HC Deb 01 May 1902 vol 107 cc532-40

Standing Order No. 47 read, as followeth :—

That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may by Order of the House, in each case, be committed to them; and the procedure in such Committee shall be the same as in a select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided, That strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw. Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st, 1856, and the said Committee shall not sit, whilst the House is sitting, without the Order of the House: Provided also, That any Notice of Amendment to any clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee, given by any hon. Member in the House, shall stand referred to such Committee: Provided also, That Twenty be the Quorum of such Standing Committees.

Amendment proposed to the Standing Order— In line 7, to leave out the words, 'Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st, 1856.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."

MR. CHANNING

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the Amendment was of a very simple character. As put down in the first instance, the limit of time to which the Standing Committees might sit was 2.30; but when they altered the hour of Questions, and when the period at which the debate should begin was postponed until three o'clock, it seemed to him to be for the convenience of the Grand Committees, and not detrimental to any interest, that the time to which they might sit should be extended to three o'clock. He had taken the advice of Gentlemen acquainted with the working of the Grand Committees, and it was in accordance with their views that he had put down the Amendment, and he hoped the House would agree to it.

MR. DILLON

said he strongly objected to the Amendment. It was another illustration of the tendency of the Government to drive the Parliamentary machine beyond all limits of human endurance. He thought it was most inconvenient that men who endeavoured to do their duty on the Grand Committees should be given the alternative either to leave the Committees or be absent from Questions. That was most unfair. It would be most inconvenient to keep hon. Members in attendance at the Grand Committees while Questions were being asked. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not compulsory.] His experience was that Grand Committees would sit as long as they were allowed to sit.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said that the Chairmen's panel had considered the question. He would remind the hon. Member that it was often extremely desirable to finish a Bill, and thereby obviate the necessity of meeting again. In such circumstances, it frequently happened that the Chairman of the Committee came down to the House for permission to sit for half an hour longer.

MR. DILLON

said that was only done by the general consent of the Committee.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said the Amendment would merely give the Committee power to sit on till three o'clock to finish their business if they wished.

(11.30.) MR. TOMLINSON

said it was perfectly clear if the Amendment were passed that the Grand Committees would continue to sit until three o'clock. That would be the effect of the Amendment, and it was for the House to decide whether that was the result it desired or not.

MR. GALLOWAY

said that at present Grand Committees adjourned at three o'clock unless special permission were obtained to sit until half-past three. That was the ordinary time for which leave was asked, because then Questions commenced. If the Amendment were passed in its present form, no Member of a Grand Committee would be able to be in attendance in the House during Questions. He begged to move to leave out the word "three" in order to insert "a quarter-past two."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said he thought that the First Lord of the Treasury would find, if the Amendment were passed in its present form, that it would be impossible to keep Members on the Standing Committees after two o'clock. He had served for many years on the Standing Committee on Trade, and he had also been added to the other Committee on many occasions. What happened was that if the Committee was approaching the conclusion of the Bill it was quite possible to get Members to stay for a few minutes in order to finish it, but if the rule were laid down that the Committees were to sit while Questions were going on, he ventured to say that the Committees would not be able to retain a quorum.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he did not think that the First Lord of the Treasury had made out any particular case for the Amendment. If a Committee desired to sit beyond the ordinary time, leave could be obtained as at present, but if the Amendment were accepted a large number of Members would be put to considerable in convenience as they would be expected to remain in attendance at the Committee while Questions were being asked. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the general convenience of Members.

MR. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said, as one who had experience on Grand Committees, he wished to remind hon. Members that, unless some alternative were made, Grand Committees would be obliged to send down at two o'clock and ask for leave to sit on. It was almost impossible to get Members, especially legal Members, to attend before half-past eleven o'clock, and that only left two and a half hours per day for the consideration of Bills which might require a very long time to pass through Grand Committee. It seemed to him that it was not desirable that on every occasion on which a Committee desired to sit on, it should have to go through what was, unfortunately, sometimes a disputed point as to whether leave should be given or not to send down to the House for permission to sit on. It would be much better to fix some time during the sitting of the House up to which Grand Committees might sit. The original time suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was half-past two, but it seemed to the Chairmen's panel that it would be desirable that the Committees should be allowed to sit until three o'clock, not with a view of always sitting, but in order to give that elasticity to the Rule which would enable a Committee to sit on if it were thought desirable. He would remind the House that, after all, the matter was entirely in the hands of each Grand Committee itself, and if any Member were to move the adjournment of the debate on the ground that Members should be in attendance in the House, he had no doubt that the Chairman of the Committee would agree to the Motion. He confessed he did not think the matter was worth a long wrangle in the House, but if the House was against extending the time to three o'clock, he hoped it would, at any rate, be extended to half-past two.

MR. BLAKE

said the matter was of more importance than would appear. He attached the greatest importance to the respect with which the House should receive the deliberations and results of the Grand Committees, and he thought that a good attendance at the Grand Committees was one of the essentials. If the Grand Committees were asked to sit beyond a quarter-past two, it would be penalising hon. Members by asking them to discharge Grand Committee work, while putting them in the position of having to neglect their duties in the House itself. Sending the Chairman down for leave to sit on in order to finish the business in hand was a piece of elasticity to which he did not object, but if a Rule were made that Grand: Committees should sit until three o'clock, the result would be that they would be depleted of their numbers and bereft of their authority, and that the beneficial functions which they now discharged would be largely impaired.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he thought there was a little ambiguity in the Amendment. Perhaps he would be corrected if he were wrong. Under Standing Order 56 leave was given to all Committees to sit during the sitting of the House, but by the present Rule that, leave was withdrawn from the Standing Committees. If the present Amendment were accepted, its effect would be to give Grand Committees the power to sit during the sitting of the House; but by a subsequent Amendment it was proposed to limit that right to three o'clock. He was not sure whether that was the best way of proceeding. He thought it would be much better to limit the time to a quarter-past two, when the business of the House commenced.

MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)

said that if Members of the Grand Committees did not feel disposed to go on with the work, no Rule would be of any avail. He had given a great deal of time to the work of Grand Committees, both as a member and also as chairman at various times, and the whole, thing depended on the attitude of mind of the Committee. He differed from hon. Members who thought that it was a good thing to send down a member of the Committee to ask for leave to sit on more or less hurriedly at a particular moment. It should never be done except deliberately, and it was always best it should be done by the Chairman as the mouthpiece of the Committee. He thought that Mr. Speaker, if he might most respectfully say so, had laid down some very useful rulings with reference to the practice of asking for leave to sit while the House was sitting. He was one of those who lamented the change by which the House would sit at two o'clock, as it would have a most serious effect on the work of Grand Committees. He hoped hon. Members would not deceive themselves as to that. In his early Parliamentary days Committees used to sit without any interval for refreshments. That had all gone by the board now, and thirty minutes out of some three hours were given up to luncheon. If the Grand Committees were to make any progress it might be necessary to give them power to sit till three o'clock; but, of course, if a certain number of Members desired, as they would, to take part in one of the most important functions of the House, namely, the putting of Questions, they could not be coerced into attending the Grand Committees. Therefore he was not at all sure that it was worth while making the change.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he would strongly appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to persevere in his proposal. He thought the effect of the earlier meeting of the House would be that Members on the Grand Committees would have to do without their lunch. That was not a very pleasant prospect, but that was what it would come to. Even under the present Rule, the Chairman put off the luncheon interval as late as possible, because after lunch the attendance was very scanty and the proceedings had scarcely any reality in them. If the Committees were to sit until throe o'clock it would be found that, in consequence of the absence of the lunchers and those who had Questions on the Paper, there would only be two or three Members besides the Chairman present, and what authority could the decision of such a body have? They must accommodate themselves to the new circumstances created by the new Rules. The Committees would probably have to meet at eleven and go on till about 2.30, and then Members would come into the House to put their Questions. There had been a general consensus of opinion against the present proposal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not adhere to it.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

thought it would probably shorten the discussion if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to substitute 2.30 for three o'clock. That would obviate the necessity of an adjournment for lunch.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was in somewhat of a difficulty. He was not intimately acquainted personally with the working of the Committees, but from the information he gathered he was under the impression that they were in favour of the proposal of the Government. This was a matter of absolute indifference to the Government: all they desired to do was to meet the convenience of those who did this most valuable work for the House and the country and who received less recognition than they deserved. It appeared, however, that three o'clock was thought to be too late. Would 2.30 meet the general wish of the House? [Cries of "2.15."] If that was the view of the House he had no objection. Did he understand it was the general view of the House? It was a rather irregular way of conducting their proceedings—[Mr. FLAVIN: The Leader of the House as an auctioneer]—but there did not appear to be many dissentients. He would therefore accept 2.15.

MR. BRYCE

assured the right hon. Gentleman that very little would be lost by the alteration, as the work of the Grand Committees was practically paralysed during the luncheon interval at present, and Members would now defer their lunch until after 2.15.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment made to the Standing Order, by inserting— In line 9, after the word 'sit,' the words 'after a quarter-past Two of the clock.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

The Standing Order, "Standing Committees," as finally adopted, is as follows :—

That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Precedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House in each case, be committed to them, and the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided that strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw; and the said Committees shall not sit after a quarter past Two of the clock whilst the House is silting without the Order of the House. Provided also that any Notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee, given by any hon. Member in the House, shall stand referred to such Committee. Provided also that Twenty be the quorum of such Standing Committees.