HC Deb 12 March 1897 vol 47 cc578-81
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.),

who was received with Opposition cheers, said: Mr. Speaker, With your kind permission, I desire to ask your statement to the House upon a matter which affects what I may call the material interests of Members. [Laughter.] There seems to have been some misapprehension upon this subject, and which might produce in future discomfort to Members of this House. It will be in the recollection of those who took part in the Debates on Procedure in 1888 that this matter—I refer to the adjournment, of the House for the purpose of what is called dinner—[laughter]—was the subject of certain proposals by the Government of the time, and the formal proposal was that there should be an adjournment from 8 o'clock until 9. There was a great deal of debate upon that subject, but it all resulted in a statement by the then Leader of the House, whose judicious and courteous treatment of everybody will be remembered by all—[cheers] —I refer to the late Mr. W. H. Smith. Having collected what he considered to be the view and feeling of the House of Commons, Mr. Smith made a statement, of which I will read two sentences. He said he had no hesitation in saying, as he had stated earlier in the evening, that the desire of the Government was to meet the convenience of the House and to provide for the dispatch of business by men in physical condition to discharge it with advantage to the country. [laughter]—and he added, with regard to the suspension of the sitting at 8 o'clock for an hour, that he might state at once that, having gathered the sense of the House on the point, the Government would not press that proposal; but it ought to be understood that in recent years it had become the practice for the Speaker to retire for a limited period between 8 and 9 o'clock, and that practice had been continued, except that the House would probably agree that the interval might very well be extended to half an hour. That was the rational and practical outcome of the Debates of 1888. There was no cast-iron rule laid down, but it was understood that there was to be an adjournment of from 20 minutes to half an hour. According to my experience that has been the practice that has been followed, though there may have been occasional deviations from it. I am sure the House would be glad to hear from you, Sir, a statement as to the practice. I know the impression in some quarters has been that the rule was merely for the benefit of the occupant of the Chair. I do not know if that was the origin of the interval, but certainly since 1888 it has not been regarded as the object, as is apparent from the citations I have made. The suspension has been considered for the benefit of the whole House, and I hope that, by your ruling, that will be established in such a way that no doubt can exist in the future.

MR. SPEAKER

I have always understood that the suspension for half an hour was not an indulgence which was granted by the House to itself, but was in the nature of a concession to the natural infirmities of the occupant of the Chair—[laughter]—who would otherwise have to remain in his place for nine or ten consecutive hours. I have looked at the Debate which took place in 1888, and it does not appear to me that Mr. Smith was proposing in what he said to deal with exceptional cases such as may arise when the Chairman and the Speaker both obtain the necessary intermission without the operation of the half-hour's suspension. Therefore, it appears to me that when the Speaker and the Chairman, both of them are in that position, either of them is justified in continuing the sitting without interruption of business unless he is otherwise ordered by the House. That I take to have been the practice, and I consider that to be still the practice, notwithstanding what passed in 1888. But there is another consideration to which I would call the attention of the House—namely, that the occasions when such a situation arises are extremely rare, and that when they do occur they probably cause inconvenience to some Members of the House—["hear, hear!"]—by taking them by surprise. Therefore, though I have stated what I consider to be the practice which justifies the Speaker or the Chairman in continuing the sitting, I think it is desirable that some more fixed rule should be acted on by the House. ["Hear, hear!"] There is some difficulty in precisely fixing the rule, because there are cases when I think the House would agree that it is desirable that the Chair should not be too closely pinned down. For example, sometimes the business before the House gets through with unexpected rapidity, so that by sitting on until half-past 9 or 10 o'clock, the whole of the business is disposed of without the Speaker or Chairman leaving the Chair at all. ["Hear, hear!"] There must be freedom to the Chair to deal with cases of that kind, but, subject to that general supervision which the Chair exercises over the business of the House, I shall certainly make it my practice—one which will, I hope, meet with the general assent of the House—when the business of the House is going to last till 12 o'clock, to see that there is an interval of half an hour. [Opposition cheers.] In making that statement I must not be understood as saying a word in derogation of anything which has been done or held hitherto in this House. I have stated what I consider the practice has been up to this time, but I think more will be gained by laying down a more fixed rule than is gained by saving perhaps half an hour in the course of a Session. ["Hear, hear!"] I shall follow the practice I have suggested, reserving it to myself and to the Chairman on special ocasions, such as I have mentioned, to regulate the business of the House in such a way as to meet the general convenience. ["Hear, hear!"]