AT WESTMINSTER
THE world is too much with us. Parliament this week has been trying to speak coherently about take-over bids, television, the uses of atomic, energy, the defence of the Suez Canal, foreign policy in general, colonial administration in Africa, the retired pay of officers, and capital punishment. (Even so, the Lords postponed their two-day debate on foreign affairs until after Christmas.) And all the time there has been the thunder off-stage of the threatened railway strike which raised issues that will take months to straighten out—the authority of arbitration tribunals, wage differentials within the railway service, the relation of railway wages to those of other industries. It is remarkable that during the past month the Oppositiqn should not have found a day—even half a day, an adjournment, or a motion—to bring before Parliament the seriousness of the unrest felt by railway workers. The lack of such a warning is characteristic of the working of Parliament at present. Railway economics have, been crowded out. As each new trouble breaks upon the country Parliament is likely to be behind the times again.' It seems unable to find time to look ahead. * * * * In self-protection against the pressure of *events, the Commons have the gift of pretending that each item of business before the House can be handled in a vacuum. Thus the Opposition entered with tremendous gusto into a campaign during the television debate on Monday and Tuesday to fix the charge of " pecuniary interest " on some Tory Members. Labour seemed more eager to pursue this side-show than to follow the debate, though even there Mr. Gordon Walker, winding up for Labour on Tuesday night, pictured the Tories as being excited by " the smell of money "—curious language from a former Christ Church tutor. In the course of exchanges with the Chair, the House became familiar with Mr. Speaker Abbot's ruling of 1811 that the charge of pecuniary interest did not arise on " matters of state policy." Labour's main concern, however, was to say, and say often, that some Tories were interested in advertising and in the radio industry. Apart from any political gain Labour expects from these tactics, the Opposition was delighted on Tuesday night by the Speaker's ruling that the Government had allowed the debate to be talked out by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. No vote could therefore be taken then, and the Government's motion approving its tele- vision policy had to be put down again: loss of a Government's time always heartens an Opposition. Ministers hotly denied that Sir David overshot his time but ultimately bowed to the Speaker's ruling. There was a tremendous hullabaloo while the issue was argued. The two public clocks in the chamber tell a different tale from each other, but the " official " time is said to be on a third clock which the public cannot see: perhaps it, too, takes anindependent line. ' * * * * The Government has had other knocks this week. Nearly forty Tories published on Wednesday—in readiness for Thursday's debate on foreign affairs–ra motion demanding the immediate suspension of negotiations with Egypt over the Suez Canal base, and Lord Rennell gave notice on Tuesday that he would open a debate on Suez in the House of Lords on Thurs- day. The Government, whether or not it wishes its hand to be " strengthened " in its relations with Egypt, cannot welcome a gesture from its own supporters that allows political oppo- nents to exploit a Tory " rebellion." In the House of Lords on Tuesday General Lord Jeffreys led another sharp attack on the Government's refusal to raise the retired pay of officers. * * * * The Lords have had their more urbane moments this week. On Monday Lord Salisbury, who on New Year's Day will become responsible for atomic development, made the genial forecast that by AD 2000 the bulk of the country's electricity would be generated from atomic energy; and on Tuesday peers from all parties joined to honour Lord Samuel, the Liberal leader, at a dinner at the House. He is now 83, and, as every-
Previous page
