since then, but on Tuesday the House was completely unanimous. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that the extent of the demand in the House is yet sufficient, would he, for the information of those hon. Members who have not yet signed the Motion, tell the House exactly what number of hon. Members of the House signing the Motion would induce him to give effect to democracy in Parliamentary representation in this House?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I could not possibly give a reply to a question about numbers, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who has twice repeated that the House was completely unanimous, that he omitted to say what the House was unanimous about. What the House was unanimous about was giving him leave to introduce the Bill. It had nothing to do with the merits of the Bill at all.

§ Mr. Benn
Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that, when the House gave a First Reading to my hon. Friend's Bill on Tuesday, without any of his hon. and right hon. Friends indicating any dissent—Mr. Speaker will correct me if I am wrong—when the records of the House show that the House gave a First Reading to a Bill for the abolition of the death penalty, it is in accordance with the dignity of the Government and the House that he should have allowed it to receive a First Reading without dissent and then suggest that it is no concern of his, as Leader of the House, to provide an opportunity for the Bill to proceed further?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
In view of the large number of hon. Members who may wish to speak on the Housing Subsidies Bill on Monday, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the same amount of time will be added on to the time allotted to that Bill after 10 o'clock as is occupied by the discussion on the procedural Motion before 10 o'clock?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I think we had better see how we get along.

§ Mr. Attlee
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to depart from a promise given to the House, that there would be a full debate on that Bill, which would not be so if it comes on late. Is 787 there any reason why the procedural Motion could not be taken after the Housing Subsidies Bill?

§ Mr. Crookshank
There is no particular reason why this procedural Motion should take very long, because, after all, it arises out of something which was decided with the co-operation of both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It certainly was, in order to deal with a situation which was not of our making, nor, if I may say so, the making of the Opposition. It was to meet that situation, and, therefore, there is no particular reason why this should take very long. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to consider a proposal of that kind we will, of course, consider anything, but there is something to be said for continuing with the Money Resolution immediately after the Second Reading, without a break.

§ Mr. Attlee
The right hon. Gentleman knowns from his long experience in the House that procedural Motions of this kind often do take a very long time. It is only fair that this very important Bill should be taken at a proper time of day.

§ Mr. Crookshank
One cannot possibly forecast how long anything will take in this House, but one anticipates that the House will act reasonably. I think that that is a fair anticipation, and, of course, we want to get on with the Housing Subsidies Bill, the importance of which we recognise, just as much as right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
There were exchanges last week about the Housing Subsidies Bill, and we were obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us two days, but it surely is a matter of honour that the promised two days should be given. After all, is it reasonable of the right hon. Gentleman to take the view, when he puts down this procedural Motion, and thereby holds over our heads, so to speak, that we have to let it go through formally, whereas it is a matter which is debatable? I put it to him that he has an obligation to give us two days on the Housing Subsidies Bill.
Secondly, I put it to him that the difficulty the Government are in has arisen directly out of the proceedings during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Therefore, would it not be preferable and more logical if we took the procedural Motion at the beginning of the proposed 788 resumed Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Tuesday rather than mix it up with the Housing Subsidies Bill on Monday?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I do not think that that would do. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need worry that I shall fall down on my obligations to the House.

Mr. Dailies
Does not the Leader of the House think his proposals for Monday are an outrage in view of his intentions that the House shall go into Recess for four weeks at Christmas?

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
On a different point, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, as it is now clear that none of the successive Finance Bills of this year, in so far as they exist, provides any opportunity for discussing general taxation questions, he has fixed a day for the discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, which reported more than six months ago, having sat for four years, and having produced a very voluminous Report? Is it not discourteous to the Royal Commission not to provide an early day for discussion of its Report?

§ Mr. Crookshank
There is no likelihood of a place for such a debate next week.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
May I press the Leader of the House on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison)? I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the immediate occasion for the Motion which was moved early this morning was not directly, but only indirectly, due to the Government's behaviour, but I suggest to him that it would be far more appropriate to take the procedural Motion on Tuesday. I cannot see any difficulty about that. It would enable the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) to have the necessary assurance that he would be able to speak in the debate on the Housing Subsidies Bill, and it would be for the satisfaction of the House generally, which it is supposed to be the duty of the right hon Gentleman to consider.

§ Mr. Donnelly
May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the technical situation in relation to the Finance 789 Bill now, it is possible for us to discuss it on the radio, because it does not exist? Can he give us an assurance that we shall soon have a debate on the 14-day rule?

§ Mr. Crookshank
On that matter, certain conversations have taken place and I hope it may be possible to fix a day in the week after next for a debate, which will be on a Motion.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
While the right hon. Gentleman affirmed his obligations to the House, which we are most anxious that he shall fulfil, what he has not answered is the question which I put to him, and which was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), namely, that as this difficulty has arisen out of the consideration of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, is it not fairer to the House and more logical that it should be picked up before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Tuesday rather than that we should run the risk of using up time which would have been devoted to the Housing Subsidies Bill, a Measure of very great importance?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I do not really think so. I think it is as well to take it as soon as possible. Probably the right thing would be to do it now, but as the beginning of the Second Reading of the Housing Subsidies Bill today is so much awaited in the country I thought we would leave it over until Monday.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
In view of the situation in which the Government have got themselves, is there any truth in the rumour that they intend to accept the resignation of the Patronage Secretary?

§ Mr. Attlee
Can the Leader of the House say whether the Government will afford time for, or arrange, a debate on the Near Eastern situation?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I take it the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Middle East. I note his request. As he knows, the Foreign Secretary has only just returned and has to go abroad again next week, but I will have consultations with him about the subject.

§ Mr. Attlee
The right hon. Gentleman surely realises that there is a rather serious position there, and we think the House ought to debate it soon.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order. Earlier in today's proceedings the Chancellor made a threat. He said that the Government now proposed to govern. Is today's performance a sample of how the Government intend to proceed?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. We must now proceed with the other business.