HC Deb 21 November 1957 vol 578 cc566-70
Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state 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, 25TH NOVEMBER—It is proposed to afford time for a debate on the Opposition Motion relating to the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Draft Order in Council.

Motion to refer the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee for Second Reading.

TUESDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Annual Reports and Accounts of the Gas and Electricity Industries for 1956–57.

Committee stage of Ways and Means. Resolution relating to Post Office Finance.

WEDNESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the isle of Man Bill.

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations.

Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution relating to Post Office Finance, when the necessary Bill will be brought in.

THURSDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will move a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty relating to the erection of a memorial to the late Earl of Balfour.

Second Reading of the New Towns Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by 9 o'clock.

Committee and remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill.

FRIDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Gaitskell

Am I right in assuming that the debate on the Opposition Motion relating to the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Draft Order in Council is intended to last all day?

Mr. Butler

I think it will occupy the majority of the time.

Dame Irene Ward

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Motion standing in my name? I am not asking that there should be time to debate the Motion, in view of the fact that the B.B.C. has apologised for the error and intends to make an announcement on Radio Newsreel correcting its mistake.

[That in the opinion of this House it was regrettable that, in the Radio Newsreel Programme on Sunday, 17th November, the narrator, in referring to the dispute between certain employees in the National Health Service and the Minister of Health, made a factual mis-statement by saying that the Minister of Health had recently refused to approve a wage increase which the appropriate arbitration board had recommended; and that it is the opinion of this House that, in order to maintain its reputation for accuracy and unbiased reporting, the British Broadcasting Corporation should make a public withdrawal of the words "arbitration board" and substitute "which the appropriate Whitley Council, though not unanimously, had recommended".]

Mr. Wigg

May I ask a question not arising directly out of the business for the coming week? Statutory Instruments have been tabled in connection with the continuation of the Army Act and the Air Force Act. This is a new procedure which is coming into operation for the first time this year. These Statutory Instruments arise out of recommendations of the Select Committee. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to the form which the debate should take when the Government decide that these Motions should be debated? Would you bear in mind that although this procedure will meet the convenience of the Government, at the time the Government gave an undertaking that they would have regard to the rights of back benchers and the need for a full discussion of both the Army and the Air Force Acts?

Would you also bear in mind that it is very desirable indeed that there should be not one debate on the two Instruments, but two separate debates?

Mr. Speaker

I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. As I understood that these Motions might be taken next week—I now see that that is not to be the case—I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I said, quite shortly, that I consider that on the Motion to continue the Army Act it will be competent to discuss anything which is in the Act. The same remark applies, of course, to the Air Force Act.

If hon. Members look at the Act which it is proposed to continue and make a Third Reading speech upon it, as if it were a Bill before the House for Third Reading, I am perfectly certain that they will be in order. I say that now because it may be of assistance to hon. Members in framing the speeches which they wish to make.

Answering the other question, how it is to be taken is within the control of the House, but I will certainly consider what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Strachey

Does your Ruling mean, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be in order to discuss the general future of the Army and the general welfare and conditions of the Army unless the remarks strictly related to a specific Section of the Act? That would narrow our discussion, which was intended to be in lieu of the annual discussion on the Army Act. If we took it too narrowly I think that the intention which was expressed when the new procedure was adopted might be rather narrowed.

Mr. Speaker

I am not prepared to say in advance whether anything which any hon. Member wants to say will be out of order. That would be giving much too precise a Ruling at so long a time in advance of the fact. The general idea is as I have stated it: it is a proposal to continue this Act, which is a very large Act, embracing a great number of things. I imagine that is the general line which the discussion should take, but, of course, there is some time in which to consider the matter further and if any hon. Member wishes to make representations to me as to what should be allowed and what should not, I have plenty of time to consider them and I will come to the best decision I can.

Mr. Wigg

May I make a point in connection with the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)? This debate will not be in substitution of the Army Estimates debate. The Select Committee's recommendation was quite clear. It is in addition to the debate on the Army Estimates.

Mr. Speaker

This new procedure was adopted by the Act of 1955, which followed a very patient and laborious examination by the Select Committee, lasting, I think, over two-and-a-half years.

Mr. Bellenger

If the debate is limited to a Third Reading debate, as it were, it would be out of order to make any amendments. I believe that was provided for when the original investigation took place, but I urge on the Government that there may be occasions when it might be very necessary, in the interests of the Government themselves, to have some amendments to the Army Act. I do not know what is the procedure for doing that. Perhaps you could tell us. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

According to the Act, the Army Act lasts for one year unless it is continued by a Resolution like this, but it lasts for only five years as an Act and then has to be re-enacted, with such amendments and improvements as the passage of time shows to be necessary. In other words, instead of being re-enacted annually it is re-enacted in full every five years. That was the decision adopted in the Act.

Mr. Bellenger

May I make the point quite clear? It will be absolutely impossible for the House to alter the Army Act at all under the period of five years?

Mr. Speaker

Except by a Bill for that purpose.

Mr. A. Henderson

As one who sat on that Select Committee, may I say that it is definitely laid down and was agreed to by all who sat on the Committee that we should recommend that the Army Act and the Air Force Act should be continued, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, for five years, thus obviating the necessity for any amendment within that period.

Mr. Speaker

I think that that was clearly the intention of the Select Committee and of Parliament when it passed the Act.