HC Deb 24 November 1955 vol 546 cc1654-61
Mr. H. Morrison

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

Yes, Sir. Before I read the business for next week, may I say that I hope the House will agree today, after considering the Lords Amendments to the Aliens' Employment Bill, to consider also the single Lords Amendment to the Friendly Societies Bill, which has been received since I made the business statement last Thursday, and which deals with a minor drafting point?

MONDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER, we shall resume the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER, in accordance with the exchanges made across the Floor of the House last night, it is hoped to conclude the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER, there will be an opportunity for a debate on the Broadcasting "Fortnight Rule" which will arise on a Motion to be tabled by the Government.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I gave the terms of the Motion. It reads: That this House considers that it is in the interest of Parliament and the nation to preserve the principle of some limitation to the anticipation of Parliamentary debates by broadcasting; and would welcome the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether any changes are desirable in the present methods of giving effect to this principle. After that, there will be consideration of the Motion relating to the Buxton Memorial Drinking Fountain.

THURSDAY, 1ST DECEMBER, we shall begin the Committee stage of the Housing Subsidies Bill.

FRIDAY, 2ND DECEMBER, consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. H. Morrison

We are obliged to the Leader of the House for informing the House at once of the terms of the Motion which the Government propose to submit relating to the 14-day rule. May we take it that it is proposed that there should be a free vote on it? We will do our best to facilitate the minor adjustment of business today.

Mr. Crookshank

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because the minor amendment to the Friendly Societies Bill is merely the addition of the word "the" in page 2, line 9.

I cannot make any statement about the attitude of the Opposition to the debate on the 14-day rule, but as far as the Government are concerned we propose that there should be a free vote, should it come to a vote. And when we say "a free vote" on this side of the House we do mean a free vote.

Mr. H. Morrison

It would be a pity to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the free vote and the decision reached by the House on Members' salaries, which were subsequently disregarded by the Government. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a free vote on this side of the House and that we mean it much more than the Government did in the matter of Members' salaries?

May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be good enough to consider, so that conversations may perhaps take place through the usual channels, that we would like arrangements to be made at an early date for a day's debate on the serious situation in the Middle East and also a day's debate on the position in Cyprus?

Mr. Crookshank

I will, of course, take note of the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. Davies

As the situation in the Middle East is so complicated, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be desirable, in the interests of the House and of proper debate, that the debate on the Middle East should be on one day and that on Cyprus should be on another?

Mr. Morrison

That is the idea.

Mr. Crookshank

I thought that was what the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant, and I said that I would take note of it without making any commitment at present.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Has the attention of the Leader of the House been directed to the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the need to increase the scales of National Assistance? Is he further aware that the Motion has been signed by over 120 hon. Members, and that since it was signed we have had further evidence that this matter is becoming more urgent? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before the Christmas Recess we shall have an opportunity of debating it and, in the meantime, direct the attention of the Prime Minister to it so that he may consider it as a matter of extreme urgency?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to request the National Assistance Board to make proposals substantially to increase the assistance scales as early as possible and to meet adequately the needs of all who require assistance.]

Mr. Crookshank

I had better deal only with next week at present.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect legislation enabling the British Transport Commission to retain the vehicles which it was proposed to sell? Can he assure us that this is not being held up by any difficulties he is having with his own back benchers?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not know anything about that, and I am afraid that I cannot give any date at present.

Mr. S. Silverman

May I ask the Leader of the House a question arising out of the answer which the Prime Minister gave a little while ago to Question No. 49? That Question, of course, was not one about time for debate or about business, but it anticipated the question that I might have asked the Leader of the House. What I ask him to consider is this. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has always resisted any proposed amendment of the law by reference to the state of public opinion. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no better test of public opinion than the opinion of the House of Commons, expressed on a free vote?

As that opinion has been expressed first by the leave given to the First Reading of a Bill and, secondly, by the fact that over 200 hon. Members on all sides of the House have now signed a Motion asking for an opportunity to debate the Second Reading of that Bill, will he bear those facts in mind when he considers the form in which the House is given the promised time to consider the matter further?

[That this House would welcome an opportunity to consider a Motion that the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill be read a Second time.]

Mr. Crookshank

I cannot go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, except to correct once more, as I did last week, what the hon. Gentleman said, namely, that all the House did on the occasion to which he has referred was to give permission to the hon. Member to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Alport

On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Sir, on the following point? On a number of occasions the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has stated that the fact that the House gave to his Ten-Minute Bill a First Reading indicates that the House is in favour of that Bill in principle.

Mr. Silverman

I did not say that.

Mr. Alport

As I have always understood, that First Reading merely gives permission to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out, with respect, that I have never committed myself to the proposition that even the unanimous leave of the House for a First Reading of a Bill is an expression of opinion about the principle? That, of course, arises on the Second Reading. What I have said is that the House has decided unanimously to set the legislative process going, and that, therefore, the process can be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think I need add anything to what has been said already. When the House gives leave to introduce a Bill, it is, technically, a First Reading, and the Bill is printed. However, many Bills get a First Reading without going any further.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of the statement made by the Leader of the House that the Government will consider the request of my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition for a debate on the Middle East, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, to clarify the position of the Government and his own position, particularly in respect of his Guildhall speech, he will present a White Paper to the House before the debate?

The Prime Minister

I am quite ready to send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the speech.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of the fact that I have read the speech, and of what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, and as I am still confused about his meaning, as, I think, other hon. Members are, would it not be desirable that he should acquaint the House, in a White Paper, with the general view of the Government on the position?

The Prime Minister

We will certainly have a debate on the Middle East. It is desirable that we should do so, in the first place, not only because of the situation between Israel and the Arab States, but also because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has come back from Baghdad and will no doubt wish to report to the House on the outcome of that conference. I certainly think that a debate is desirable and in that debate the Government spokesmen will put their case in the debate.

Mr. Daines

May I ask a question on the 14-day rule? Seeing that the theme in most speeches will be either, "Why I am a broadcaster" or "Why I am not a broadcaster," will the right hon. Gentleman appeal to hon. Members to limit their speeches to fifteen minutes?

Mr. N. Nicolson

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This has been the second day running when questions on Israel and the Arab States have been asked, but it has not been possible for any back bencher on this side of the House to put a question to the Prime Minister. Is it not unfortunate that our point of view should not be made public? Does the priority given to Privy Councillors apply also to Question Time, particularly when they all rise from the same side of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The priority given to Privy Councillors is a customary one and I have not felt myself able to abrogate it. I would point out, however, that one Privy Councillor rose who was not called. As regards the two points of view on the matter, they can be put in the debate which is to come, which is a better way of doing it than by doing so at Question Time, when a serious subject cannot be discussed properly.

Dame Irene Ward rose—

Mr. Hayman

On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. Does the hon. Lady desire to rise to a point of order?

Dame Irene Ward

To the last point of order, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I have ruled on that one. Does the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Hayman

Yes, Sir. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) and to your reply, may I humbly ask whether what is customary in the traditions of the House is really the rule of the House, or whether a new custom can be brought about without it being a rule of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Many of our rules are really customary and it would be, I think, beyond the wit of man to say exactly where the demarcation line should be drawn. In the past, it has been the habit of Privy Councillors to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance, particularly at Question Time. The rule that I remember, as a Privy Councillor on the floor, is that if an hon. Member asks a Question, he should as far as possible be left to hunt his own hare. It is only when matters of grave importance crop up, or if an hon. Member on one's own side of the House is getting an unreasonably tart rejoinder from a Minister, that the Privy Councillor should rush to his assistance. Otherwise, the custom of the House has been as I have said.

Mr. Elliot

May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there are three Privy Councillors sitting together on this side of the House, none of whom has intervened, and all of whom have done their best to preserve a reasonable silence in order to allow back benchers a reasonable chance of intervention?

Mr. Shinwell

Might I direct your attention, Sir, to the fact that Questions were put on the Order Paper today by a Privy Councillor, and that there is nothing to prevent right hon. Members opposite who are Privy Councillors, as well as ordinary hon. Members, from putting Questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker

That is perfectly true. A right hon. Gentleman is as much entitled as anyone else to put a Question on the Order Paper. I was making no remarks about Questions being put on the Order Paper by Privy Councillors. It was more the intervention of Privy Councillors in supplementary questions that I had in mind.

Mr. Scholefield Allen

Does the Leader of the House hope to make any progress with the Criminal Justice Administration Bill this side of the Christmas Recess? It has now been before the House for two years or more. A committee was set up, and the Bill has passed through another place. When will progress be made? It is a matter of urgency to set up the two new Crown Courts in Liverpool and Manchester.

Mr. Crookshank

The Bill has not been before this House for two years, because this Parliament is not that old. I cannot give a date—I was dealing only with next week's business—but I have very much in mind the point the hon. and learned Gentleman makes.

Dame Irene Ward

In view of the battle which has raged between Privy Councillors, might I, as an ordinary back bench Member, be allowed to put a point of order? I do not think you observed me standing, Mr. Speaker, on the previous point of order. I want to know whether Privy Councillors can always prevent a back bench Member on this side of the House from having the opportunity to support her own Prime Minister. I want to ask you whether, when only one hon. Member is standing on this side of the. House, all Privy Councillors on the other side of the House take precedence over her, one after the other?

Mr. Speaker

I think that that depends very largely on the circumstances. I thought I had called the hon. Lady to ask a supplementary question. That is my impression.

    c1661
  1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 23 words