HC Deb 15 December 1958 vol 597 cc775-86
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

The Government have been considering the Report from the Select Committee on the Obscene Publications Bill, presented by my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) and the Bill which the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) subsequently obtained leave to bring in.

As there is reason to believe that the business announced for tomorrow will not occupy the whole of the sitting, we propose to afford an opportunity to debate a Government Motion to take note of the Select Committee's Report, which will enable the House to express its views on the issues involved.

This should be a valuable use of our time since there might well be little opportunity for the Bill now before the House to be fully debated on Second Reading on any of the Fridays set apart for Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although some hon. Members might be inclined to attribute this change to the fact that Sir Alan Herbert has stated that he is to take part in the Harrow, East by-election, there will be others who will attribute it to the interest of the Home Secretary in the matter? Is he aware that we welcome the opportunity for a debate so that those hon. Members who did not oppose my application for leave to bring in the Bill under the Ten Minutes rule, but opposed it anonymously on Second Reading, may give their reasons for opposing? If the opinion of the House tomorrow is in favour of legislation, will the Government proceed with early action on this matter?

Mr. Butler

What the Government have reflected, in coming to this decision, is that there is an opportunity for debate. Otherwise, I do not see one for a long time ahead. The House has received a Report from its own Select Committee on the subject and I do not see an early opportunity for the hon. Member's Bill at present. Therefore, I think the House should have an opportunity of expressing its views on the subject.

In relation to the extraneous question the hon. Member raised, I think that the relevance of that depends on the attention of the House to the attitude of the Government towards the Bill, which is a very complicated Measure. I shall certainly attempt, when I speak, to put forward a constructive attitude, but what effect that may have on outside feeling I do not know yet. This is a difficult question and has two sides to it. I will, however, take the opportunity of expressing the view of the Government on the Report of the Select Committee and hone that we shall have an opportunity of making progress in this difficult matter.

Mr. Crossman

May I ask when it is proposed to take the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Butler

We propose to do that on Wednesday.

Mr. Crossman

Is it not a fact that there was an understanding through the usual channels to take that Motion on Tuseday? Are there not very interesting reasons why the Government are afraid of taking it tomorrow, hut are postponing it until Wednesday?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. The facts are that, through the usual channels, I understood that our first notification was that we might take it on Tuesday, but now we propose to take this business—to which I attach great importance and in which I think the House is interested. It has always been reasonable, and has established precedent behind it, to take the Motion for the dates of the Christmas Recess on the day before the actual end of this part of the Session. Therefore, we shall be following the normal practice. We have informed the Opposition and we are not aware that there is any objection on the part of the Opposition to taking the action we suggest.

Mr. Wigg

Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that I gave notice to ask for permission to raise the question of Suez and the Keightley dispatches in the Adjournment debate, but withdrew that notice and gave notice that I should raise the matter on Tuesday? Despite the Prime Minister's brave words last week about the grand inquest of the nation, is it not a fact that between then and today the Leader of the House has got cold feet and has deliberately and clearly manipulated the business of the House to prevent what he thinks an adequate discussion of Suez and the Keightley dispatches?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Leader of the House aware that he is quite in error in supposing that the Opposition raises no objection to the proposed change in business? On the contrary, my hon. Friends have made it clear, through the usual channels, that we did not like this change, not only for the reasons that my hon. Friends have given today, but because we were anxious to have the fullest possible time for the debate on unemployment?

Mr. Butler

I am always very glad to work with the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels. I hesitate to deny anything he says, because it upsets the integrity of the usual channels; but I can only say that, on the information given to me, I understood that there was no objection. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there was, I can only say that that was not the information given to me. If there was an objection, then we must note it and accept it, to restore the integrity of the usual channels. In so far as I was given the information, I can only say what I was told.

Mr. Crossman

May we ask the Leader of the House whether, if there has been a misunderstanding, he will put the Adjournment Motion back where it was on Tuesday so that the debate may take place?

Mr. Butler

I must say that the one thing I was not aware of was that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had any understanding at all or contact with you, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of a debate on Suez and the Keightley despatches. I was not aware of that. If the hon. Member has been crowded out of an opportunity, I am very sorry, but I will say, also, that I do not think that the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment is particularly appropriate for a discussion of the sort that he envisages on Suez and the Keightley despatches.

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of the misunderstanding which has evidently occurred on this, and the fact that there has been no agreement between the two sides of the House, will the Leader of the House undertake to discuss the matter through the usual channels and see whether we can go back to the original arrangement?

Mr. Butler

I do not think that we can go back on this now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because we have made an announcement about the business we propose to take and which. I think, appeals to the House as a whole, namely, to discuss the Report of its own Select Committee. There can be no refusal of a suggestion that the matter be discussed through the usual channels—we can certainly continue to discuss— but I do not anticipate that the Government will change their mind.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether his anxiety to discuss the matter of obscene publications arises from his desire to give us an opportunity to discuss the articles of Mr. Randolph Churchill?

Mr. Butler

I had expected that the hon. Gentleman would put that supplementary question. It comes very readily to mind, but it lies very much more easily in his mouth than in mine.

Mr. Wigg

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that not only did I communicate with you, Mr. Speaker, but I went to see the Leader of the House and wrote to him as well? What more does the right hon. Gentleman want? Is it not plain that the Government have gone out of their way to alter business tomorrow to avoid what they imagine to be a rather difficult subject? May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has not succeeded? I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity, for at least a brief period, of discussing the matter on Wednesday.

Mr. Butler

That is precisely what I should not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman doing. The procedure of the House, in so far as debate is on the Motion for the Adjournment, is in the hands of Mr. Speaker and hon. Members themselves. If hon. Members are in order in discussing a matter like this, when the Motion is moved, it is far from the wish of the Government to stop them. There is no intention of trying to stop them.

Mr. Gaitskell

What concerns us is the most convenient way of organising our business. Is it not possible that, on examination, we shall find that, even including discussion on the Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications, it may be more convenient to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment on Tuesday rather than on Wednesday, when we shall, in any event, have an extremely important debate?

Mr. Butler

As I say, there is no question of avoiding any request made by the Leader of the Opposition for a discussion, through the usual channels—no question at all—because we could not possibly operate our business if there were a stoppage of that sort, and I should not wish to see it. It is something which may be discussed, but all I can say is that I do not hold out great hope of the Government altering their mind.

Mr. V. Yates

Does not the Leader of the House consider that it is rather disgraceful that the Government should suddenly come to the view that the House will not take a great deal of time on a subject when there are many of us on this side who are anxious to raise matters in debates and cannot be called because there are too many of us wishing to do so? I refer to issues like unemployment, which affects almost every constituency. Is it not totally unsatisfactory? Should there not be a better arrangement of the business of the House?

Mr. Butler

I do not think that there is anything remarkable about this. The business for Tuesday is the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill, dealing with economic controls, and four consolidation Measures. That looks quite a lot, but, on examination, it appears that there is a good chance of debating this other important subject before the Recess.

As regards precedents for moving the Adjournment Motion, nearly all the precedents for many years back, as far as I can see, are that the Government should move the Motion on the day before the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess. Therefore, I do not think that we are doing anything out of the ordinary.

Mr. Short

Mr. Speaker, do you recall that one of my hon. Friends from the North-East and I applied to you for time for an Adjournment debate on Thursday on unemployment in the North-East? We have not been given that time, presumably because there is to be a debate on unemployment on Wednesday. Is it not obvious that every single minute of the debate on Wednesday will be vitally important for the whole country, and, therefore, is it not monstrous that this important debate should be eaten into by this other quite unimportant matter?

Sir G. Nicholson

Will you enlighten the House, Mr. Speaker? Surely the Motion for the Adjournment for a Recess cannot be debated in very wide terms. Is it the sort of debate where one can raise anything? Is it not fairly restricted?

Mr. Speaker

The usual Motion is in the form "That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn until" whatever the date be. That is a debatable Motion, and hon. Members are entitled to advance any argument which is relevant to the plea that the House should not adjourn tomorrow, or that it should come back earlier because of the importance of matters which should be discussed. In the past, we have had such debates, and I must say that I have always found them hard to keep strictly relevant, because hon. Members, in urging the importance of a subject as a reason for not adjourning, have tended to elaborate the subject a great deal and, really, make a speech on the subject itself rather than on the Motion. But I must do my best It is certainly a debatable Motion, and any hon. Member is entitled to rise in his place and advance reasons why we should not adjourn for the length of time specified in the Motion.

Mr. Swingler

I understood the Leader of the House to say that he did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wished to raise the subject of Suez on the Motion for the Christmas adjournment. I understood my hon. Friend to assert that he had notified the Leader of the House of his desire to do that. May we have an explanation of that? As the matter has now been revealed on the Floor of the House, it is surely a relevant consideration to he taken into account by the usual channels. Should not the whole matter be reopened, now that the Leader of the House is aware of the demand from a considerable number of hon. Members to discuss the subject during the debate on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment?

Mr. Wigg

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that there is a slight inaccuracy in what I said? I mentioned three occasions, but there were, in fact, four. When the Prime Minister made his statement last week. I then gave notice that I would try to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I saw you, Mr. Speaker, I saw the Leader of the House, arid I wrote to the Leader of the House as well.

Mr. Butler

I will check immediately I have spoken, but, as far as I am aware. I have not had a letter from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), though I may get it afterwards.

Mr. Wigg

I saw the right hon. Gentleman as well.

Mr. Butler

The hon. Member for Dudley saw me at about a quarter past three this afternoon, before I came into the Chamber. I told him and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) of the exact announcement I was going to make about the Obscene Publications Bill. In answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), I think that the record is quite clear. The point about which I was not aware was that there had been any attempt made by the hon. Member for Dudley to secure a period in the time you allocate, Mr. Speaker, for the business on the Adjournment, that is to say, the Adjournment debates.

I think that the hon. Member for Dudley feels somewhat aggrieved because he feels that he has not been able to get time on the Adjournment, that is, in Mr. Speaker's time, and he has not got any very good opportunity of raising it himself. Of that difficulty, I was not aware.

Mr. Grimond

May I now ask where we stand? The business tomorrow is altered, as the result, apparently, of a misunderstanding. There was no agreement to alter our business. I may be wrong, but that is what we have been told. Further, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is under the impression that he has given up a debate on Thursday for the sake of a debate tomorrow. We are now told by the Leader of the House that he may reconsider the debate tomorrow. First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will restore the Adjournment debate tomorrow, and, secondly, if he does not do so, may we know what the business tomorrow is to be?

Mr. Butler

I had no previous opportunity of announcing tomorrow's business, and, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, I do not see any great chance of the Government's changing their mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Further-more, this decision to give an opportunity for a debate on the Obscene Publications Bill arose after consideration of the business on Friday last, when it appeared that the Bill of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was being objected to. As there was no further opportunity for this discussion, I thought it reasonable— and the Government are of the same opinion—that we should have a debate on the subject in the spare time on Tuesday, and so provide an opportunity to ventilate the important matter that the House could not discuss on Friday.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am not objecting to the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Obscene Publications Bill, but I ask the Leader of the House whether he will not reconsider his attitude on this, whether, bearing in mind the business decided on for both Tuesday and Wednesday, including the Obscene Publications Bill, it would not be wiser to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment on Tuesday? I believe that that would be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House and would enable us to discharge our business, while also providing an opportunity for many hon. Members to raise what, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, they are allowed to raise on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.

Mr. Butler

I cannot go further with the right hon. Gentleman than to accept his request that there should be a discussion on the subject.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if this problem arose out of objection to the Obscene Publications Bill, he turned his mind to it on Friday, when, as far as I know, it was objected to by only one hon. Member, and not on the Friday two weeks ago when, I think, it was objected to by three hon. Members?

Mr. Butler

For the very good reason that we had a very crowded programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is, in fact, the first possible gap that there has been for the discussion. It is quite clear that it is the first time, and the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) knows perfectly well that there has not been another opportunity which we could have afforded, in Government time, for the discussion of the Obscene Publications Bill. I prefer the hon. Member's previous interjection, when he seemed to show some appreciation of the fact that we are finding the first possible opportunity to discuss this matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Since the Leader of the House has arranged this debate for tomorrow afternoon because of what happened on Friday—and I was here on Friday, and the right hon. Gentleman was not—is he not aware that there were two Bills preceding that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)? One was the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Bill which dealt with the sufferings of many people now on workmen's compensation. We discussed that for an hour and a half, which Mr. Speaker thought, rightly, in my view, was adequate. There was also the National Insurance (Extension of Unemployment Benefit) Bill, which would have restored Section 62 of the 1946 Act, and would have made possible the payment of unemployment benefit to the long-term unemployed without a means test. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that tomorrow should be used to make up for time lost on matters not adequately considered on Friday, could he not consider those other two Bills?

Mr. Butler

What we are to do is to debate a Motion to take note of the Select Committee's Report. That is a matter that is long overdue, the Select Committee having reported on the Bill earlier in the year.

Mr. Griffiths

Are the Government now announcing that they regard that matter as being more important than the two other matters that I have just mentioned, and which affect so many people?

Mr. J. T. Price

Is it not an ironic fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House should now upturn the business of the House to discuss obscene publications, which will have the effect of reducing the time that should be devoted to the greatest obscenity of modern times—the obscenity of unemployment?

Mrs. Braddock

Having listened to this cross-talk for about 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, may I express my opinion to the Home Secretary? I am certain that the 4.5 per cent. of unemployed on Merseyside will believe that this is the most flagrant piece of sharp practice that has been committed by this Government in an attempt to prevent a discussion on unemployment on Wednesday.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There has been a business statement, and questions must be relevant to that. If his question is relevant. I will call the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

Mr. Crossman

Can the Leader of the House tell us where we now are about business; and whether he intends to go back to the sensible arrangement of taking the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess on a day when there is a less important debate, and not crowd it into a day when there is a major debate?

Mr. Butler

The normal precedent for this is that the Government put down a Motion for the day before we adjourn. The decision of the Government will be indicated when we put down the Motion, and the exchange for which the Leader of the Opposition has asked will take place before the Government put down the Motion.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman's recollection correct? Did we have the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess on the day before we adjourned? My recollection is that it was on the day before that. But there are many precedents for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House this evening at seven o'clock and tell us the business for tomorrow. That was done during the Suez crisis, and could be done again now.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that is the same question. I did not know anything about this exchange until I came to the House. Indeed, I did not know that the Motion was originally to be put down on Tuesday until the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) informed me. But there is nothing more to be done. I have heard the Leader of the House say that there is to be further discussion about this through the usual channels. I suggest that the House should now go on with its normal business, since there is so much to deal with.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is possible for the Leader of the House to come to the House later today and tell us what the business for tomorrow is to be. May we have your Ruling as to whether it would be permissible for him to tell us the business for tomorrow at seven o'clock this evening?

Mr. Speaker

I would have to think of some means as to how that could be brought into order. At times of great importance, I have known business to be interrupted by a statement, but I am against it, as a rule. It might be done at the end of the day, quite conveniently.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. Perhaps I could help the Chair in this matter, Sir. As there seems to be some doubt in your mind, Mr. Speaker, would it be of help to you if I went out now, did some research and returned with 10 precedents?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that it would. I remember some of them my self. I would have to see, first, what was the actual situation with which I was confronted. I will have to go by that if someone asks leave to make a statement on business.

Mr. Butler

I have just received the letter from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I have been informed that I have his permission to read it. He says that on Tuesday, the 16th, he hopes that …we shall have an opportunity to raise the subject of Suez and General Keightley's despatches. If, however, this opportunity does not occur, we shall endeavour to raise the subject on Wednesday, the 17th. We are giving you this notice personally as, on the 20th of December, 1956, complaint was made that notice was not given. We hope, of course, that you will make arrangements for a reply to be made. That is signed by the hon. Member for Dudley, and the hon Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

That would be exactly the position; if there were not an opportunity tomorrow, there would be an opportunity on Wednesday.

Mr. Cooper

Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that at this time we should be discussing the question of house purchase by people of limited means? That being so, is it not deplorable that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should seek to limit the time available for discussion of that important topic?

Mr. Wigg

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). Is it not deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should go out of their way to prevent a debate on General Keightley's despatches on the Suez operations?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.