Political Activities (Report)
54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government have yet come to any decision on the proposals contained in the Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, in respect of the imposition of further restrictions on their political activities and liberties.
No, Sir. No decision will be made until the discussions at present taking place on the National Whitley Council are completed.
In view of the fact that this Committee reported as long ago as June, 1949, is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman decided not to accept these proposed restrictions and to say so?
I think we should let the discussions continue.
Transfers (Superannuation)
55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give guidance to the Departments concerned as to the principles to be applied in the giving of consent to transfer with superannuation rights of established civil servants to the employ of local authorities under the provisions of the Superannuation (Transfers between the Civil Service and Local Government) Rules. 1950.
The rules mentioned are intended to assist transfers between various forms of public employment by removing superannuation difficulties. Departments have been advised that the consent of the permanent head of the Department, which is required by the rules, should be withheld only in exceptional cases, where the public interest requires this.
in view of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, would he be good enough to consider the somewhat restrictive interpretation of these rules adopted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air?
If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars. I will certainly look into the matter.
New Colonial Office (Revised Plans)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HOLLIS:
100. To ask the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement about the revision of the plans for the new Colonial Office.
At the end of Questions—
I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, answer Question No. 100.
In view of the public interest in this Question, and the views expressed both in this House and in another place, the Government have reconsidered the plans for a building on the Stationery Office and Westminster Hospital sites. The plans will be revised so as to set back the pavilions on each side of the building facing the Abbey a further 30 feet. This means that the main face of the building will be 72 feet back from the line of the old hospital frontage, and the pavilions will be 48 feet back from that line. A model to the original design, but illustrating the set back, is on show today in the Ministerial Conference Room on the Ground Floor. One of my architects will be in attendance to demonstrate to hon. Members. No change will be made in the height of the building, which is within the limits laid down in the Public Offices (Site) Act 1947. About one-third of the hospital site was to be surrendered for amenity purposes. Under the new scheme over half will be so surrendered, so that the prospect of the Abbey and other surrounding buildings will be greatly improved, and it will be easier to meet possible future traffic requirements. Any further setting back would mean adding to the height of the building, which I am anxious to avoid. I am satisfied that the building to be erected on this site in accordance with the revised plans will result in a real improvement in the planning of this important area, and that the building itself will provide a headquarters for the Colonial Empire of which we may all be proud.is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall go to look at the plan with the greatest interest, and that, although we cannot commit ourselves until we have seen it, I think public opinion will, in general, be very inclined to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Can I get one point clear? Do I understand that the Colonial Office is going to do with a smaller space, and that nothing will be added at the back, and that Central Hall will not be impinged upon?
Nothing will be added to the back. The new building will, in fact, provide about 156 fewer places than was originally intended. In regard to the plan, my suggestion is that, in addition to looking at the model downstairs, hon. Members should also go to look at the site, which is pegged out to show exactly where the building will be.
Is it not possible for the Minister to reconsider once more the height of the building? Whatever powers the Government may have to build, surely this is a case where they should have regard to the importance of the Abbey and to the question of the close placing to it of a building as high as is at present intended, which certainly would be very detrimental to one of the most important centres of Europe?
I have looked into that and have come to the conclusion that the setting back will really meet all reasonable requirements. I am very loth to interfere with the architect any more than I have done.
While thanking the Minister for having gone so far, may I ask whether he will have a rough block model of the Abbey put in position in relation to this proposed building, so that we can judge the effect?
That is downstairs, and the hon. Gentleman can see it.
Does the fact that there will be 156 fewer desks in the new building mean that 156 civil servants will have to be in a separate office, or will they be dispensed with altogether?
I think the hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Does the division of the site in half mean that the Minister is no longer opposed to partition?
Has the Royal Fine Art Commission been consulted, or will it be consulted?
This is better than what the Royal Fine Art Commission asked for, and I do not consider it necessary to put the question to them, but I am, of course, advising the Commission of the changes.
History Of Parliament (Government Grant)
(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the representations made to the Government by the Trustees of the History of Parliament Trust for financial assistance to make possible a revised and improved scheme for the publication of a History of Parliament?
As the House is aware, a project was started in 1933, largely on the initiative of the late Colonel the right hon. Josiah Clement Wedgwood, M.P. (afterwards Lord Wedgwood), to publish a history of Parliament from the earliest times. This project had the support of both Houses of Parliament. The Government of the day agreed to the printing and publication of the History by the Stationery Office, provided that the necessary funds for its preparation could be secured beforehand from sources other than public funds.
Two volumes of the History had been published before the late war caused the work to be suspended. During the war Lord Wedgwood transferred the balance of the funds collected for the purpose to Trustees, who are now charged with the responsibility for preparation and publication of the History. As the House is, no doubt, aware the Chairman of the Trustees is my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Treasurer the right hon. the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton); the other Trustees are the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the right hon. the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Badeley, Lord Campion and Professor Sir Frank Stenton. After the war the Trustees took stock of the position. Circumstances had changed. Costs of production had increased, and adequate private funds were no longer forthcoming to meet the expenditure. If the publication of the History was to be continued the Trustees felt it necessary to ask His Majesty's Government for financial assistance. With this in view, and with the experience already gained, they consulted expert historical opinion, and worked out a revised and improved scheme for the publication of a History of Parliament. The proposal is to divide the History into appropriate periods, determined partly by the volume of the available materials, and partly by the character of Parliament as an institution at different times; to give a detailed record of the personnel of Parliament, both Lords and Commons, an outline of the principal transactions in each recorded Session, and, built up from these details, a survey of the development and continuity of Parliament through the centuries as an integral part of the British Constitution. In view of the value of such a History, His Majesty's Government, after careful consideration, have decided to give their financial support to its publication. Approximate estimates have been submitted, and based thereon it is proposed that an annual grant-in-aid not exceeding £17,000, which would be made up of £15,000 general expenses and £2,000 net cost of publication for each volume, should be made to the Trustees. For the first year, when the costs would naturally be lower than this maximum figure, a grant-in-aid of £7,500 would be sufficient to cover the expenditure proposed. A grant-in-aid of £7,500 will accordingly be included in the Estimates for 1951–52. It is intended that the proposed grant should cover both the cost of the editorial staff and the net cost of publication by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and should he the first of 20 such annual grants-in-aid. The Trustees will continue to be responsible for the preparation and publication of the History, but will submit an annual report of their progress and annual accounts, which will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.As a considerable amount of material is available for almost immediate publication, could my right hon. Friend say whether it is intended to start publication at once?
That will be a matter for the Trustees.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about who will write the new volumes? Can he hold out any hope that they will contain biographies of more literary merit than the very poor stuff that appeared in the two volumes already published?
That is a matter also for the Trustees, and I do not think it would be wise for the Government to dictate to them.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about 20 annual grants. Does that mean that the outlook is for publication over a 20-year period ahead? If so, could not publication be somewhat accelerated?
That is the proposal, but I dare say the matter could be reconsidered when we have gone some way; but for the present that is the view of the Trustees.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and I—Mr. Deputy-Speaker being precluded by custom from taking part in the debate—will be very pleased, when the Supplementary Estimates come forward, if permitted by the Chairman, to answer any questions or criticisms from any quarter of the House, and to convince the critics that they are wrong? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very much hoped that we shall obtain from the sale of these volumes a sum of money that will substantially reimburse the Treasury?
I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his offer to deal with questions when the Supplementary Estimates are discussed, and also for pointing out that there is a prospect, at any rate, that some fair part of the expenditure will be recouped.
Railways (Wage Claim)
(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the railway situation.
Yes, Sir. The Report of the Court of Inquiry has been sent to the parties and discussions between the Railway Executive and the three unions are now in progress. I would ask to be excused from making any further statement at this stage.
Would the right hon. Gentleman emphasise what I believe will be the view of the whole House, that while these negotiations are in progress nothing should be done by way of strikes or working to rule which will, on the one hand, hamper these negotiations and, on the other, injure the national interest?
As the House is probably aware, last Friday I had conferences with the two parties and I made the statement, which I am quite sure all Members of the House will approve, that whilst these discussions are in progress they ought not to be prejudiced in any way by any action taken outside.
Will the Minister represent to his colleagues in the Government that it is high time there was a complete review of the relationship in the nationalised industries to prevent such impossible situations arising?
We are hoping, as a consequence of these discussions and of the agreement which we all hope will emerge from the discussions, that a sweeter relationship will exist between all parties in industry.
Can the Minister say when he expects the position will have clarified sufficiently for him to be able to make a statement?
I should not like to anticipate that at this moment.
Canadian Dollar Credit
I wish to make a statement regarding the undrawn balance of the credit of 1,250 million dollars which the Canadian Government made available to the United Kingdom in May, 1946, and which expires on 31st December, 1951. Of this credit, 65 million dollars have not been used and drawings have been suspended since last June. Following discussion in Ottawa between the United Kingdom High Commissioner and the Canadian Government, His Majesty's Government have decided that they will not draw any further on this credit. The Canadian Government were so informed yesterday.
I am sure the House will wish to join me in expressing once again our warmest appreciation of the spirit which prompted the Canadian Government and people to afford us this very generous measure of help in our time of need and so to speed our economic recovery in the last four years.