BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 27 July 1959)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)
It is proposed to meet again after the Summer Recess on Thursday, 22nd October, at eleven o'clock, for Prorogation. It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 27th October. I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, upon representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date if such a course should be necessary in the public interest.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
It may be for the convenience of the House if, in connection with the order of today's debates, this being a back benchers' day, I say that after discussions we have asked that the arrangement should be changed slightly. The debate on defence will come second and the debate on the Hola Camp will be the last of the four subjects.

§ Mr. Butler
I heard about this only two minutes before coming into the Chamber, and we cannot agree to it. 34 [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The position as I see it is that notices have been given to hon. Members that the debates were to be in the following order: Consumer Protection; the Hola Report; Defence; and Industrial Health Conditions. It is my business, as Leader of the House, to look after the interests of private Members, and if private Members arrive here to attend a debate and find that it has already finished, I do not think that the business of the House will have been conducted in a manner suited to the interests of private Members.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The information which I have just given to the House was put to the Government at ten o'clock this morning. I may say that in today's debate it should be, in the normal way, open to any hon. Member to raise any matter he likes at any time. It is purely out of consideration of the convenience of the House that we have made these arrangements. They are quite informal, and as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned I must say that I cannot understand his objection. It is open to us to change this round—to change it now, if we wish to. I consider it quite reasonable for us to inform the House of this. There is no reason for us to do so at all.

§ Mr. Butler
I do not think that that is a very good mood in which to conduct relations between the two sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not start it, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that I did not start it. We had a definite understanding and notices were sent to hon. Members that these subjects would be taken in a certain order. My right hon. Friend tells me that he was informed of this proposed change and we objected to it. We objected to it because if the business is changed at the last minute it is inconvenient to private Members. I adhere to my view. When subjects are put down through the Opposition—and they were brought forward by the Opposition—it is in the interests of private Members to stick to them.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the business of the House is frequently altered, and altered at the last moment. I must remind him that today is a back benchers' day. I repeat that there was no particular reason why any arrangement 35 should be made. In so far as the Opposition have a choice of the subjects, if they wish to make a choice of subjects, we could have required many different Ministers to be available at any time. We have acted, I think, very reasonably. We have made these arrangements for the convenience of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Butler
It is precisely because it is a matter affecting the interests of private Members that I protest at the proposed change. It is easy for us to ask our Ministers to be present at any time to answer these debates. It is not for the convenience of Ministers that I am protesting. I am protesting solely because notice was given for the convenience of private Members that the order as given last Thursday, in my business statement, would be the order of the subjects. It is only at the very last minute that the order has been sought to be changed. Private Members will not know that the order has been changed and it is my business to protect the interests of the private Members.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The right hon. Gentleman is protesting for private Members on his side of the House, but not for hon. Members as a whole. Let me tell him that. This is an Opposition day. We have changed the order of the debates, and it is really not unusual to change the order of the business. I have simply given notice that it has been done.

§ Mr. Butler
My business is to protect the interests of private Members wherever they sit, and very often it has been my business to protect the interests of a minority of hon. Members sitting on the opposite side. I shall continue to do so as long as I am Leader of the House. If we are to conduct the business for the convenience of private Members, then it is very desirable that it should not be changed at the last minute.

§ Dame Florence Horsbrugh
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition did not object on Thursday to the order of the business when it was announced? Is he also aware that hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I feel sure—have made arrangements to attend here at the times of the debates they wish to attend and that if the order of the debates is changed 36 now without any notice hon. Members may not be present for the debates they wish to attend?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot talk about this indefinitely.

§ Mrs. L. Jeger
On a point of order. May I raise a point of order on the order of today's business? Would you make it clear to us all, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House has no power of compulsion over any backbencher to adhere to the order of subjects which the right hon. Gentleman may have laid down? Am I not in order in suggesting that it is entirely a matter for back-benchers to raise subjects today on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, that we can raise any subjects we like in any order we like, and that there are ample precedents for this being done?

§ Mr. Butler
Further to that point of order. The point is that I received the list of subjects from the Opposition and read it out in my business statement on Thursday and, therefore, it was sanctified in some way by the usual channels. There is no question of my wishing to prohibit any hon. Member from raising any subject at any time in the course of debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It was simply that we thought that this was the order of business. Members on this side got it into their heads, but now it is not the order and we shall have to adjust ourselves to the position.