HC Deb 01 November 1962 vol 666 cc311-22
Mr. Gaitskell

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. Iain Macleod)

Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be continued on Thursday and Friday, and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 5th November, when we shall also ask the House to approve the Motion relating to Post-War Credits.

The business for the rest of the week will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 6TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Second Reading of the Tanganyika Republic Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 7TH NOVEMBER and THURSDAY, 8TH NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the Common Market, Which wild arise on a Government Motion, which will be tabled today.

FRIDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

The proposed business for MONDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER, will be: Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill, and of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.

Mr. Gaitskell

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government propose to announce their policy on commercial television? Will this be done through a White Paper before any legislation is introduced? Can he also say when the proposed Bill on the reorganisation of local government in London is likely to be introduced?

Mr. Macleod

On the first point, a White Paper is in course of preparation and will be presented to the House probably. I should think, rather before the Bill itself is ready. I should imagine that that would be convenient to the House.

We shall present the Bill on London local government in two or three weeks' time

Dame Irene Ward

Will my right hon. Friend help us by telling us who is to wind up the debate on Monday? As the question of unemployment on the North-East Coast is likely to be raised, and we have no Privy Councillor and no Minister to speak for us in the Cabinet, we in the North-East would like to know whether someone will be able to tell us in detail how our problem is to be dealt with.

Mr. Macleod

The answer to the first part of the question is, I shall, Sir. The answer to the second part is that I shall try, as the Opposition Amendment invites the House, to consider the problem of unemployment in four named particular areas, and, naturally, I am in touch will all my colleagues responsible for these matters.

Mr. Lipton

Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss the Privilege Motion in my name, which appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday and which some hon. Members may not have yet received? The Motion is:

That this House expresses its severe displeasure at the use of a banner carried in a procession of Orange Lodges in Belfast on 29th September, 1962, and bearing the words "House of Commons, Westminster", in circumstances tending to create the impression that this House was officially associated with a political demonstration; that such action is calculated to diminish the respect due to this House and to bring the House into odium; and that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Will the House be given an opportunity of deciding whether or not it is proper that persons in no way associated with this House should masquerade in public processions behind a banner of the type complained of as though they were Members of this House and tending to create that utterly false impression?

Mr. Macleod

The hon. Member gave me some notice of this matter and for that I am grateful. For the rest he was arguing the specific case. The lodge referred to has been in existence, I am told, for fifty years and this banner has been carried up and down Whitehall on a number of occasions. I have looked into this, and on the information that I have been able to glean I should not have thought that it was a matter which should be sent to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Lipton

Will the House be given the information which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to glean?

Mr. Macleod

I thought that I had just given it.

Mr. Hirst

In view of the profound concern felt on both sides of the House about the wool textile industry and the Anglo-Japanese Commercial and Navigation Treaty, will an opportunity be given to discuss the background of this matter before the Treaty is signed?

Mr. Macleod

I shall certainly convey that point to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I know that it is his intention, in a few days' time, to make a statement in the House.

Mr. M. Stewart

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that on the London local government Bill there ought to be a fair period of time between its presentation and Second Reading in view of the complexity of the issues and the large number of different persons and interests involved?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, Sir, of course I will take that into consideration. The hon. Member will know that we have had some discussions in the House already, but I will consider an appropriate lapse of time between publication and Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. McMaster

Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time early this Session to debate the question of employment in Northern Ireland, with particular regard to the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland, whose Report has just been published?

Mr. Macleod

It will certainly be in order, and, again, it is specifically mentioned in the official Opposition Amendment which we shall be discussing on Monday, to seek an opportunity then. Secondly, without giving any indication when it may be in this Session, I would hope that we shall find opportunity to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wigg

Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the Motion standing in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and myself asking the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Kuwait operation?

[That this House expresses grave concern that Her Majesty's Government failed to take adequate steps to safeguard the health of troops sent to Kuwait in July, 1961, and, through faulty planning and organisation, failed to ensure adequate supplies of water, suitable food, clothing, ammunition and other essential equipment so that had warlike operations occurred the safety of the forces would have been imperilled, and calls, therefore, for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the planning and organisation of the force sent to Kuwait, with the power to call for persons, papers and records.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of getting this problem considered on a non-party basis? Surely it must be a matter of concern not only to the House of Commons but to the country that British troops were sent to that area without proper health precautions, with inadequate water supplies, without proper food, without ammunition. There would have been a shambles had warlike operations taken place. If he cannot find time to debate this Motion, will he consider the setting up of a Select Committee?

Mr. Macleod

I shall certainly consider what the hon. Member has said without accepting, as he will understand, any of the allegations he has made either now or in his Motion, but I think that when the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order is considered there will be an opportunity when discussion of this matter would be in order.

Mr. Greenwood

Will the right hon. Gentleman, through the usual channels, consider ways and means of avoiding any untoward interruption of proceedings of this House by the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and perhaps make a statement at an early opportunity?

Mr. Macleod

From time to time in the course of attending in another place for the Royal Assent this House has sometimes found it inconvenient. I think that the question of Prorogation is a very different matter. I should be ready to have consultations, naturally, if the Leader of the Opposition so wished, but I did not feel that on this occasion the hon. Member's objection, which I noted at the time, carried with it the general sense of the House.

Mr. Willis

Why has the Lord Advocate disappeared from the list of Ministers who will answer Questions before Christmas? Is this to be taken as an indication that the Government have no intention to trying to secure the return of a Law Officer for Scotland?

Mr. Macleod

The hon. Member must not jump to too many conclusions from it. It is true, if I may state the obvious, that as there is no Lord Advocate in the House it is not possible to put Parliamentary Questions to him. This at least will be common ground between us. In that event, which is not unprecedented, they are put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Hall

Is it not a fact that the House has an undoubted right to deny the entrance of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod if it so desires? If this is so, how can the House exercise that right?

Mr. Macleod

I would prefer not to pronounce on that matter. After all, this arose last Session and is not concerned with the immediate business before the House.

Mr. Oram

The Leader of the House has anounced the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill. According to the Gracious Speech, we are to expect the Bill to set up a Consumer Council. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Report of the Molony Committee was much more comprehensive in matters of consumer protection than this. Can we expect that there will be an opportunity for a general debate on the Report of the Molony Committee before proceeding to legislation?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir. The next business in the field of consumer protection that comes before the House will be the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill. On Second Reading many of the wider matters which the hon. Member has in mind will obviously be in order.

Mr. Manuel

In connection with the debate on Monday, the Leader of the House will be aware that on the Order Paper there is an Amendment to the Address which has been signed by every Scottish Labour Member of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Ministers responsible for Scottish welfare take some part in the debate? Will he also arrange for the Board of Trade to be represented, because there is great and growing concern about noncompliance with wishes for advance factories and the unemployment figure of 85,000, which is expected to reach 100,000 soon? We are very concerned about this position.

Mr. Macleod

I have studied the Amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. This is a difficulty. The Secretary of State for Scotland will be here for large parts of the debate. I should like, when I wind up the debate, to make special reference to the points which will no doubt be raised in relation to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will remember that for some time I was Minister of Labour, which is a United Kingdom Ministry with responsibilities for Scotland, so the problem is not wholly unfamiliar to me.

Mr. Snow

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that, in respect of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) about the somewhat untimely arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, there is possibly rather more widespread feeling on this issue than he may realise? It should be possible for the holder of that office to be informed when we are ready to see him without in any way offending against time-honoured tradition.

Mr. Macleod

I have merely said that this really is straying a little from the business of the House, which is the matter immediately before us now. As I said to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), if it is wished that there should be discussions I should be very glad to take part in them. However, I repeat that at the time I did not think that the hon. Gentleman's protest, although it certainly was supported by some hon. Members, carried the sense of the House.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), the Leader of the House said that he would consider the matter. If it is a question of asserting the rights of the House of Commons in relation to another place, is not that a matter for you, Mr. Speaker? With respect, would you not consider the question and make a statement to the House on the question of privilege?

Mr. Speaker

First, it might be wise to wait and see whether consultations are to take place and, if so, what the outcome of those might be. It has not been the practice of my predecessors—I would not wish to adopt it myself—to give rulings about constitutional matters in circumstances which must of necessity be hypothetical. That is the only reason why I answer the question in this way. Should the necessity arise, I would, of course, make the requisite inquiry about it.

Mr. Gaitskell

For my part, I should be glad to enter into consultations with the Leader of the House on this matter. It is not a very easy one, but I think that it would be well worth talking it over and seeing if a more satisfactory arrangement can be reached.

May I revert to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). Will the Leader of the House say a little more on this subject? I am the last person in the world to wish to impose any further burdens on the Committee of Privileges, but is it not a little strange that anybody can apparently parade with a banner entitled "House of Commons, Westminster Branch"? Would the excuse which is apparently given by the Leader of the House apply if, shall we say, either a Fascist or a Communist branch were set up or a branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Can anybody do this kind of thing, or is it limited to Northern Ireland and Orangemen?

Mr. Macleod

I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I should be ready to have such discussions. I made the point about this banner, of which a photograph appeared, which I have seen, in the Belfast Telegraph,that the lodge had been in existence for more than fifty years. The Leader of the Opposition will know that there is a wide variety of organisations, such as the House of Commons Motor Association, the House of Commons Golf Association, and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am on the point of the insignia at the moment. After all, it is not ours alone.

Whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it wise to have an inquiry into the authority by which such bodies use such insignia, and in what way and whether there should be rules about it, is rather another matter. If the right hon. Gentleman likes, I would have consultations about it. What I said about this point was that my impression is, this having been going on for fifty years, as I understand it without objection, that it does not really seem to be a very appropriate matter to refer to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the Leader of the House at least toll us whether such a House of Commons Orange Lodge exists? If it does not exist, why has anybody got the right to parade with a banner? If it exists, who belongs to it? Will the Leader of the House also say how far anybody can set up branches of this kind and parade with banners? This is a matter which ought to be considered a little more closely than the right hon. Gentleman appears to have considered it.

Mr. Speaker

It would not be proper for me to interrupt this exchange, but I have some doubt as to whether the enlistment rules of these lodges come strictly within the matter of business for next week.

Mr. Wigg

Further to the point of order I raised earlier. Although I am the last hon. Member to deplore consultations between the two Front Benches, is it not a fact, Sir, that on your appointment you undertook to safeguard the privileges of this House? If a messenger comes from another place and it is not merely a piece of legalistic mumbo-jumbo that the door is slammed in his face, that is an assertion of the right of the House of Commons to deny entry if the House so wishes.

Therefore, I respectfully ask again that you be kind enough to inquire into the historical precedents and inform the House at your convenience what our rights in the matter are. Are we engaging in a piece of theatre, or do we have the right to deny the entrance of the ambassador from another place?

Mr. Speaker

No. I desire to treat the hon. Member with every kind of courtesy. I appreciate the interest there is in this problem and its practical importance. I do not think that I would be wise to give, until the necessity arises for me on the instant, a Ruling on a constitutional matter of that kind, for a variety of reasons. However, all the advice available to me—I have in the past had occasion to make some inquiry about this—would be available to those who may enter into consultation about it. I think that it is best to wait and see.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. This is not hypothetical. This arose a week ago. The House was considering a matter of the gravest seriousness. Then the door was knocked on and the business of the House was abruptly brought to an end. I think that this turned the House of Commons into a piece of nonsense. In my judgment, it was an archaic flummery. It is either a piece of theatre or it has some reality. The House should find out, and, if necessary, assert its rights in this matter.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry. I still think—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think this is quite sensible—that we would much better first see the outcome of the consultations which appear to be about to take place. There is no point in delivering constitutional lectures if there is no reason to do so. If there should be reason to do so, I shall not shirk the duty in the least. I will make my researches and say what the House requires me to say about it. I think that we had better wait and see what happens to the consultations.

Mr. Ross

In relation to the business for next week and every other week until the Government sort out their dilemma in not having any Scottish Law Officer, does the Leader of the House appreciate that the Lord Advocate answered Questions on Monday? Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to assume this responsibility, will now appear twice on the Order Paper? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Scottish Members, who have a grievance at the moment from having so many Departments of Government to deal with on the one Question day, will have an added grievance?

Mr. Macleod

The answers to the hon. Member's questions are these. First, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be answering questions on Wednesday, Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, very few Questions have been tabled for the Lord Advocate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman will discover, if he looks back, that very few Questions indeed have been tabled for the Lord Advocate. Thirdly, the order for Questions is a matter for constant discussion through the usual channels. If there is a strong feeling that any change in the proposed order should be made, we can look at it.

Sir A. V. Harvey

May we take it that, if the Secretary of State answers these Questions on a Monday, Scottish Members will be here on a Monday?

Mr. Ross

That is below the belt. Our concern is to safeguard our rights on Wednesdays. The addition of any other Questions on Wednesdays places us in considerable difficulty. What right has the Leader of the House to assume that there will continue to be very few Questions tabled for the Lord Advocate? Will he bear in mind that there is a very important Criminal Justice Bill coming along on which probing Questions may have to be asked of the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Macleod

The order of Questions can be changed by agreement at any time. There is constant consultation on this matter. The suggestion which is being put forward, which has been discussed, although we on this side of the House take full responsibility for it, is that to answer on Wednesday would best suit the convenience of the House. If hon. Members wish to express any point of view to me, I should be very glad to talk to them about it.

Mr. Mitchison

Who has the duty and capacity to advise us about Scottish law if the question arises?

Mr. Macleod

The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not here."] But the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a situation which has occurred before in quite recent years.

Mr. Jeger

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I received this morning a copy of the Weights and Measures Bill marked "Confidential"? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain this latest chapter in the strange history of this Bill?

Mr. Speaker

No. May I intervene? Funny as it may be, at worst the word "Confidential" related only to the Explanatory Memorandum. It was due to a printer's error that it appeared even on that, for which I must apologise to the House, and do so.