§ Mr. AttleeI desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to the position of business today. Last night the Government failed to keep a House and the House was counted out. [Interruption.] I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that that shows how little the Government supporters care about the Iron and Steel Bill.
§ The Prime MinisterI was referring to the fact that in resistance to this great "reactionary Measure" only four Socialist Members were in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. AttleeI understand that fewer than 20 Conservative Members were on the premises. However that may be, the fact remains that the House was counted out. Now there appears on the Order Paper today in italics "Iron and Steel Bill: Second Reading." I understand that was placed on the Paper after the House had risen, and I desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on that. On page 374 of Erskine May it is stated:
When it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting of the House, a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a Minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business; and the dropped order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day, or at the place among the orders of the day at which it is proposed to be taken.I presume that this has been placed on the Order Paper in supposed conformity with that passage in Erskine May, but the point there is that the ruling word is "essential"—it is essential that proceedings … should be resumed.Now there is nothing whatever essential about the proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill. It is a mere matter of convenience for the Government as to when it should be taken. I take it, therefore, that "essential" must refer to business which in point of importance or of time must be brought forward at a certain time. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is nothing essential about the Second Reading of the Iron 456 and Steel Bill; that owing to the remissness of the Government they lost their opportunity, and that therefore they cannot bring it on today.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition a question as to today's business in view of what happened in the early hours of this morning. It is a general rule that notice of Motion must be given before the House rises, and I understand it is common ground that the notice of Motion—
That on this House proceeding to the Orders of the Day the Iron and Steel Bill be ordered to be read a second time—was placed on the Order Paper afterwards.I have looked through a great number of precedents on this matter this morning, and there does appear to be a common practice to place this notice upon the Paper when there has been an unexpected interruption of Business, either by a count or by a suspension for grave disorder, or some other cause, and frequently the House has gone on to consider the business of the day that has been put down by means of this Motion. I am bound to say, on looking at them all, that the Bills or Motions which have been thus continued in this way have all been in the non-contentious class, rather like, though not entirely parallel to, the business taken after 10 o'clock.
The only case I could find of this having been done on a contentious Measure was in the case of the Government of Ireland Bill in 1912. There the House was adjourned because of grave disorder, thus creating an unexpected adjournment, such as happened this morning through the Count. On that occasion there was a Motion placed upon the Order Paper for the next day precisely similar to the one which stands on the Order Paper today. On that occasion Mr. Speaker Lowther, though he was not asked for a Ruling in public, must have been aware that there were doubts expressed as to the proper position of the matter and of the appropriate course for the House to adopt, because when this Motion for renewing the matter came up he made a statement, with the first part of which I need not worry the House because it refers to the disorder. He said:
I cannot help thinking that if the House had an opportunity of rather more consideration of the circumstances in which we stand, 457 and of the position in which the parties respectively are in regard to this matter, another solution of the difficulty might be found more in accordance with the old precedents which have governed this House, and would not create or set up a new precedent.I adopt that as the proper course to be taken here, though I am sure that the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred me in Erskine May is a concise and accurate summing up of the position, when it says:When it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting of the House, a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a Minister of the Crown.As to what is or what is not essential business, I have no means of judging; that is a matter entirely for the House and not for the Chair, and it could only be decided after debate. But I do say that in the case of a Measure which is contentious I adopt and repeat what Mr. Speaker Lowther said:I cannot help thinking that if the House had a further opportunity of considering the matter, another solution of the difficulty might be found more in accordance with the old precedents which have governed this House, and would not create or set up a new precedent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1912; Vol. XLIII, c. 2090–1.]
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)The whole House, I am sure, is in your debt, Mr. Speaker, for what you have just said. In the circumstances, the Government consider that the right procedure in the interests of the whole House would be for me not to move the Motion on the Paper.
On the other hand, I do not propose to follow an earlier precedent and move the Adjournment of the House, because we would wish not to deprive the Opposition of their last opportunity of moving the Prayers on the Order Paper, for which we have already made arrangements through the usual channels. That is why I am not proposing the Adjournment of the House. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Motion that is on the Paper, but I must give notice that tomorrow we will proceed with the Bill and the Money Resolution, and then proceed to the business already announced for that day.
§ Mr. AttleeI wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, could explain what seems to us to be a rather oracular Ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther, in which he referred 458 to some other method in which some happier solution might have been reached. I am afraid that I cannot understand at all what that solution would have been in these circumstances.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe answer to that is that when Mr. Speaker Lowther had given the answer which I have quoted, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Asquith, moved the Adjournment of the House, and the Order was carried on to another day. In other words, on that occasion the Prime Minister moved the Adjournment of the House, just as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not proposing to go on with this business today.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonNaturally we are glad that the Leader of the House is not going to move the Motion, but, Sir, it is important that the point of order should be sufficiently clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House know where they are, so far as the future is concerned.
My submission to you, Sir, is that what happened last night was that the House was counted out, and therefore there was no order of the House for the resumption of the Iron and Steel Bill debate. I submit, therefore, that, in effect, the first day of the Iron and Steel Bill debate has not taken place, because in any case it was not a complete day, and nor can it be so regarded, because there was no order of the House for the resumption of the debate. I submit that, in these circumstances, the Iron and Steel Bill debate officially has yet to commence and that two days ought to be available. Secondly, I submit that, in the circumstances, what I have said is in fact upheld by Erskine May, on page 316, where it is stated, that if a quorum is not present
the immediate adjournment of the House takes place.and that it is assumed, as in fact was the case, that there was no day appointed for the second day's debate. The usual procedure is for Mr. Speaker to say, "Debate to be resumed" and someone on the Government Front Bench then says, "Today or tomorrow." That did not take place on this occasion. I therefore submit that this debate did not take place.I submit, further, that it is very important that this point about essential business should be decided, not by the House, but by the Chair, because a 459 Government majority would naturally wish to vote it in their favour. I submit that essential business is business of such a character that it must be dealt with by the House by a certain date, as, for example, the Finance Bill and certain other Bills which must be through by a given time. This Bill is not of that character. There is plenty of time left for the Iron and Steel Bill, and consequently, on the question of what is essential business, I think that it is very important that there should be a Ruling from the Chair.
Finally, we shall want information from the Leader of the House on another point. I gather that he proposes that the second day of the Iron and Steel Bill debate shall be taken tomorrow—I submit that it is the first day of the debate—and that then there should follow the whole business of Emergency Powers, which was to have taken the whole day. If that is so, I think that he is treating the House very roughly.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is not moving the Motion, so we must get on to the next business.
§ Mr. MorrisonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking, with great respect, is for the purpose of the good record of the House and the future conduct of the House in matters of this kind. We are not clear as to the Ruling which you have given, Sir, and I am respectfully submitting that it would be for the convenience of everyone, and for the convenience of students of Parliamentary procedure concerning future points of order, if you would be so good as to rule on the point which both my right hon. Friend and myself have raised.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point aright, it is if the question whether the business is essential or not is to be decided by the Chair or by the House. Is that the point?
§ Mr. MorrisonAnd as to the other point, that the discussion on the Iron and Steel Bill yesterday must be disregarded in connection with the two days' debate because the House was counted out, and because the House gave no order as to the resumption of the debate.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs to the point of the essential character of the Bill, I think that 460 is a matter for the House and must remain so. The Speaker or the Chair cannot assess whether a Bill is essential or not. I have frequently heard one side of the House say, "This Measure must be passed," and the other side say, "There is no hurry about it." That is entirely a question for the House.
As to the second day's debate, I heard it announced on Thursday last that there would be two days of debate on this Bill, and I do not think that there is anything in the Standing Orders or in the practice of the House which renders nugatory the debate we had yesterday. I think that there is nothing contrary to precedent enabling me to rule that. As to the future conduct of the business, that is a matter for the Government and the usual channels to discuss.
§ Mr. Crookshank rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) rises to a point of order, and I called him first.
§ Mr. BevanI understand, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling means that if the essentiality of a Motion or an Order is a matter for the majority of the House, the Government would then be in perfect order today in proceeding with the Iron and Steel Bill. Is that the Ruling?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the matter had been left to them and the majority had decided that it was essential, that would have been a decision of the House according to the Standing Orders. But that course has not been taken, so the right hon. Gentleman's question is quite hypothetical.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no further point of order which can arise on this; we are not on this business.
§ Mr. BevanWith regard to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, if that be the case, then the House is in a helpless position, because it is no longer protected by Notices on the Order Paper, for at any moment, apparently, if the majority of the House wishes, it can put on the Order Paper whatever business it thinks fit and call it essential, and hon. Members will have no notice whatsoever 461 of what business is going to be debated. That really would reduce the procedure of the House to a complete farce.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not as wide as that; it merely refers to an unexpected Adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. BingOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I gave you notice that I was going to raise this matter as a point of order, may I—and I think that it is common ground to everyone—call to your attention—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot judge whether or not to allow this point of order until I have heard it.
§ Mr. BingI was going to call attention to one matter which shows that it would be quite wrong for this notice to be called, for this, in fact, is not a proper notice and it is not entitled to be called.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must rule against that. There have been many cases where this notice has been given. Now that we have decided to go on to the next business, I must call Mr. Ede.
§ Mr. EdeI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal a question with regard to the business which he has announced for tomorrow. It was conveyed to me through the usual channels yesterday that it was the desire of 462 the Government that the discussions tomorrow should not be too prolonged and I was asked to use my influence with certain hon. Friends of mine who had Notices on the Order Paper not to take too long with them. I undertook to do what I could to bring about that result.
However, I am bound to say that it is quite impossible to consider taking the whole of the remaining matters relating to the Emergency Laws after the House had disposed of the Iron and Steel Bill tomorrow, and the right hon. Gentleman must not think that any arrangement made yesterday can be regarded, in these new circumstances, as being acceptable.
§ Mr. CrookshankIndeed, I am beginning to find that no arrangements of any kind are acceptable.
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that I would raise the question that the House was considering a few seconds ago. As I understand it, you based your Ruling today on a decision by Mr. Speaker Lowther, and he, in turn, was basing his decision on what had happened in this House on 10th March, 1890.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am well aware of that, but we have really settled that point. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing my Ruling, and there can be no further purpose in continuing the discussion.