ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER) (Hansard, 1 August 1957)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)
I beg to move, That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 29th October. In moving this Motion, may I say that I shall be very glad to answer later any points that any hon. Member wants to raise.
The Motion is moved subject to the usual undertaking given by the Government that Standing Order No. 112 provides authority for the recall of the House by Mr. Speaker if the Government make representations to him to do so. The Government will take into account the situation or any representations made to them. I should like to make that clear. I shall, of course, be at the service of the House if hon. Members wish to raise any point with me.

§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)
I am sure that it is the desire of the House to proceed as soon as possible to the important debate on retirement pensions, to which we shall come a little later. Bearing that in mind, and also that before we reach that debate there is another Motion to be disposed of, I will be brief.
There are however, certain things which I think ought to be said before we pass this Motion. First, we are going away for what is an unusually long Recess. It is certainly a week, and perhaps a fortnight, longer than is normal, and this follows a fortnight's Recess at Whitsun.
I am a little puzzled why we are not coming back until 29th October. I gather that the reason is that the Government have no more than two days' business of their own which they wish to transact. I must say, in view of the Government's decision about the Shops Bill, that I find it an astonishing admission. It is perfectly clear that if we had had a rather shorter holiday, either at Whitsun or for the Summer Recess, the Government could have proceeded with that Bill. The Committee stage could have been taken on the Floor of the House and the whole thing could have been put through within this Session. The fact that the Government did not 1526 do this makes it only too plain that, of course, it was not lack of time which was really responsible for the dropping of the Bill: it was the opposition from within the Tory Party.
We are also going away at a time when the House and the country are much concerned about a number of matters of great importance. Only yesterday a debate took place on the defence situation which, I think, many hon. Members would wish to pursue further. Of course, we are not able to do so. There are rumours that a new policy for Cyprus is to be worked out, and there is, of course, the economic situation, which we certainly debated quite recently but which requires our constant attention.
I think the matter which is, perhaps, giving rise to most anxiety is the situation in the Middle East. The intervention of the Government in Oman is still wrapped in a certain degree of obscurity. We have pressed the Government repeatedly to say just what the rights and wrongs of this matter are, We know perfectly well, of course, that there is this understanding with the Sultan of Oman. There is no treaty: there is an understanding. However, exactly what the Sultan's rights are in relation to the tribes in the area and in relation to the Imam has never, I think, been brought out very clearly. Moreover, we have never been given clear answers on the degree of outside intervention.
I must say for my part that our attitude on this side of the House—our tolerance, if hon. Members prefer it put this way, of the Government's attitude—was largely dependent on this fact of outside intervention. We recognise that if that was serious then, of course, the case of the Government was stronger; but, I repeat, we have not been told very much about it. We gather that the intervention has taken the form of arms from Saudi Arabia. We do not know in what quantity.
We do not know how serious this is. It may be that this will turn out to be a minor affair and that the whole thing will be settled very soon. So much the better if that is the case, but there is no denying the fact that it is not settled yet, and there remains the possibility that the situation in Oman may deteriorate and may develop in a very unfortunate way.
1527 I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us an assurance that should that happen, and should it appear, in consequence, that a real threat to peace in the Middle East exists, we shall be recalled to consider the matter, that we shall be recalled to consider the whole situation, and to take up, in particular, the question which, in that event, we should have to take up, whether this matter should not, at any rate, be reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.
I am not proposing that we should divide the House against this Motion, but I do ask for the assurance that we shall be recalled if the situation in the Middle East deteriorates.

§ Mr. Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)
I think it would be a mistake if the House were to allow this Motion to pass without giving an opportunity to those of us who hold strong views on the subject to make it plain to the people that this Parliamentary Recess, contrary to some of the views which have been expressed in the national Press, is not proposed so that there can be a jollification for Members of Parliament.
There are those of us on both sides of the House who believe that Parliament is not a legislative sausage machine which ought to sit continuously the whole time, and that opportunities should be afforded to Members of Parliament to make contact with their constituencies and their constituents, opportunity to familiarise themselves with problems, both at home and abroad, which are of considerable importance.
I notice that it has been suggested in one of the organs of the national Press that there is a demand for an extra long Summer Recess of about three months because there has been an increase in the salary of Members of Parliament. I am sure that we Members of Parliament know perfectly well that a gross income of £1,750 a year does not produce a net income of anything like that amount, and that the net income of a Member of Parliament is certainly not as high as that of Lobby correspondents. It would, at least, be more honest if they were to demonstrate to the electors of this country that out of that net income it would be quite impossible for Members 1528 of Parliament to enjoy luxurious holidays in the South of France.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is straying a little from the Motion.

§ Mr. McAdden
I am not straying half as far from that as I should like to stray from this House for a while in order to enjoy the Recess, Mr. Speaker.
However, I will try to come more particularly to the Motion and say that in my view it is desirable that this House should have a Recess not so that hon. Members may indulge in jollifications, but so that they may visit their constituencies.

§ Mr. Percy Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)
I live in my constituency.

§ Mr. McAdden
And I live in mine, but let us face the fact that there are a number of Members on both sides of the House who, for one reason or another, cannot live in their constituencies, and that that makes it necessary for them to make special journeys to their constituencies if they are to visit them at all. Among them is the Leader of the Opposition, who does not live in his constituency. Of course, I am not blaming him for that or holding it against him. It is necessary that we should have Parliamentary Recesses so that opportunity may be afforded to us to make closer contact with our constituents.
It will be well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House that part of the Parliamentary Recess will be taken up with attendance at party conferences. It may be that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who may not very much wish to go to party conferences. Nevertheless, opportunities ought to be afforded to them to go if they want to.
I think that over and above these considerations we should remember that Parliament exists not only for the purpose of passing laws—some of us think that too many laws are passed—but for deliberation on matters which it is well we should have time to study.
Moreover, a Session makes excessive demands upon Ministers of the Crown, who are compelled to be here in almost continuous attendance during the time that Parliament is sitting. There is a good deal to be said for giving Ministers 1529 of the Crown opportunity to attend to the control of their Departments. I hope that this Parliamentary Recess will afford opportunity to Ministers to have holidays, which many of them were unable to have last year, but, in addition, to exercise closer control over their Departments, for that is essential in the national interest.
I am, therefore, glad that we are to have a long Recess. I hope that hon. Members will decide that it is a useful and desirable thing that we should have a fairly long Recess. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition shares these views, and I am particularly glad that, in sharing these views, he has given some reasons why we should concern ourselves about affairs even while we are in Recess.

§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
What about the old-age pensioners?

§ Mr. McAdden
The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is, perhaps, a little worrying that we should be going into Recess at a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the old-age pensioners?"] I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot understand these noisy interruptions.
I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition has, very rightly, drawn our attention to the fact that we are going into Recess at a time when there is a disturbing situation in the Middle East.

§ Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)
On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)addressing the House at such great length so that we should not have the time to discuss the position of old-age pensioners?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. McAdden
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have reinforced my view that as long as one addresses oneself to the subject before the House, under your direction, one is much more in order than those who raise points of order which are not points of order at all, thereby delaying discussion of subjects of great importance.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Does the hon. Member not realise that the House is waiting to discuss old-age pensioners?

§ Mr. McAdden
I should be glad to reply to that interruption if I had the slightest idea what was said. It may be that because the hon. and learned Member is not in his normal attire his voice has not the strength to carry this far.
The Leader of the Opposition has urged us, fairly and rightly, that when considering the duration of the Recess we should bear in mind seriously the disturbing situation in the Middle East. Of course it is disturbing, but it would be considerably more disturbing if the House were in continuous session and the Leader of the Opposition were able to make some of the speeches which he made about twelve months ago in an even more painful situation.
Therefore, for all these reasons, I believe that it is a good thing that the House should have a reasonable period of Recess during which hon. Members might take a holiday, which all other people in the country are able to take. It is a good thing that the opportunity should be taken for hon. Members to visit their constituencies, to remain in continuous contact with them, to attend party conferences, and afterwards come back refreshed— —

§ Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)
Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to have wearisome repetition?

§ Mr. Speaker
I was watching the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)and, as far as I could see, the recurrence of certain ideas in his speech did not amount to wearisome repetition, but I think that the House is ready to come to a decision in this matter.

§ Mr. McAdden
And I was about to come to a conclusion as well, Sir.

§ Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Mahon)
I should not have risen but for one remark made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). I know perfectly well that on these occasions it is always the function of the Opposition to say that the Recess is too long and the function of the Government to say that it is necessary, but the right hon. Gentleman's argument that a shorter Recess would enable the Government to introduce the Shops Bill in this House and pass it through all its stages is beneath his skill as a Parliamentarian. If the Shops Bill were to be passed, it would require a Parliamentary Recess 1531 three or four weeks shorter than the one now proposed.
This Parliamentary Recess of three months is of great importance to Departmental administration. It is the function of Ministers to go round the country to look after the administration of their Departments and to work out their policy. I hope that in future we shall not have this party wrangling as to how long the Recess should be.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider one suggestion. In the years that I have been in the House I have come to realise that the last two weeks in July are a very bad time for Parliamentary business. The programme becomes increasingly crowded and there are many functions in the constituencies to which hon. Members ought to be attending. We ought to do as the German Bundestag has done—adjourn earlier in July to come back earlier in the autumn. I leave it to my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion in the intervening months. He will find a measure of support for it on all sides of the House.

§ Sir David Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland)
I have never previously been engaged in any of the wrangles on this subject in all the years that I have been in the House, but I intend to engage in this one. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden)and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Whatever duties hon. Members have in their constituencies can be attended to in less than three months. We Members of the House were returned to work here. What we do in the constituencies is for our own political benefit, or for the political benefit of our parties [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The commodity which is in the shortest supply in the House is time. I should like to give one or two examples. The first of the nationalised industries, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board was created by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland)Act, 1943. We have not had one debate in all the ensuing fourteen years on the reports and accounts of that organisation. Millions of money are involved and hon. Members representing the Highlands have made many attempts 1532 to secure time so that the work of this organisation should be discussed as laid down in the regulations. We were once told by a right hon. Gentleman who was Leader of the House that because we had not had a debate for all the years since the Board was set up that was a good reason for not having one then. Now, happily, he is in another place.
My constituents take an entirely different view. They regard this failure to debate the subject as a piece of clowning, because many of them have been waiting fourteen years for electric light and power to which they are entitled under the Act. Hon. Members representing the Highlands, from all parties, a few weeks ago had to seek the assistance of the statutory Committee on nationalised industries, to get their support for a debate in the House, the very place to which we are returned to do our public duty.
Another example is that a week ago we had a debate on one of the oldest industries in Great Britain or even in the world. [Laughter.] I refer to fishing. If the murmur round the House implies that I have a connection with the fishing industry, I should point out that I held a number of appointments in the industry but I resigned them all before I made my second speech in the House, and I gave up a considerable income by doing so. The debate last week came at the end of a long debate on the economic situation. It began at 10.5 p.m. in a very thin House, and I do not blame hon. Members for having gone home. Every hon. Member who spoke was hostile to the Government's proposals. This old industry which has given so much service to Britain in the past— —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Motion before the House will not sustain a debate on the fishing industry.

§ Sir D. Robertson
I mentioned that only as a very concrete example of how, at the wrong time of night and ending in the early morning, a debate was held on the fishing industry at a time when the pressure that should be exercised by a free Press in supporting speeches in the House was entirely missing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)made an outstanding speech. It received one inch in the Highland daily newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sack 1533 the editor."] The speeches of the Opposition did not get even an inch, none of them. I regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition must so regard it, and so should other Members of Parliament, because it is entirely wrong. If we rise for three months, who will run the country? Not us. [Interruption.] Parliament will have no control whatsoever. The Executive will have a limited control and I certainly hope that they all get the holiday they deserve.
Today we only reached Question 45 for oral answer and the remaining sixty-four Questions on the Paper did not receive oral answers. One important Question about the nationalised industries, which are exerting great inflationary pressures, was not reached, whereas we discussed where the late Keir Hardy's monument should go. I have a high regard for him, as most democrats must have, but those industries——

§ Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)
Hear, hear.

§ Sir D. Robertson
I am disappointed at the holiday mood reflected on both sides of the House. On this day forty years ago was fought one of the bloodiest battles in the history of this country. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Men from every constituency in Britain were involved. Many of them were boys.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. An hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order. Mr. Hubbard.

§ Mr. Thomas Hubbard (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
The hon. Gentleman is raising the question of the failure to obtain time to discuss important issues, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact within his knowledge that by his very action he is preventing us from getting time to discuss the important question of old-age pensions?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know what is within the hon. Member's knowledge.

§ Sir D. Robertson
No man can accuse me of wasting Parliamentary time. I am just as conscious of the needs of old people as any hon. Member.

§ Mr. Shurmer
Then come into the Lobby with us.

§ Sir D. Robertson
I will finish what I have to say and I will not be long. I was referring to the third battle of Ypres or what is known as the Battle of Passchendaele.

§ Mr. Shurmer
We were in it.

§ Sir D. Robertson
I got up today with great deliberation and determination to say what I had to say, because it is all in order. I should be failing in my duty to those who died, as many did, if I did not insist on this House having adequate time to discuss its public business. We are not having it with a three months' Recess. Two months would be adequate. They would be adequate for Ministers, adequate for everyone, and I urge my right hon. Friend to give consideration to what I have said because I am voicing views widely held outside this House. I have no knowledge about what the newspapers have said about holidays. I know that few of us can afford to have a long holiday. I feel that we should be here. If the Government do not know what to discuss, we will soon find some things to discuss, and the examples I have given today are worthy of the consideration and thought of all hon. Members.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
I think that the House would like to come to a conclusion on this matter in view of the urgent business which we have to consider afterwards. I will be brief in replying to the points made by each of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
First, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that the length of the Recess this year is actually only six days more than last year and one day less than the year before, so I do not think we are putting up a proposition which is in any way unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman then, complained that we had completed our business and had only two days' business left for what is called the spill-over. That shows the efficiency with which the business of the Government is conducted, and the fact that we were also able to afford an extra week's holiday at Whitsun is a good thing from the point of view of Parliament and its efficient conduct. In any case, as long as I have the honour to be Leader of the House I shall regard a time of Recess, as was said by my hon. 1535 Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), not as a period of jollification but as a period when many of us have important duties to perform.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to certain important matters which might arise. In passing, I would only support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)about the Shops Bill, namely, that we could not have got the Bill through in the time, even with a fortnight or so more. The Bill took nearly six months in passing through the House of Lords and it would have been impossible for us to get a Bill of that size and nature through this House in any time we could foresee. Therefore, I adhere to the argument which I used on this point earlier.
The other questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman all add up to this: if there is a threat to peace, will the Government recall the House? The Government on previous occasions have given assurances, and I give an assurance again today, to recall the House if circumstances warrant such a recall. I say without hesitation that we should regard a threat to peace as an occasion on which the House should be recalled. The House will remember that last summer there were certain events of considerable importance and gravity and we had no hesitation on that occasion in recalling the House, and the Prime Minister made a statement to the House.
I do not think that the events to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in what he described as the broad area of the Middle East, are likely to have the result of leading to a threat to peace. If that is any assurance to him, I am glad to give it. Equally I give the assurance that if there is any threat to peace, the House will be recalled and a proper statement made. I do not think that the other subjects he mentioned, namely, defence policy and Cyprus, are questions upon which it will be necessary to recall the House. Again, however, I reserve the position. If circumstances warrant it, we shall certainly so act.
In reference to defence, it is interesting to read in some of our more prominent journals that there is a degree of disagreement among Her Majesty's Government on the subject of defence. I should like to take this opportunity to say that. 1536 as far as I am aware, there is no disagreement whatever on the subject of defence, and there is absolute certainty as to the course we are pursuing, a course which is at the same time of benefit to the economy and of benefit to the defence Services themselves.
Lastly, in relation to the economic situation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the situation is one which must be a source of anxiety to all sensible people— —

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
Where is the Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Butler
—because in a country which is involved at the moment in such prosperity, and where so many demands have already been acceded to in the form of additional reward, there is naturally anxiety about the cost/wage inflation which might ensue. The Government have their ideas on how to deal with this situation and I do not think it will be necessary to recall Parliament for the specific purpose to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but again I reserve the position of the Government that, if necessary, we should not hesitate to take that course.
It only remains for me to refer to the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of behaving like the German Parliament and adjourning in the middle of July. We have usually behaved in a different manner and have adjourned at a little later date. In fact, in earlier days, we went on to the 10th or 12th August. [HON. MEMBERS: "Grouse-shooting."] I believe that that was for reasons of convenience which are not quite as prevalent today as they were then.
Nevertheless, any suggestion put by my hon. Friend will certainly have my consideration. I think that it has been more convenient on this occasion, and I believe that it will be more convenient on future occasions, to finish the business which we have in hand. Anybody attending the Royal Commission in another place recently will be aware of the immense programme of legislation, private and public, which has been carried through successfully up to date, therefore giving us an opportunity of taking a well- 1537 deserved departure from this Assembly for a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the fact that we have not discussed the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and its policy. This is a matter of the nationalised industries, and under present arrangements three days are allotted to the nationalised industries in the Session. Three days will, therefore, be taken for the nationalised industries in the next Session. The choice of the subject on the nationalised industries is left to the Opposition. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to criticise the Opposition and not to criticise the Government in the choice of subjects for those days. If the Opposition care to debate the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, I can say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will be glad of a diversion to discuss that matter instead of some other matters which are to be debated within his own Department.

§ Mr. Nabarro
My right hon. Friend is aware that year after year there have been complaints from both sides of the House that the reports and accounts of the principal nationalised industries, notably the National Coal Board, are always discussed nine to twelve months after they have been published. This year, I have asked him this question on three different occasions: does his statement today mean that we are not to be able to discuss last year's reports and accounts until perhaps the early part of 1958, which makes the whole of the debate quite valueless?

§ Mr. Butler
It is hoped to take some of the nationalised industry days early in the next Session. Under present arrangements that is the best that we can do. I have been in touch with my hon. Friend and many others who hold similar views as well as with hon. Members opposite, and I am aware that there is a desire for further opportunities to discuss the nationalised industries. If we could find the Parliamentary time—and it must be remembered that we have set up a Select Committee to consider the nationalised industries—we should be very glad to do so, for I am satisfied in my own mind that the House has not sufficient opportunities for expressing its interest in the nationalised industries. If we can find the House further oppor- 1538 tunities we shall be only too glad to do so.
I will say no more in answer to the arguments which have been raised except to reiterate the assurance that if necessary the House will be recalled. I should like to remind the House that one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), said in 1947 that it was important for Members to renew contact with their constituents, it was important for them to bring them up in the path of light and learning, it was important for Members of Parliament to have time for reading and it was important for Members of Parliament to improve themselves and help in the economic drive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2476.] All these things stand as true today as they stood when that was said by that profound Leader of the House ten years ago. I therefore appeal to the House to pass this Motion and to get on to the other business. I only hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not hope or wish that I should go too early to another place, because I have no wish to do so.

§ Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite this afternoon that the discussion of this Motion has prevented an adequate discussion of old-age pensions is completely false in view of the fact that all they had to do was to withdraw the Motion against my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson)? May I also ask him to remember that on a previous occasion, not very long ago, when the Opposition put down a Motion on the subject of old-age pensions, they indulged, instead of debating it, in personal spite against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?

§ Mr. Gaitskell
We did not choose that this Motion should be debated today. We should be quite happy for it to be left on the Order Paper and debated when we come back.