BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 31 July 1962)

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)
It is proposed that after the Summer Adjournment the House should meet again on Thursday, 25th October, at eleven o'clock for Prorogation. It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 30th October.
The Motion will be put on the Order Paper today, and taken as the first Order tomorrow.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
May we assume that this is, of course, subject to the common expectation that the House may have to be recalled during September? I should like to put a specific question. Am I right in supposing that no Questions will be taken on Thursday, 25th October, since it is Prorogation day and nothing else, and that if, on the other hand, Parliament were to be recalled, Questions would be in order?

§ Mr. Macleod
The Leader of the Opposition is quite right. There is provision under Standing Order No. 112, and no doubt we will discuss that matter tomorrow when we take the Adjournment Motion. The position on Questions is not exactly as the right hon. Gentleman stated. It is possible to put Written Questions for 25th October, but not to have Oral Questions. In the same way, if the House were recalled for a short period—two or three days—again, Written Questions would be in order, but not Oral Questions.

§ Mr. G. Brown
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could find some time before the House goes up— [Laughter.]—wait for it, for the debate on probation officers' salaries, which would have taken place during yesterday's sitting, but earlier in this day, but for the action of the Chief Patronage Secretary, who relapsed into his past bad form in moving the Closure. Is the Leader of the House aware that this debate would have taken place last Monday but for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department asking my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) to be good enough to defer it until this week, that the Minister's request was acceded to, and the consequence was that the Chief Patronage Secretary moved the Closure, even though the Minister, courteously, was in his place ready to answer? As the House was thereby denied its opportunity to debate this very important subject, can the Leader of the House help us to get the debate now?

§ Mr. Macleod
I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to reply to those points, but I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that what happened last night was entirely in accordance with 413 what has happened on a number of occasions. I have looked up all the Closures that have been moved in these circumstances, and on the two occasions on which a Socialist Government moved the Closure, on one occasion it was at midnight and, on the other, at one o'clock in the morning.
The Closure this morning was moved at 8.30—and if I may make just one more point on that—may I say that I have been carefully into this and cannot find a single Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on which as much time has been allocated as was taken by the two stages of the Bill this time.
I now take the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and acknowledge its seriousness. The Patronage Secretary had no knowledge at all of the question of probation officers when he moved the Closure. I have made it my business, because this was raised in the early hours of the morning, to inquire into the matter and I have discussed it twice with the Joint Undersecretary. The position is—

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. Since when has it become the right of the Government to allocate time for the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill? Discussion on the Bill should not be closed by any action on the part of the Government, but on the initiative and action of the Chair. It is not for the Government to allocate the time on the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
Can we keep this in order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must not say things about the Closure because if I was wrong, as the servant of the House, I am subject to suitable treatment by the House. I cannot talk about that. There is no question of allocating time, either one way or the other. I think that the Leader of the House was telling us something about arrangements that have been made. It would probably be convenient for the House to hear the rest of what the right hon. Member has to say.

§ Mr. Macleod
I was saying, in response to the question of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, that I have discussed this matter twice. As I understand it, the position was that a week 414 yesterday — on the 23rd — the Joint Under-Secretary suggested to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) that as no developments had occurred in this particular case there was nothing that could be said at that time of any particular importance and Chat there might be developments by the next occasion for debate on the Bill, which was last night. In fact, there were no such developments in the intervening period, and, therefore, no particular added information could have been given in this case.

§ Miss Bacon
Is the Leader of the House aware that last week my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) informed me that he had been asked to postpone this matter for a week because of the Prime Minister's statement on incomes policy which was due to come last Thursday? Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that this is of no consequence whatever? Is it not his duty to protect the nights of hon. Members? Would he not agree Chat today's business was not in any way in jeopardy? It was obvious to anyone who was in the House at the time of the Closure this morning that there would have been only four or five short speeches and that the business would have been speedily concluded.

§ Mr. Macleod
With respect, that simply was not the case. There were at least four or, perhaps, as many as six hon. Members who had given notice and Ministers were here on the Treasury Bench. It could have run for many, many hours. I think that by that time we had already taken 29¼ hours on the Bill and that it was entirely right for the Patronage Secretary to move the Closure. In these matters we have to consider not only our own convenience, but also that of those who serve the House.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Is the position not getting worse and worse? The Leader of the House has confirmed that the Joint Under-Secretary had, in fact, asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) to postpone the matter until the following week. He has then said that the Minister decided that there was nothing new to say. In that case, was it not for the Minister to say that to the House and for him to have allowed the House to 415 decide? The Leader of the House then said that there were four or six hon. Members wishing to speak and that, because of that, it was right for the Patronage Secretary to have moved the Closure.
Is not this a most extraordinary argument to advance in a democratic House? If four or six hon. Members wished to speak on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—which is, surely, the one occasion in the year when they can do so—ought he not to have allowed the promise which the Minister made to be honoured? Since a promise was made and dishonoured, will the Leader of the House find some other occasion when we can debate this, or is he confessing that the real problem was that the Government were afraid to allow the issue of probation officers' salaries to be debated in open House?

§ Mr. Macleod
The right hon. Member knows perfectly well that he is on a completely wrong tack on this. On the question of there being more debates, presumably on the occasions I have mentioned—when the Socialist Government moved the Closure eight hours earlier on two occasions—there were also hon. Members waiting to speak. On the occasion in 1950 there was a Division on the Closure. There was no Division last night. I have, as I said, inquired twice into this matter and I am quite convinced that there was no promise given and that, therefore, no promise was broken.

§ Mr. G. Brown
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is important that I should explain what my difficulty is. All this arose out of a business statement affecting when we should "go up", I think was the phrase used, and when we should "come down". I conceive it to be perfectly in order on that to say, "Very well, if we go up now, when can we discuss topic X?". I follow that part of it. What I do not think is in order, and I hope that the House will forgive me, because I am involved in this personally, is the propriety or impropriety of the Closure at some terrible hour this morning. I hope that the House will help me in this matter.

§ Mr. Fell
Can my right hon. Friend help me on a different topic, though per- 416 haps not a happier one? On Monday of this week we had what can only be described, perhaps in the most eulogistic terms, as a standstill statement on the Common Market from the Lord Privy Seal. Tomorrow we shall have a debate on this matter, but, of course, no more statements because his negotiations start again on Wednesday and, I understand, will go on until Saturday.
Would my right hon. Friend consider —and I am not asking for him to give an on-the-spot answer to this question— whether, if there is an important advance or a wall or retreat arrived at by Saturday, he will at least recall the House for a statement to be made? This is far more important than holidays. Can there be a possibility of my right hon. Friend recalling the House on a matter of such urgence for a statement to be made by the Lord Privy Seal some time next week?

§ Mr. Macleod
The Lord Privy Seal has been reporting regularly to the House on the Brussels negotiations and at the end of this particular round there will be a progress report. In accordance with a question which the Leader of the Opposition asked some time ago, we would, if the House so desires, make that available also in the terms of a White Paper.
On the question of recalling the House, I would not like to go further than I have already done in saying that Standing Order No. 112 is, of course, available.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Sydney Silverman.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know how we are progressing, but I did call the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman).

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On the same subject, the Common Market, can the Leader of the House clarify the situation a little? I am not sure that I understood him. Are we to understand from his original announcement that the Government contemplate, at least as a possibility, that the House might be recalled in the middle of the Long Recess in order to approve or disapprove of a change with regard to the Treaty of Rome which would basically alter the 417 whole constitution of this country and the functions of the House of Commons?
Do we also understand that at the end of such a debate the House would then be content to be dismissed to resume its holidays and not to return until the Prorogation date so that the matter could not be further discussed for another three weeks? Is that the situation?

§ Mr. Macleod
I did not say that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this point a few moments ago. All I am saying—and this is common knowledge and implicit, and, indeed, explicit in what the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago on my business statement—is that there is clearly a possibility of recall. In what circumstances this would happen we do not at present know, nor can we foresee. It is possible for the House to be recalled and I reminded hon. Members of the standing Order by which that could be done. I said nothing more than that.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was about to do that which everyone would advise the occupant of the Chair never to do and to ask in advance for the forgiveness of the House. Would hon. Members accept the suggestion that much of this business matter might very properly and accurately be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment when we get to it? I venture to say this because I cannot help 418 knowing that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak in the ensuing debate.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In view of the Prime Minister's statement about the Civil Contingencies Fund, may I ask the Leader of the House whether his right hon. Friend proposes to submit the Supplementary Estimate to the House this week? If not, and if it is to come after the Prorogation, can we be assured that the amount of £350,000 will not be expended before the authority of the House has been obtained? What is the position as regards the Civil Contingencies Fund?

§ Mr. Macleod
I shall have to look into that point. It certainly would not be proposed to bring any Motion before the House relating to it.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give me a little clearer answer. I should like to know whether the money which is intended to be expended under the Civil Contingencies Fund will be expended before the Supplementary Estimate comes before the House, and on whose authority the money will be spent?

§ Mr. Macleod
As I said, I should like to look into that. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to put this question to me tomorrow when we debate the Motion for the Summer Adjournment I will give him a full answer then, having spoken to the Chief Secretary.