BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HC Deb 01 August 1957 vol 574 cc1519-22

Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for the first week after the Summer Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Summer Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 29TH OCTOBER—Debate on the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries.

WEDNESDAY, 30TH OCTOBER—Consideration of the Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure.

There will then be an opportunity for the Opposition to debate the methods by which Private Bills are objected to.

THURSDAY, 31sT OCTOBER—The day will be available to the Opposition for a debate on a subject which they wish to arrange later.

FRIDAY, 1ST NOVEMBER—It IS expected that Prorogation will take place.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in our opinion it is for the Government to find time for a debate on the report of the committee on telephone tappings, if this report is available when we come back, and that it is not a matter for which the Opposition should be expected to find time?

Mr. Butler

I think that this is a matter that we should discuss through the usual channels.

Mr. Grimond

Will the Government make a statement before the Recess on the operations in Oman, and also on the strike at Covent Garden?

Mr. Butler

I cannot give any undertaking that further statements will be made on these subjects, but I will, of course, bring them both to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are primarily responsible.

Dame Irene Ward

Will time be found to debate the Motion standing in my name, particularly having regard to the fact that it is extremely difficult to discuss the investment policy of the Master of the Supreme Court for money awarded by the High Court in respect of infants?

[That, in the opinion of this House, the financial situation in which some infants who have been awarded substantial damages by civil actions, find themselves on reaching the age of twenty-one owing to the policy of the Master of the Supreme Court investing the money in undated War Stock, thus resulting in a serious deterioration in the capital award, does not reflect credit on the wisdom of the policies pursued; that though an alteration of policy now provides greater security, infants awarded sums in 1954 have been severely prejudiced; this House notes with surprise the variation in practice that operated in the county court and High Court, the former offering greater security; this House is further of the opinion that, in view of the machinery which could be used to transfer money awarded from the High Court to the county court and considers it to be regrettable that the parents of the infants were not advised of the possibility when the undated Stock was selected for investment; that, in view of the memorandum issued in May 1957 to infants attaining their majority pointing out the loss of capital involved and the dilemma in which interested parties are put owing to the continuing decline in the value of the Stock, this House is further of the opinion that the Master of the Supreme Court should be invited to consider what action he can take, as being responsible for the investment, to advise the infants whose security of capital should have been the main consideration, particularly in cases where the period at which the age of 21 was reached was a short one, having regard to the responsibility which in all good faith has been imposed on the Master of the Supreme Court.]

Mr. Butler

While I do not underestimate the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend, I do not think that we can manage to do that before we rise for the Recess.

Mr. Beswick

The Leader of the House probably remembers that on 4th July the Prime Minister announced that arrangements would be made to cover by insurance hon. Members who sustained death or injury whilst travelling in the business of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done to implement those proposals? If it has not been found possible to do so, can the Leader of the House say why, in the meantime, if the principle of those proposals has been accepted, Government Departments, in circumstances in which they have not done so before, now require hon. Members to sign a form of indemnity, or what is known colloquially as a "blood chit"—a somewhat formidable term?

Mr. Butler

The arrangements made for this purpose have not yet been completed, but it is hoped to complete them to cover hon. Members. If there is anything I ought to tell the House, I will undertake to do so before the House rises.

Mr. Beswick

If these proposals are to be completed as soon as administratively feasible, could we be assured that in the meantime Government Departments will not require hon. Members to sign a form in which they state that they will not make any claim against the Crown or against any person in the service of the Crown in respect of any loss or injury to property or person"? This has not been enforced on previous occasions and there seems to be no reason why it should be maintained.

Mr. Butler

It is a case of passing from one system to the other. Directly we can bring in the new arrangements we can absolve hon. Members of the necessity of signing forms of that type. If the hon. Member will let me have the form, I will consider it.

Mr. J. Griffiths

As this is an innovation, will the Leader of the House look into the matter?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir; it is not an innovation. It should always have been done.

Mr. C. Pannell

Will the Leader of the House again consider, in the new Session, the setting up of a committee on the amenities and accommodation of this House? Will he bear in mind that owing to obstinacy in the usual channels on the question of the terms of reference, such a committee has not been set up this Session, and that consultation with such a committee would have been an advantage to the new Serjeant at Arms?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House continually becomes an increasingly busy workshop in which Members have to work. and that there is widespread opinion in all quarters of the House that something on the lines of the Committee which was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)should be set up to remedy matters? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, however obstinate the Patronage Secretary may be upon this matter, I have been consulted by many Members on the other side of the House who concur with the view I am now expressing?

Mr. Butler

I would not agree that there is obstinacy. Nor would I agree that anything has ever ruffled the sweet temper of the Patronage Secretary. I would say that we have had informal exchanges of views between both sides of the House, and I have myself met various right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. I am aware of the crowding, especially in the writing room, and of the other difficulties that some Members suffer, but we thought that it was not sense to set up a committee before the end of this Session. All I can do is to give an undertaking that the matter will be considered when the new Session comes.