HC Deb 28 February 1957 vol 565 cc1395-406
Mr. Gaitskell

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

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

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

MONDAY, 4TH MARCH—Supply [4th Allotted Day].

Report stage of the Civil Vote on Account, which it is proposed to take formally.

Debate on an Opposition Motion relating to the Government's Social Policy.

TUESDAY, 5TH MARCH—Supply [5th Allotted Day].

Committee stage of the Navy Estimates 1957–58, Vote A and Vote on Account.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH MARCH—It is hoped to complete the Committee stage of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill by about 8 o'clock.

Then we shall proceed with the Second Reading of the Occupiers' Liability Bill and the Second Reading of the Nurses Bill [Lords] and the Nurses Agencies Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order.

THURSDAY, 7TH MARCH—Supply [6th Allotted Day].

Committee stage of the Air Estimates 1957–58, Vote A and Vote on Account.

FRIDAY, 8TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

It may be convenient if I inform the House that Monday, 11th March, will be an allotted Supply day, when we shall take the Army Estimates, 1957–58, Vote A and Vote on Account.

Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during the course of next week or before, we may expect a further statement upon the forthcoming reduction in Entertainments Duty in the next Budget?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had authorised him to say that in his Budget he would take account of the consequences of Clause 2 of the Cinematograph Films Bill, together with other considerations which the exhibitors had brought to his attention. In saying this, my right hon. Friend was merely repeating the substance of a statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 13th December last, that the provisions of the Bill were among the various factors which were being taken into consideration in the review of Entertainments Duty.

From this premise the President of the Board of Trade was led to hazard a certain deduction—whether well grounded or not, I cannot tell. In doing so, he was not making a prophecy or speaking with foreknowledge of what may eventually be decided. It does not seem to me that anything improper or unfortunate was said.

Mr. Jay

Is the Prime Minister aware that ever since this incident there has been speculation in cinema shares on the Stock Exchange? Is not this a rather disreputable way of conducting the financial affairs of the nation? Does the Prime Minister really think that, with credit to the Government, he can leave matters like that?

The Prime Minister

I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman's indignation is rather put on. There can be no question of a Budget leak. A statement to Parliament cannot be a leak. I am very well accustomed to complaints that the House of Commons is told too little; I have never been accustomed to complaints that it is being told too much.

Mr. Gaitskell

Are we, then, to assume from the Prime Minister's statement that since this is not a Budget leak it is an announcement of Government intention?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir; it was, as I said, a prophecy—whether well grounded or not, I do not know.

Dame Irene Ward

With reference to Monday's business, am I to understand from the Leader of the House that upon this auspicious occasion we shall be empowered at last to debate the Phillips Report?

Mrs. White

On a point of order. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I tried to raise a Private Notice Question about the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is only right that we should have a further explanation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

I will give the hon. Lady an opportunity later. I did not know what the hon. Member for Tyneside was going to say.

Mr. Short

May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Lady to whom you have referred is not the hon. Member for Tyneside; she is the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his geographical correction.

Mr. H. Morrison

On a similar embarrassing future occasion will the Prime Minister see that the Minister in the dock occupies a position with him on the Front Bench opposite, instead of skulking and hiding himself at the end of the Front Bench?

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Mr. Dudley Williams

On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put a question to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker. Should she not be given an answer to that before we go on to anything else?

Mr. Speaker

That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I was about to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) when the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) raised the point of order, which took precedence over my observations, Sir, that it depends upon the Opposition Motion. When we see that we shall be able to answer my hon. Friend's question as to what subjects it will be in order to raise.

Mr. Jay

Is it the Prime Minister's doctrine that under this Government a Budget leak is not a leak if it is made in public? If so, can we then expect a series of public statements from Ministers on the forthcoming Budget?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I was merely trying to put the matter in some reasonable perspective. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his quite natural lugubrious character, takes a rather too gloomy view of the whole affair.

Mr. H. Wilson

The Prime Minister is treating this matter in far too light a manner. While no one would expect from him the standards in this respect that Earl Attlee would have thought proper, might I ask him whether he does not recall from his own experience at the Treasury, and from that of every predecessor who has ever delivered a Budget speech, that the very greatest care is always taken to avoid saying anything, even in this House, before 4 o'clock about Budget intentions? In view of the fact that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade was made at 3.40, that representatives of the cinema industry were within earshot, and speculation immediately began in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter a little more seriously and order an inquiry into what exactly happened?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I am surprised that Lord Attlee's name should have been raised, because in my recollection he is one of the few friends of the right hon. Gentleman who ever showed some sort of loyalty to his comrades.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is not only taking this matter, in our opinion, much too lightly, but that he is coupling with his answers particularly offensive and arrogant remarks which ill-become any Prime Minister of this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there has, in fact, been a substantial appreciation of cinema share values this morning following, as was described by the Press, the "broad hint" in Parliament yesterday of a tax relief? Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that there is nothing improper in giving hints of that kind? Does he not at least consider that on an occasion like this, when a Minister has clearly made a slip, to put it no higher, it is appropriate that he should come here and make an unconditional apology?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I think that all these deductions could perfectly well be made from the statement which I quoted. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is pressing this matter far beyond what it requires and is taking a very ungenerous view.

Mr. Speaker

Mrs. White.

Mrs. White

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have noticed—

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order. I have called Mrs. White.

Mrs. White

May I ask the Prime Minister whether—

Mr. Nabarro

On this point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is this. There have now been six consecutive supplementary questions from the other side of the House. My hon. Friends and I have risen on every occasion. Is the Opposition to have a monopoly of supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker

I observed the hon. Member, but that is not a point of order.

Mrs. White

May I ask the Prime Minister this question? When one of his Ministers makes a premature disclosure of a Budget proposal, will he ask that Minister not to deny that he has made it?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

While I agree with my right hon. Friend that there has been no leakage of Budget secrets on this occasion, are not hon. Members opposite the last people to criticise, when two previous Socialist Chancellors had to resign for doing that very thing?

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would ask the House to take this matter as calmly as it can.

Mr. R. Bell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? I wish to know at what stage of our proceedings we now are? Are we on the question of next week's business, or has the Prime Minister in some way made a statement before questions on business may be taken? If so, would not that be a very unusual procedure?

Mr. Speaker

We are still on the business question. All this started with a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to whether we were to have a statement about what took place yesterday. That was a perfectly proper business question and I hope that we shall keep to business as much as we can.

Mr. Gaitskell

Despite the Prime Minister's own view, does not he feel that the Press, at any rate, has taken a very serious view of this matter? Is he aware that virtually every national newspaper has headlined this matter as a Budget leak? In view of that, will he bear in mind what his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has just said about resignations of Ministers on former occasions, and take appropriate action?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

On a point of order, Sir—

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

I wish to raise a point of order, Sir. I believe it is an honest one. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to put into my mouth words which I did not use? I prefaced my question by saying that in this instance there was no Budget leakage. The right hon. Gentleman has carefully omitted to say that.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order at all.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question. I have tried to put this matter in a fair perspective. I think it has been very much exaggerated. All I can say in reply to his last question is that if my right hon. Friend were to offer me his resignation, I should certainly refuse it.

Mr. Bevan

It is quite customary in the House for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or for any Minister, to say that certain facts will be taken into consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his Budget, but when he goes on afterwards to say that he hazards a deduction as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do, is that not exceedingly grave and reprehensible?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. I would have said that it is not grave. To this extent, I have tried to put it, as I have said, in perspective. We live here under a good deal of pressure. We have to do our work, and we usually have a certain amount of give and take about our work.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what his right hon. Friend actually said? He said: …I hope that tomorrow morning they will feel more cheerful.…" —

Mr. Fell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled a short time ago that you were allowing these questions because they related to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for a statement arising from this situation. We have now reached a situation where the Leader of the Opposition is asking questions which have nothing to do with the statement—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has not let the right hon. Gentleman ask his question. For all I know, it may be in support—and I expect it is—of his request that next week's business should include a statement on this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am, of course, pursuing my original question that a statement should be made on this matter to clear things up. If I may, I will now quote what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said: …I hope that tomorrow morning they"— meaning the smaller cinemas, the smaller picture houses— will feel more cheerful. Hon. Members then interrupted and asked, "Why?" and the right hon. Gentleman continued: Because I have said that the Chancellor will take account of Clause 2 in his Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) then asked: Will he reduce the Entertainments Duty? The right hon. Gentleman replied: There is no other way that he can do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February. 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1238.] I quite understand if the Prime Minister says that his right hon. Friend made a mistake; that he made a slip; that he should not have said that and he will apologise. But it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to try to make out that nothing wrong whatever has been said.

The Prime Minister

I am not prepared to add to what I have said. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press the issue, he can press it in any manner open to him.

Mr. Bevan

The House of Commons is always generously inclined to anybody who at any moment may, under pressure of debate, or personal anxiety, or fatigue, or anything else, make a mistake. But to suggest that a hint given by a Minister which appreciates the property of people in the country is not a serious thing to do, is a most frivolous way of treating a question of this sort. if the right hon. Gentleman goes on like that, the reputation of his Government will fall even lower than it now is.

Hon. Members

Answer.

The Prime Minister

I have no answer to make to what was merely a false and foolish statement.

Mr. Bevan

Resign.

Mrs. White rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Heathcoat Amory.

Mrs. White

On a point of order—

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mrs. White.

Mrs. White

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that at the end of questions on business I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the effect on the cinema industry of the President of the Board of Trade first making, and then denying, a premature disclosure of a Budget proposal for a remission of entertainments tax as it affects cinemas.

Mr. Nabarro

Further to that point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is the suggestion of the hon. Lady who seeks the Adjournment of the House that she is raising a point of order? I raised previously, as a point of order, since business questions have been asked, that the Opposition were receiving disproportionately good treatment from the Chair.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The point raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was not a point of order, because it was a criticism of the Chair. That cannot be raised as a point of order. It must be done in the form of a Motion. It is customary for hon. Members to give notice of their subsequent intentions in the way which has been done by the hon. Lady for Flint, East (Mrs. White).

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that a debate on foreign affairs has not taken place since 6th December last? Having regard to the fact that events are moving with great rapidity all over the world, some of them to the detriment of this country, would not the Government think it proper to listen to the opinions of hon. Members from both sides of the House on these grave matters before the Prime Minister goes to Bermuda?

Mr. R. A. Butler

I am aware of the widespread interest in foreign affairs. It so happens that, in exercising their right, the Opposition have not chosen that subject. It will be up to me to discuss the suggestion of the noble Lord with my right hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mrs. White.

Mr. Hamilton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that business questions are in order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There are no business questions now.

Mr. Hamilton

With respect, Mr. Speaker, so far as I have heard, there have been hardly any questions about business for the week from Monday to Friday.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot help that. I have to look after the time of the House.

The hon. Member for Flint, East asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the effect on the cinema industry of the President of the Board of Trade first making, and then denying, a premature disclosure of a Budget proposal for a remission of entertainments tax as it affects cinemas.

In my opinion, this Motion fails on the ground of urgency, because on Monday, as has just been announced, we are to consider the Civil Vote on Account, on which I think that a discussion of anything of this character would be in order. I cannot see any urgency as between today and Monday which would entitle me to rule it within the Standing Order of the House.

Mr. H. Wilson

While we understand that it would be open to the House to debate this matter next week on a Supply day, that is still two or three days ahead, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friends have made clear that some very erratic movement is going on on the Stock Exchange over this matter and there is great uncertainty in the cinema industry and in financial circles. Further, it is the view of, at any rate, half the House, that the credit of the Government is very much at stake. Surely it is essential that this matter be brought up at the earliest possible opportunity, which would be a matter of urgency.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened to what right hon. Gentlemen have said and taken that into account. But it seems to me that the matter we are discussing certainly involves a statement as to future legislative intentions and I do not think that a discussion today rather than on Monday will do anything to alter the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For that reason, I cannot find it urgent.

Mrs. White

Surely the difficulty in which we are placed, Sir, is that the President of the Board of Trade made a statement in yesterday's debate and then, later in the debate, denied that statement. That has led to the utmost uncertainty throughout the industry, particularly the exhibiting side. Also, as my right hon. Friend properly says, there is considerable speculation now going on on the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that alters my opinion.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of illumination from you, Sir. Do we now understand that we cannot move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, if there is to be a Supply day the following week which might include a discussion on the point raised; although, in the meantime, all sorts of consequences may follow from the issue raised in the House? Is not that a rather unusual Ruling to give?

Mr. Speaker

It has frequently been ruled by my predecessors that if there is an early day on which the matter it is sought to raise under Standing Order No. 9 can be discussed, then the Motion fails in its urgency. In the view I have taken this matter could be discussed on Monday, if that be the desire of the House, and I do not think that, on the point of urgency, between today and Monday there is much delay.

Mr. Bevan

Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the position of the Government now leaves many members of the public in uncertainty as to their intentions, and that it is upon that uncertainty that speculation is now taking place? Is it not undesirable, therefore, that this uncertainty should lead to all kinds of gambling as to whether the Prime Minister or the President of the Board of Trade has or has not used felicitous language? Would it not be better for the Government to seek an early opportunity of making their position clear and not to assist this speculation that is now going on?

Mr. Speaker

Those are considerations, of course, but in so far as the matter is uncertain it is not definite.

Mr. Bevan

It is definitely uncertain.

Mr. Speaker

On consideration, I think that the matter can well be deferred until Monday without any effect on the situation.

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which we must accept, and the totally unsatisfactory answer which we have received from the Government on this matter, and, in particular, the refusal of the Minister concerned to make any apology, I beg to give notice that we shall use at least part of our time on Monday to debate this matter again, on a Motion.

Mr. Bellenger

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to put a question now to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Not on business. The right hon. Gentleman may find some other way of doing it. It is now four o'clock. I have already ruled that the time for business questions is over.