HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc375-85
Mr. J. Griffiths

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, 6TH MAY—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Colonial Territories and the South African Protectorates

TUESDAY, 7TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Herring Subsidy Scheme

THURSDAY, 9TH MAY—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Air Estimates, 1957–58.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft Sugar Refining Agreements Order

FRIDAY, 10TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that on Monday, 13th May, the Navy Estimates will be considered and that on Tuesday, 14th May, the Army Estimates will be considered.

Now, Sir, with your indulgence I have one other matter to which I should like to refer. I refer to the wish of the House, expressed before Easter, that a message should be sent to Sir Anthony Eden. This was done, and the House will wish to know that we have received a telegram from Sir Anthony, in which he says: I shall be grateful if you will express my thanks to the House for its message.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that it would be our desire on Monday to discuss those Colonial Territories which we very seldom discuss in the House, and that, in particular, we would regard Cyprus and Central African Federation as being subjects which we would hope to refer to very early in a fuller opportunity than in the debate on Monday?

The Leader of the House has announced that on Thursday the House will go into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates. Has he a statement to make about any decision of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter?

Mr. Butler

Yes, Sir. If the House will excuse me for one minute I should like to give our considered opinion on this, because it affects our debates on the Air Estimates. The Government have given very careful consideration to that part of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure which deals with the Business of Supply and we are in agreement with the recommendation for the abolition of the practice of balloting for and subsequently moving Amendments, under Standing Order 17, on first going into Committee of Supply upon each of the Service Estimates.

We are also agreed that, in future, Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair without putting any Question and that debates on the Service Estimates should take place on Vote A in Committee of Supply. The Government share the view of the Select Committee that this should meet the wishes of the large majority of private Members and be in the best interests of the House as a whole.

The Government also agree that the present practice of balloting and subsequently moving Amendments to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," on first going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, should not be changed. Accordingly, arrangements will be made for the ballot for those Amendments to take place in the House after Questions on Thursday of next week.

The Government propose that recommendations about Supply procedure should take effect without delay. In special circumstances with regard to the Service Estimates this year, it is proposed that the debates on the three Service Departments should take place on Vote I in each case, as Vote A has already been passed. Subject to the ruling of the Chair, I understand that a completely wide and satisfactory debate on Vote I will be possible. I hope that those arrangements will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Griffiths

Speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I say that the arrangements which the Leader of the House has announced will meet our desires and that we agree with them?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be able to make arrangements for a debate, at our request, on disarmament for the week after next?

Mr. Butler

May we discuss that through the usual channels?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the existence on the Order Paper of a Motion which may be taken to indicate anxiety about the future of the Suez Canal and the demand for dues? Is my right hon. Friend ready to say that a debate on this Motion will be held as soon as possible, as soon as convenient, after any Government announcement on the subject?

[That this House pledges support to Her Majesty's Government in any action calculated to uphold the 1888 Convention and to redeem the undertakings given on 30th July, 1956, that the Suez Canal will not be left in the unfettered control of one Power; and furthermore urges Her Majesty's Government to take all steps necessary to secure the implementation of the six principles laid down by the Security Council and agreed to by Egypt.]

Mr. Butler

I should like to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Bevan

Are we not to have a statement quite early about shipping through the Suez Canal? Surely it is now necessary that we should know where we stand in this matter.

Mr. Butler

As a matter of fact, there is a meeting of S. C. U. A. this afternoon. We had better see what happens there.

Mr. Patrick Maitland

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that we shall have an early statement on the Suez Canal and an opportunity to debate it? Is he aware that there is widespread public anxiety about Press reports, which have not been denied by Ministers, which seem to suggest that we are heading for a catastrophic humiliation while our moral tutors proceed unabashed?

Mr. Butler

There are always limits beyond which it is unwise and, indeed, impossible to go in answering questions on business matters. My business, as Leader of the House, is to register what is said by hon. Members. I advise my hon. Friend to see the result of the meeting this afternoon and await further developments.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Are we to take it that there will be an early statement by the Government on the subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the statement is made we shall want to have a debate on the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler

Naturally, when there is something to discuss, we shall wish to discuss the procedure not only with the Opposition, but with my hon. Friends who are particularly interested.

Mr. Fernyhough

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure us that the Government have no intention of enforcing the Closure on the Service Estimates debate before all back benchers who want to take part have made their contribution?

Mr. Butler

We have been informally in touch with the Opposition, and, while I do not wish to quote them in any way, I believe that we are satisfied that there will be an opportunity for back benchers to state what they want to say. At any rate, we shall pay attention to what the hon. Member has said.

Captain Waterhouse

Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the pressure put on him from several quarters to make an early statement on the question of the Suez Canal matter many people are far more concerned with the eventual settlement reached than with any expedition, and that it is far better, in a matter of such vital importance to Britain, as this, to be certain that we are right before any declaration is made?

Mr. Janner

As the Crook Report about ophthalmists and the statutory registration of opticians has been available for a number of years, is the right lion. Gentleman prepared to say that at an early date he will introduce a Bill for the registration of opticians in the light of the terms of that Report?

Mr. Butler

We are aware of the need of legislation on this matter, but I cannot say exactly when the legislation will be introduced.

Mr. H. Wilson

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal about his extraordinary proposal to have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next Tuesday? Is he aware that, while we did not unduly press the point that we were asked to debate the Budget before the Service Estimates had been debated by the House, it is quite unprecedented and discourteous to the House that we should be asked to discuss the main instrument relating to taxation even before we have debated the Service Estimates?

Secondly, even if the Lord Privy Seal, in accordance with the quite unusual procedure which he seems to be following this year, were to reject that argument, does he not feel that with so lengthy, complicated, involved and difficult a Bill as this Finance Bill, this is a far shorter period than we are usually allowed? There is seven days between the publication of the Bill and the debate. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to take it back and present it later?

Mr. Butler

I understood that this general programme was not unacceptable to the Opposition and I am not prepared to alter the business now. I agree that the time is slightly shorter than usual— I have compared it with previous years. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has shown such ability in mastering these technical subjects that I am sure he will be able to master it in seven days and that we shall have a quite useful debate next week.

Mr. Wilson

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, may I ask whether, having treated the House in this way, which is quite unprecedented both in relation to the Estimates and to the short period, he will desist from misleading the House by saying that it was acceptable to the Opposition? We made a very strong protest against the suggestion that the Finance Bill should be taken with this indecent haste.

Mr. Butler

I do not like to upset or foul the usual channels in any way, and that is why I used the expression, which I believe to be perfectly correct, that the timetable for next week was "not unacceptable "; I did not go further than saying" not unacceptable to the Opposition ". The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to make his protest about the matter, because the time limit is shorter than usual, but I believe that it will be possible to have a useful debate on the Second Reading. We do not propose to change our minds on the matter.

Mr. Wilson

Since the right hon. Gentleman will not change his mind, and since I am as loath as he is to foul the usual channels—we will leave that to the usual channels themselves; this is a matter which the usual channels could continue to discuss quite legitimately—is he aware that if this means that he thinks that he can get this complicated, involved and controversial Finance Bill through without adequate discussion in Committee, he is misleading both himself and his colleagues?

Dame Irene Ward

As the Service Estimates are to be discussed on a wide basis, will it be possible to discuss on the Navy Estimates the case of Admiral North?

Mr. Butler

That, fortunately, is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Shinwell

Referring to the subject which was under discussion before the hon. Lady asked her question, many of us on these benches are completely in the dark. The Leader of the House has asserted more than once this afternoon that certain proposals have been accept. able to the Opposition. Will he please clarify the issue, and tell us what has actually been settled, so that we can know where we are? Why should we always be in the dark?

Mr. Butler

I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better establish his own channels with his own Front Bench.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance on another matter? Will any action be required by the House to give effect to the recomendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, which, the right hon. Gentleman said, it was the Government's intention to apply to the Service Estimates debates? It will be appreciated that the new proposals make some substantial changes in the proceedings of the House and may, from one point of view, be a very serious limitation on the rights of private Members.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that no formal action by the House is necessary to give effect to what has been said by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Silverman

In that case, Mr. Speaker, should it happen to be the fact that any right hon. or hon. Members are not content with the change proposed in the procedure. what opportunity would they have of putting their views before the House, and of letting the House decide whether or not it wishes itself to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker

They can do it by Motion, I suppose. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) really has a point here which may have escaped my notice, I wish that he would communicate with me, when I will look into it with greater particularity. I do not myself see any formal action by way of Resolution or anything like that that the House needs to take.

Mr. Silverman

I will do my best to comply with that, Mr. Speaker, but I should have thought that if one point was fairly clear it is that the Government are to invite the House to embark on a new procedure without the House ever having had the opportunity to consider whether or not it wishes to change its procedure.

Mr. Butler

On a point of order. The Select Committee has not yet made its final Report. For example, there are matters relating to the Closure and the quorum, and also to the Scottish Grand Committee. What we have in mind was that it would probably be necessary, or desirable, to have a debate on the Select Committee's Report, so that we can ascertain the views of hon. Members. This particular reform to which reference is made today is the only one that we are proposing to implement, prior to having the views of hon. Members at a later date.

Mr. Silverman

I am very grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for what he has said, but does it not reinforce my point? It seems now that it is the Government's intention to consult the House about this matter, but to put it into operation in this very important respect before doing so. Surely that cannot be right.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) cannot possibly arise this year, because the Government have already got their way. To me, the point of substance is really whether the Government are prepared to move the suspension of the rule so that, although Vote A has gone and Mr. Speaker will not be moved out of the Chair, an adequate opportunity will be given for redress of grievances. The point at issue is not that of getting your ruling, Sir, as a matter of procedure, but as a matter of good will on the part of the Government.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that to be the position. I gathered from the statement just made that a satisfactory arrangement had been come to about it. That is all I can say. I think that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is quite right in what he says.

Mr. Wigg

This is not a question of arrangement between the two Front Benches, Sir, but is a back bench matter. The reason is that any hon. Member has a right to seek redress of grievance.

Mr. Butler

I have been listening to what hon. Members have said about suspending the rule, and it will be given consideration by the Government.

Mr. C. Pannell

Does the Leader of the House recall that Mr. Percy Daines, when a Member, asked, shortly before his death, about setting up once more the Select Committee on Accommodation? The Leader of the House promised that he would have that matter raised through the usual channels. I understand that the difficulty is the very closely restricted terms of reference under which we previously worked, and that it is the desire of the Opposition that a Select Committee on Accommodation should work under better terms of reference.

Can the Leader of the House say whether, in this quite important matter, on which much work has been done in the last three or four years by some Members, an arrangement has been agreed on to set the Committee to work again under more liberal terms, so that this House looks after its own interests and the interests of Members?

Mr. Butler

I realise the difficulties of accommodation and of the terms of reference. These matters are still under consideration. When I have something to report, I will bring it before the House.

Mr. Ede

I desire to advert to the matter which was being discussed earlier. It is one of the historic privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker, not to let you go out of the Chair—to go into Committee of Supply—before the House is satisfied on the question of the removal of grievances. I understand that, for some reason or other, this year that traditional right of the House is not to be enjoyed by hon. Members. It may be that it is only tradition and that it can be altered at will. I should be very surprised to find that that was so, and I would be interested to know what would happen if, in defence of the tradition, someone moved in the contrary sense—that you did not leave the Chair.

I hope that a clear statement will be made to the House on this matter, and that it is not left to an arrangement which is simply "understood." My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) alluded to the good will of the House. As an apostle of good will, I am bound to say that I find him a most astounding figure.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I submit, with great respect, to the Leader of the House, that, as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I was certainly under the impression that its interim Report would be considered by the House before any attempt was made to give effect to it. As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, it does involve a very considerable interference with the rights of back benchers. I would not have thought it was satisfactory to accept the proposals of the Select Committee merely by an arrangement between the Front Benches, before the House has had an opportunity to consider them.

Mr. S. Silverman

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I add a further point? I apprehend, from the course that the questions and answers have taken, that the only thing that can be done at will—by which, I apprehend, is meant at the will of the Government—is not to have the ballot for Motions on moving that you, Sir, leave the Chair. The only result of not having the ballot would be to leave the discussion at large. The Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair", is debatable, and the intention of the ballot was to restrict the debate to topics selected by ballot. If we are now to abolish that procedure, it would seem not that anything will be gained in the way of clarification of debate but that all subjects will be debatable.

Mr. Speaker

We have had this discussion and, as I said before, I did make some inquiries into the matter when I heard that the announcement was to be made. I understand quite clearly that the House can proceed in the way suggested without any formal step by way of amending Standing Order or passing a Resolution. After all, there has been a Select Committee on the matter and this is part of its recommendations. But, as a general rule, I think that the House should be chary in changing its long-established customs. There may be special reasons this year, but that is a matter to which we can return and clear up when the whole of the Committee's Report is debated.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I understand that the changed procedure this year has not so far resulted in the House losing any opportunities which it usually has, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I gather that that is the effect of it. From the point of view of the practical rights of Members, on this occasion, this year, there has been no harm done, that I can see, to private Members, but the larger question raised by hon. Members as to the method of varying the practice of the House without Resolution, and so on, can be gone into later.

Mr. Griffiths

In view of this discussion, I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the suggestion that he should consider suspending that rule on Monday.

Mr. Butler

I will take note of that.

Mr. Fernyhough

When Vote A of the Navy Estimates was taken last year, Mr. Speaker, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) being unable to get into the debate; and if the suspension of the rule is not moved on Monday it will be unfair to those who take an interest in these matters.

Mr. Speaker

Those points will, no doubt, be noted.