§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That so much of the Lords Messages [15th and 16th May] as relates to the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], Ancient Monuments Protection Bill [Lords], and Ancient Monuments Protection (No. 2) Bill [Lords] be now considered."—[Mr. Gulland.]
§ Mr. BOOTHI should like to call the attention of the House to this proposed appointment of a Joint Committee, which seems to me to be a proposal that would be better honoured in the breach than in the observance. I do not see why we should be asked without a word of explanation, without any argument at all, from time to time to set up these Joint Committees upon something or other. The ordinary Members of the House, seeing that the Patronage Secretary submits a Motion, very often come to the conclusion that it is a matter of no moment, and it goes through, and, as a rule, nothing more is ever heard of it. Last Session, something very much of this character was brought forward, and I was enabled, by my action, to get it put on one side, but I do not think any one Member should have that in his power. Here is a Motion relating to the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment. Bill, and the Ancient Monuments Protection Bill, and I think we are entitled to know who are the Members to be suggested by the other House before we appoint our own representatives. As far as I can see the six Members named in this Resolution seem to be three Liberals and three Conservatives. I am not going to challenge the ability of my colleagues in this House, but at the same time I hope, if a Committee of this kind is to be set up, that some of those Members who have asked questions on the subject, and taken keen interest in it, will have their claims to selection as Members of this Committee considered. 1934 I might refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King), who has repeatedly asked questions with regard to these monuments and works of art, and the protection of things ancient and venerable. I object to this proposal because I am not prepared to surrender my own individual rights upon these non-party questions. I do not like these joint committees, and I think the House of Commons ought to be sufficient for us. Why there should be a Joint Committee on a matter of this kind passes my comprehension.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would point out to the hon. Member that the House has already agreed to the appointment of a Joint Committee to which his speech has particular reference. The Motion was passed on 8th May.
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BOOTHMy objection is now to considering the matter and letting it go further. The Motion the other night was passed without discussion. If the House in a moment of forgetfulness—I was absent, the Whips having conveniently got me out of the way—pass a Resolution of this kind I want to ask the House at any rate to see that it gets fair play. I do not think we ought to go forward with the appointment of the Committee at this short notice. The question put to the House, Mr. Speaker, is, I suppose, "That this matter be now considered," and I desire that the House shall consider it after the Recess. The Motion has just appeared on the Notice Paper, when the bulk of Members are away, and, if I have any suggestions to make with regard to the composition of the Committee, I do not like to do it in an empty House. I think Members should have longer notice of a matter like this before proceeding to settle the membership of the Joint Committee. I make this protest against our considering the proposal in the absence of any information or any statement on the part of the Government. I think we ought to have more consideration shown to us, and we should not be asked to accept these proposals as a mere matter of form. If the Government is not prepared to give an explanation, I shall go to a Division.
§ Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury)I should like to say in reply to the hon. Member that this has been done in the usual way. The House has already agreed that these Bills should be sent to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. The hon. 1935 Member will see that the Bills originated in the other House, and therefore it is appropriate that there should be a proper discussion of them by the Members of this House. At any rate, this House has already expressed its concurrence with the idea that they should be considered in Joint Committee. I am very sorry if that was done on an occasion when the hon. Member was absent. My hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), who is absent, is more conversant with these matters than I am, and if the hon. Gentleman asks me I should be very glad to withdraw the Motion and put it down again when we meet after Whitsuntide. I would like to add, in reply to one point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract, that the Members whose names appear on the Paper are Members who have taken a great deal of interest in this subject, and it is for that very reason that their names have been put down. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Sir W. BYLESI wish to ask—
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member object to the withdrawal of the Motion
§ Sir W. BYLESI wish to elicit, Sir—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI ask the hon. Gentleman whether he objects to the withdrawal of the Motion?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThen I must put the Question—
"That so much of the Lords Messages [15th and 16th May] as relates to the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], Ancient Monuments Protection Bill [Lords], and Ancient Monuments Protection (No. 2) Bill [Lords], be now considered."
§ Mr. HOGGEIf the Government could hold this over for a short time, might I suggest that the names of Members of this Committee—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has objected to the Motion being withdrawn, and, of course, it must be discussed now to its conclusion.
§ Sir W. BYLESShall I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking my hon. Friend, who is responsible for the selection of the names—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have not yet reached that point.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI rise to appeal to the representative of the Government not to withdraw the Motion that is on the Paper. It appears to me that the only way to obtain the discussion of the very important matters that are dealt with in these Bills is to set up this Committee in the form in which it is now proposed upon the Paper. With all respect to the remarks that have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), this is not the time to hold over this matter, because this is the only way to secure a discussion. Owing to the congested state of the business of this House proposals like those which are the subject of the Motion cannot be discussed unless we succeed in referring them either to an ordinary or a special Committee. I therefore dissent altogether from the view that we must wait for a chance Debate in this House before having these matters considered in detail by special or other Committees. I respectfully point out that the House does maintain all its rights and powers over these matters on the Report stage and the Third Reading stage, and that it would be appropriate for any objection to be taken, if there are hon. Members who object, on those stages. I therefore hope that the Government will not withdraw the proposal, but will deal with the very urgent question in the manner proposed by the Motion on the Paper.
§ Mr. KINGI have objected to the withdrawal of the Motion because I suggest that in the present form it is unsatisfactory. I do not think there are sufficient members upon the suggested Joint Committee, or that you should set up a Committee and allow it to carry on its deliberations with only three as a quorum.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is the next paragraph.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GULLANDI beg to Move, "That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed, to join with a Committee of the Lords, as mentioned in their lordship's messages of the 15th and 16th May, to consider the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords], Ancient Monuments Protection Bill [Lords], and Ancient Monuments Protection (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
§ Mr. KINGI beg to Move as an Amendment to leave out the word "six" ["Six members"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."
It seems to me that the Committee might well be larger. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) suggested that I should be glad to serve on the Committee. He did so without consulting me. It is a compliment which I appreciate, but it was quite unexpected. I feel, however, that the Committee certainly should be larger in numbers and more representative. I see with something akin to amazement that there is actually no Irishman on this Committee. I have always understood that Ireland is a very historic land, with a great number of wonderful historical monuments. I should like that the Committee should not be deprived of having an Irish representative upon it. I observe also that there is no Labour representative upon it. I do not see how it is possible to erect any monument or building without labour. I really think that by having a Labour representative on this Committee we would be adding weigh and dignity to its deliberations. I am quite willing that there should be nine members on the Committee, but for the present I suggest that there should be at least two more.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to second the Amendment. I think that in the selection of a Committee of this kind regard ought to be had to the national traditions of each country. The only Scotchman who is on this Committee is a Welshman.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORIt has been suggested that an Irish Member should be placed on this Committee. On examining the Bills I find that they do not refer to any of the ancient monuments in Ireland. No doubt if they had been included an Irish representative would have been placed on the Committee. We have no desire to interfere with the suggestion that the Committee should be enlarged, nor do we desire to have an Irish Member on it. Of course, if it included historical manuscripts or anything like that we should assert our right to be there. Some of those manuscripts have been printed, and others are in preparation, but these Bills do not deal with them.
§ Mr. GULLANDThe number of six is inserted here because the number of representatives from the other House is six, and I think this House would agree that it is 1938 only fair that there should be equal representation from the two Houses. I may remind the House of the names of those who have been appointed from the other House: The Duke of Northumberland, the Earl of Plymouth, the Bishop of Bristol, the Earl of Sheffield, Lord Southwark, and Lord Willingdon. Those are very representative men. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to Scottish representation on this Committee, the hon. Member has no grievance at all, because there is a Scottish Member, the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price), in whose constituency there is a large number of ancient monuments. There is a Welsh Member who is a well-known authority on the subject, and there is a Scotchman who sits for an English constituency, so that Scotland really has more representation than the other countries. I may say that every care was taken in the selection of the names, and I hope the House will now agree to them.
§ Mr. BOOTHI think our purpose has largely been served in getting some information, although I would be inclined to support the Amendment, one does not want to interfere too much with the discussion which is to follow, and to which the Opposition attach importance. The suggestion I make is not that we should have nine representatives as against six from the other House. If we suggested nine the other House would suggest three more. It may be that aristocrats and members of ancient families may take a different view as to the advisability of expending a great deal of money on monuments, whereas the representatives of working men may take a different view. There is no working man on this Committee, and I think it would be strengthened rather than weakened if there were, but if the point will be borne in mind in future, and it is not raised in any spirit of narrow-mindedness, perhaps my hon. Friend will be satisfied to withdraw.
§ Lord BALCARRESIt is extremely difficult to form a Select Committee of this House, and it is still more difficult to form a Select Committee of restricted numbers to meet with a Select Committee of equal numbers from the other House. I can only speak for myself, but if the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury and his colleagues take as much trouble in suggesting names to the House for Select Committees as I do with the assistance of my colleagues, then I can assure 1939 the hon. Member that every point that has been considered this afternoon has been already considered with the greatest care. This seems to me to be an extremely good Committee. It is good in the distinction between county Members and borough Members, and it contains the names of Members who have had great administrative experience in art matters. It contains the name of an hon. Member who is in his own country known as a leading authority on this question. I think it would be difficult, assuming that only six Members could be selected, to get together a stronger panel. Three Members have been appointed from this quarter of the House. The hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. J. O'Connor) has explained conclusively why no Irish or Nationalist Members desire to serve on the Committee. I could have found on this side two or three more hon. Members equally qualified with those who have been selected, and I am sure that equally applies to the Patronage Secretary, but in selecting Members for a Committee you have got to consider what those Members are doing on other Committees or on Royal Commissions, or you have got to remember that a Member is going for the next few months, to be closely occupied, with the Home Rule Bill, say, if you like, and that he is going to come down to this House three or four days per week. Therefore it is impossible always to select what, on paper, would be the ideal list of Members, because some of the most interested and most qualified in many cases have other and prior engagements. I submit, with great respect to the House, that the points which occur on a casual perusal of a Motion of this kind have very seldom been overlooked in the selection of a Committee. It rests with the House to settle, but I assure hon. Member's on my own behalf, with perfect frankness and confidence, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasury could say the same if he were asked, that these matters are considered with the utmost scruple and care.
Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the question," put, and agreed to.
§ Original question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Bennett-Goldney, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Grant, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Mark Sykes, and Mr. Llewelyn Williams be Members of the Committee."—[Mr. Gulland.]
1940§ Sir W. BYLESWho is responsible for the selection of Members? I have no objection to the names proposed.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has just heard that, from the last speaker.
§ Sir W. BYLESI want to know whether the Selection Committee or the Government Whips are responsible.
§ Mr. GULLANDThe Selection Committee has nothing to do with the suggestion of these names. These names are suggested by the Whips of the different parties and the House appoints them.
§ Sir W. BYLESTo the Selection Committee?
§ Mr. GULLANDNo, the Selection Committee has nothing to do with this Committee.
§ Sir W. BYLESWhat is the Selection Committee for?
§ Mr. GULLANDThe Selection Committee selects the Members for Standing and other Committees; but these Members are appointed by the House on the suggestion of the Whips of the different parties.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records: That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Gulland.]
§ Mr. BOOTHDoes that mean that three Members of the Commons must always be present, or simply three Members of the Whole Committee?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot fix a quorum for another place. We can only fix a quorum for ourselves.
§ Mr. BOOTHThen do I understand that we are now resolving that there must be three Members of this House present before there is a quorum?
§ Question put, and agreed to.