STANDING COMMITTEE PROCEDURE (ACTION OF CHAIRMAN). (Hansard, 4 April 1905)

§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
called attention to the conduct of the hon. Member for the Rashcliffe Division when acting as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade on March 21st. He said he had no intention to cast any aspersion on the hon. Member. He thought he would have the support of the hon. Gentleman himself in tho course he was taking, for he found that in November, 1902, he gave notice of a Motion to the effect that the terms of the Standing Order in regard to closure of debate in tho House itself should be altered. There vere certain rules which had been laid down for the guidance of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and they gave power to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to apply the closare, but no such rule had ever been laid down for the guidance of the Chairmen of Standing Committees. On March 23rd, 1893, the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire complained of the action of the Chairman of a Committee in closuring a debate, and the Chairman justified his action on the ground that the question had already been sufficiently discussed. Of course 425 they all recognised that there must be a considerable amount of discretion left to the Chairmm of a Committee, but in this particular case what happened was that a Motion had only been under discussion for about twenty minutes. He did not think any question of fact would arise upon that. An Amendment was moved, and afterwards withdrawn at the request of the Committee.

§ *MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)
Leave to withdraw it was refused, and it was negatived.

§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said everybody thought it was advisable not to discuss it in Committee. The real object his hon. friend had in moving it was to get at the facts. That was a very different state of affairs from what took place in March, 1893. He did not think anybody would say that it was impossible to carry on the discussion in the Committee if the discussion had been allowed to continue. But the hon. Gentleman refused to put a Motion for the adjournment which he (the speaker) moved at that time. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire moved the Motion which was before the Committee on that occasion, and he stated that he would accept the Motion for the adjournment if the Government would do certain things. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture was not in his place, and it was for that reason that he moved the adjournment of the discussion in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have time to consider the proposal which had been made. It was about ten minutes to two, the Chairman refused to put the Motion for the adjournment of discussion, and when he (the speaker) rose to continue the debate he put the Question. There was a Standing Order of the House which said that Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees should have power not to accept a dilatory Motion, but no similar power was given to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the custom was now to send contentious Bills to the Standing Committees, and it was therefore in the interest of minorities that certain rules should be laid down for the 426 guidance of Chairmen. Everybody would agree that it would be well that both the Chairmen and the members of those Committees should know exactly what powers they had. Therefore, without casting any aspersion on the hon. Member for the Rushclifle Division he had thought it right to bring the question before the House in the hope that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan would be accepted and that a special Committee would be appointed to report whether any amendments in the procedure of the Standing Committees were desirable.

§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.),
in seconding the Motion, said he concurred with his hon. friend in stating that they had no desire to cast any aspersion on the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, and he hoped the hon. Member would accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given. Everybody who had attended the Grand Committees must have been struck with the fact that there was an entire absence of Standing Orders for regulating the debates in those Committees. When the Committees were set up they were intended to deal with Bills of a non-contentious character, and so long as that rule was observed there was perhaps no great necessity for Standing Orders. But that salutory rule laid down by Mr. Gladstone had been broken, not perhaps by one side more than another. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] That was his view. At all events, it was not denied that it had been broken, and indeed now it was impossible for a private Member to have a chance of getting a Bill through, however non-contentious it might be, unless it was referred to a Grand Committee. The practice which had grown up in regard to the closure was much more drastic than the one that was allowed in the House. He thought it was the Leader of the Opposition who gave the first precedent with respect to closure in a Standing Committee, and it had placed absolutely in the hands of the Chairman the right to closure a debate whenever he thought fit, and nobody had any right to say a word. He did not think that was a desirable state of affairs. He held that the Committee should have the right to say whether the debate should be terminated 427 and the Question put. The same remark applied to the question of adjournment. In this particular case he thought a very great public service would have been rendered if the Committee had adjourned. Although the Motion for the adjournment was refused they were able to make a compromise at a subsequent sitting of the Committee, but that compromise was rendered infinitely more difficult than it would have been if the Motion for the adjournment had been put. With regard to the question of voting, he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth refused to vote because he had not heard the question sufficiently debated to enable him to come to a conclusion. The procedure to be followed in such a case was laid down in Erskine May's well-known book, and he held that the action of the Chairman on the occasion referred to in refusing to make the right hon. Gentleman vote was entirely without precedent and contrary to the usages of Grand Committees. It was easy for the Chairman of a Committee to fall into an error of this kind when he had no Standing Orders upon which he could act. He hoped, therefore, that something would be done to have this matter settled in order that the work of the Grand Committees might be properly carried out.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, doubts having arisen as to certain rulings given by the hon. Member for the Rushclifie Division as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade on 21st March, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that rules should be laid down for the guidance of Chairmen of Standing Committees."— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)

§ *MR. JOHN ELLIS
I am sure those who listened to the hon. Gentlemen will appreciate the statement that I rise under some difficulty. I have no intention of 428 complaining for a moment of anything that has fallen from the hon. Gentlemen. They have repeated to-night what they said in Committee, that their action is not personal. I wish they had allowed me a few more moments to reply. I shall endeavour to put the case as clearly as I can to the House. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion has taken up, quite unnecessarily, the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth, who is not here to state his case, and who explained to the satisfaction of those in the Committee why he did not vote. He then said he took that course under circumstances other than those which had been detailed by the hon. Gentleman, who has given a somewhat inaccurate account of the proceedings in question. The hon. Gentleman should have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to came to his place and raise the question himself. The Motion before the House raises two separate things. It deals with the personal conduct of a Chairman of the Committee and it goes on to deal with a matter with which I have great sympathy, namely, the working of the Grand Committees. On the first, with which I am personally concerned, I shall in the briefest possible manner lay the facts before those who do me the honour to listen to me.
There were two Amendments before the Committee—what I may call a major and a minor Amendment. There was an Amendment which covered a large field and which was debated in the most excellent manner. It was argued in a business-like manner, and the discussion might be regarded as affording an illustration of how business before a Grand Committee should be conducted. It was debated for over an hour and when the Grand Committee came to a decision on that it was half-past one. Then the minor Amendment was started by an hon. Member. When he came to me and 429 asked the precise place at which it could be inserted, I saw there was doubt as to whether the Committee had not already decided the point which the minor Amendment raised. But I let it in. Immediately I put it from the Chair, the hon. Member who initiated our earlier proceedings this evening raised the point whether the Committee had not really already decided the matter, whether it was not covered by the decision come to. I was inclined to think in my inmost heart that it was, but I let it in. I said I had grave doubts, but, at all events, I thought it entitled me as Chairman to suggest that a decision might be come to on this very minor Amendment with some rapidity especially as it was understood that we were going to commence the consideration of another larger and quite different matter when we bogan our proceedings the next day. The hon. Member for Peckham rose and made what I ventured to say at the time was a spaech not dealing with the minor Amendment, but one roaming at large and raising the whole principle of the Bill. The hon. Member, roaming at large, made a Second Reading speech. I appealed to him, and he gave way and concluded his remarks. I was proceeding to put the Question when the hon. Member again rose and moved the adjournment of the Committee. I refused the Motion, acting strictly on precedent, and went further. Under the circumstances, basing myself on precedent, and accepting the full responsibility of my action, I proceeded to put the Question. I put the Question and the Committee came to a decision. That is the head and front of my offending. That was at ten minutes to two o'clock, and we were on 430 the eve of adjourning. I have sat for more than fifteen years on these Grand Committees—for the first five years as a member and during the last ten years as Chairman. I recollect in the earlier years I had the high honour of sitting under the present Leader of the Opposition who, as Chairman of a Grand Committee, was one of the most excellent I ever saw. I saw him bring the proceedings to an end in a more drastic manner than I ever did. I based myself on that and other precedents and I am bound to say that, if I were in the Chair to-morrow and the same circumstances were to arise at ten minutes to two o'clock, and I had the knowledge that next day we were to proceed to a much more important matter, and a Member rose in the way the hon. Member did, I should act in precisely the same way. I acknowledgs it is a strong proceeding to take. During the whole ten years I have acted as Chairman of Grand Committees I have never resorted to it before. But in the circumstances I am satisfied that, acting to the best of my ability and with a desire to maintain the efficiency of these Committees, I did what was right for the proceedings of the Committee. That is all I have to say on the personal matter.
The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion devoted a great deal of their remarks to the consideration of the working of the Grand Committees. I am one of those who have always defended the appointment of Grand Committees. I have always thought that they were a most valuable part of the machinery of this House. I think that we shall have to make great use of the Grand Committees, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has put down an Amendment 431 that it is desirable to take some opportunity of considering the whole working of these Committees with the view to improving their machinery and laying down something like Standing Orders in order to guide both members and Chairmen. In saying that I must carefully guard myself by saying that there can be no doubt whatever as to that firm ground on which as Chairman on that occasion I took action, using the classical language which we all know in this House. I humbly submit myself to the judgment of the House.

§ SIR CHARLES RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.)
seconded the Amendment.