HC Deb 31 May 1962 vol 660 cc1591-602
Mr. G. Brown

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. fain Macleod)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 4TH JUNE— Debate on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper on Hospital Plans for England and Wales and Scotland (Command Nos. 1604 and 1602).

Motion on the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order.

TUESDAY, 5TH JUNE— It is hoped to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 7TH JUNE— A debate will take place on the Common Market.

For this two-day debate the Government are giving one day and the Opposition are allotting a Supply Day.

FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE— It Will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whit-sun Adjournment until Tuesday, 26th June.

Mr. Brown

May I ask the Leader of the House how the Government propose to handle the business for Wednesday and Thursday? Will the Lord Privy Seal open the debate with a full statement, and does the Prime Minister intend to be available to take part in the debate?

Mr. Macleod

The Lord Privy Seal will open the debate. In reply to a question last week I said that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would also probably take part at an appropriate stage in the two-day debate, but the full team of Government speakers has not yet been finalised.

Mr. Brown

Will the Prime Minister hold himself available to take part in this debate?

Mr. Macleod

I would not like to commit the Prime Minister on that matter. Perhaps I can put to him the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

Can the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to make a statement on the cotton industry?

Mr. Macleod

I hope in the first clay or so of next week.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that by an enormous overwhelming majority the Committee of Supply decided last Thursday to report Progress and ask leave to sit again? Can he say whether this leave has actually been sought, and, if so, whether it has been granted, and on What day the debate will be resumed?

Moreover, wild the Leader of the House bear in mind that later the same day, no doubt by the merest inadvertence, the Minister replying to the debate rather over-reached himself and talked out the debate so that it was never concluded? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what plan the Government can offer for the conclusion of that debate, too?

Mr. Macleod

The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman and I suffer from the same disability. So far as Supply is concerned, neither of us is the leader of the official Opposition.

Mr. F. M. Bennett

Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Motion on the Notice Paper, dealing with the Repudiation of Clause Four?

[That this House, while warmly commending the Leader of the Opposition for excluding Imperial Chemical Industries from the threat of nationalisation if and when another Labour Government is elected, urges him, with the united support of his party, now to specify what other industries are to be exempt from future nationalisation under the terms of Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution.]

Can he say whether, even in the crowded programme for next week, he can find time for a debate to allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond to our courteous invitation to him to clarify the present position of his party about the future operation of Clause Four of their Constitution?

Mr. Macleod

Obviously, this is a splendid occasion for one of the traditional answers that one gives, that this would be a peculiarly proper subject for a Supply day if the Opposition agreed to it.

Mr. Wade

Is it intended that there should be a vote at the conclusion of the debate on the Common Market?

Mr. Macleod

That is not for me to say. It may be convenient for the House if I state the form which the debate will follow. On the first day a schedule of Votes will be put down. On the second day, which is Government time, the debate will be continued on a Motion for the Adjournment. Whether a vote takes place on that is for the House to decide.

Mr. Leather

On the important Common Market debate, can we have an assurance that the minimum amount of time will be monopolised by Front Bench speakers on both sides, and that we shall have a chance to really express a view?

Mr. Macleod

We are having a two-day debate which should give a full opportunity for a considerable number of hon. Members to speak. I am sure that the House wants from the Lord Privy Seal a full, clear, and detailed statement of the progress of the negotiations so far, and with that we shall initiate the debate.

Dr. King

May I remind the Leader of the House of the all-party Motion on the Order Paper, signed by over 120 Members, on public service pensioners, and also remind him that last Friday we were unable to discuss the broad issue of public service pensioners on the excellent Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Will he give serious consideration to giving us an apportunity to discuss this other Motion soon after we return from the Whitsun Recess? [That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]

Mr. Macleod

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the two do march, and always have done, closely together. Although it could not come into the debate last Friday, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find some comfort in the sympathetic answer given from the Treasury Bench to last Friday's Motion.

Mr. P. Browne

Is my right hon. Friend aware that normally by this time of the year we have had a debate on the Agricultural Price Review? Is it not strange that this year, on the occasion of this particularly controversial Review, Opposition time is not being made available to discuss it? Will he ensure that we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Macleod

I cannot guarantee that it will take place in Government time. It is a Supply Motion which could be taken in Opposition time.

Mr. G. Brown

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply? The Price Review was an act of Government policy. It has never been the practice, nor, indeed, the constitutional arrangement, for the Opposition to provide time to debate Government action. This has always been done in Government time. Why should not it be done this year?

Mr. Macleod

With respect, I do not agree. If the Opposition wish to criticise particular acts of Government policy, opportunities to do that are available on Supply days.

Mr. Hoy

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the new Clause—Exemption from excise duty of Scottish shale oil— which we suggested should be included in the Finance Bill, but which, unfortunately, was not selected for discussion by the Chairman of Ways and Means? May I renew my request to the right hon. Gentleman to give us time to discuss briefly the future of this old-established Scottish industry?

Mr. Macleod

There is still the Report stage of the Finance Bill. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must not be taken as holding out the possibility of providing Government time to discuss the matter.

Mr. Kershaw

With regard to last Friday's debate on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), if my right hon. Friend describes the reply from the Treasury Bench as sympathetic, would he care to give me an idea of what would be an unsympathetic reply?

Mr. Speaker

Not on business questions.

Mr. Driberg

Further to that point, Although the Government's reply on Friday was not, in my view, particularly sympathetic, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government spokesman did not divide the House against the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? The Motion was, therefore, carried and becomes the view of the House— including, presumably, those members of the Government who were present and did not vote against it. Can we take it, therefore, that the Government will take early action to implement the terms of that Motion?

Mr. Macleod

That is precisely the reason why I described the reply by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary as sympathetic He accepted the Motion.

Dame Irene Ward

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the Motion of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), which was agreed to by the House without a Division, it was made quite clear that the Government accepted that at the time of the General Election a pledge was given that all pensioners should participate in the good fortune that has come to the country? Now that that has been accepted and established, may I ask why it has taken nearly three years to keep that pledge?

Mr. Macleod

With respect to my hon. Friend, the point that she is raising relates to last week's business and not next week's, but if one looks at the five pensions Bills which the Government have introduced on this subject, they show that the Government have an honourable record. That the Government intend to carry out and maintain.

Dame Irene Ward

I said before the last General Election.

Mr. Warbey

I wish to raise with the Leader of the House an important point in connection with the business for next Tuesday, when, according to the information given to us, we are to discuss again the Finance Bill in Committee. I, and a number of other hon. Members, have important Amendments down to the Finance Bill which are appointed for discussion on that day. At the same time in the afternoon, from four o'clock onwards, Standing Committee B will be meeting for further discussion on the Pipe-lines Bill on which I and other hon. Members have important Amendments which we wish to discuss.

This is the third time on which this has happened. On the first occasion Standing Committee B sat until 7 p.m. Last Tuesday, it went on sitting until 11.30 p.m., and we were warned by the Minister— or perhaps I should say threatened— that next Tuesday we shall be expected to sit even later. This involves a really intolerable clash in the duties imposed on hon. Members. It is literally impossible for us to be in two places at the same time. Not only do we desire to take part in the debates in both Committees, but we wish also to move Amendments in both Committees.

Fortunately, there is a provision in our Standing Orders which would enable us partially to overcome this difficulty. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will give notice under Standing Order No. 10 to move the Adjournment of the House next Tuesday?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir. I understand the point made by the hon. Member, but it is inevitable, particularly at a time like this, at this time of the year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]— when business is crowded, that there should be a clash. I have no intention of invoking the powers of Standing Order No. 10, which were, in fact, re-enacted in 1947 and, I think, have never been used.

Mr. Tapsell

May I revert to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett)? In view of the recent action of the Leader of the Opposition in repudiating his party's constitution in so far as it applies to the chemical industry, would it not be very much in the national interest that all the great industries threatened by nationalisation in the event of another Labour Government should have the opportunity to know exactly what is their position as a result of a general debate on nationalisation?

Mr. Hector Hughes

In view of the objections made from both sides of the House and at open air meetings throughout the country to the Government's objectionable, iniquitous and uneconomic proposals——

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did not you, in your wisdom, reproach me some time ago for using too many adjectives? What about the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)? His question was full of epithets.

Mr. Speaker

I did not reproach the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I ruled that his question was out of order because it was too thick with epithets. So, also, was the question of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I should like the House to get on with business.

Mr. Hector Hughes

May I now, after that silly and irrelevant interruption, renew my sentence, Mr. Speaker? My sentence is a request to the Leader of the House, in view of what I said, to find time next week for a debate on the very urgent subject of grants and loans to foreign shipyards which are calculated to deprive British workers of employment.

Mr. Macleod

It is good to see the hon. and learned Gentleman back in his old form.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

Hear, hear.

Mr. Macleod

Obviously, there is no opportunity for this next week. But I think that there may be an opportunity for the House after the Whitsun Recess, perhaps in July, because affirmative Orders will then come before the House. In that case there may be— there would be— an opportunity in July for this matter to be discussed.

Mr. G. Brown

May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) about the sittings of Standing Committee B which is discussing the Pipe-Lines Bill? Does not it strike the Leader of the House that it is quite intolerable that a Standing Committee should be sitting for long hours when important business like the Finance Bill is being discussed in this Chamber? Without any desire to hold up the progress of the Pipe-Lines Bill, or to be unduly difficult, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will give further consideration to this matter and try to arrange that the proceedings of the Standing Committee are conducted at more reasonable hours than have been suggested?

Mr. Macleod

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that this complaint has been raised about many forms of business before the House, and not only the Finance Bill. It could be raised whatever the business for Tuesday, 5th June may be. I was asked a specific question, whether I was prepared to invoke Standing Order No. 10, and I said, "No".

Mr. Prior

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be possible to make faster progress in Standing Committee B if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) excused himself from attending that Committee next Tuesday afternoon?

Mr. Brown

If all hon. Members were absent all the business could be disposed of without discussion.

Mr. Ross

The Leader of the House has said that this has happened in relation to other Bills apart from the Finance Bill. Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Finance Bill is something rather special, that it is one Bill that cannot be discussed in a Standing Committee, but must be taken in this Chamber to allow for the full participation of every hon. Member? Is not this the one Bill which should not under those circumstances, and from the point of view of constitutional propriety, be affected?

Mr. Macleod

If the hon. Member will study the precedents— there is one only a few weeks old— he will realise that exactly the same argument was produced about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which clashed with the proceedings of a Standing Committee. The argument could be produced in connection with any business.

Mr. Jay

What is the special reason why, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible for the Government to ensure that next week hon. Members have sufficient time to do their duty both in the Standing Committee and in this Chamber?

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is nothing like as difficult as all that. It is quite possible, if he wishes, for an hon. Member to move his Amendment in this Chamber.

Mr. Harold Davies

Is the Leader of the House aware that every time we have had a major debate on the Common Market the Government have treated the House nonchalantly, as they did over the movement of military forces, and have not given hon. Members information? Could not we have a White Paper on the progress of the negotiations stating what has been done and what has not been done, so that the debate may be constructive? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we did not even have a copy of the Treaty of Rome when the first debate was held?

Mr. Macleod

I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Member has said:

Mr. S. Silverman

May I, for purely practical purposes, revert to the question which I put to the Leader of the House a few minutes ago, and of which he answered only half? While conceding the disability from which he said that both of us suffered and assuring him there is every prospect of that disability being cured in his case quicker than in mine, may I remind him of the second part of my question about the Adjournment debate, from which obviously the Government had full responsibility?

There is a widespread impression, shared as we know by the Prime Minister, that the debate was on that occasion concluded. Will not he give us an opportunity to conclude it? If he cannot do that, will he at least assure us that he will take every care to see that the speaker winding up for the Government at the end of the debate on the Common Market does not overstep his time in such a way as to deprive the House from reaching a decision on the Motion if it wishes to do so? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday a Government spokesman talked out the Motion for the Adjournment. I am asking for an assurance that he will not do so on the occasion of the debate on the Common Market on the Motion for the adjournment.

Mr. Macleod

With respect to the hon. Member, I think that he will agree, on looking back to the last occasion— this is very rare for him— that he was caught napping—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he was. At one minute to ten o'clock he could have asked for the Closure, in which case there would have been such a Division. The hon. Member was not awake on that occasion. It is something which is very rare, but that is what happened.

Mr. Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is completely mistaken? I was fully aware of what was happening, but if the Government were so afraid for their case that they did not want a decision of the House in their favour, it was no business of mine to come to their rescue.

Mr. Macleod

The hon. Member had better consult HANSARD. He will then find that at two minutes past ten o'clock he awoke to what was happening, but that it was too late.

Mr. M. Foot

As the Leader of the House appears to be so well equipped with these precedents, will he tell us which was the last occasion when, in similar circumstances, the Government talked out their own Motion?

Mr. Macleod

We do this regularly.

Mr. S. Silvermanrose——

Mr. Speaker

I must ask if the hon. Member has a new question to ask. I think that we ought to get on with business.

Mr. Silverman

This is a serious point, Sir. I should like your permission to put it to the Leader of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has said now, what he did not say before, that the business of talking out Government Motions by their own spokesmen is a regular habit of the present Government. That reinforces the importance of my question to him in asking that he should give an assurance that that will not happen next Tuesday.

Mr. Warbey

On a point of order. In the Standing Orders we have Standing Order No. 10, which provides facilities for the Adjournment of the House to facilitate the business of Standing Committees in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been described this afternoon. The Standing Order provides that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House may be made only after notice given by a Minister of the Crown, which means, unfortunately, that no one but the Minister of the Crown may invoke this Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker

Does it not also result in it not being a point of order?

Mr. Warbey

I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker.

With great respect, I was about to ask whether, in view of the fact that this Standing Order may be invoked only by a Minister of the Crown, you can tell me what procedure I should follow to challenge the arrogant refusal of the Minister to apply this Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order for the Chair, manifestly, on the terms of the Standing Order.