§ Colonel YATEI beg to ask you, Sir, a question (of which I have given you private notice)—whether you will state what is the recognised constitution of a Select Committee; whether it is necessarily a Committee composed of representatives of the different parties in the House or whether it is a Committee composed of Members not previously pledged to any such views, but who will consider impartially the evidence submitted to them and draft their report accordingly; and whether it is usual on such Select Committees that both the 1399 Minister and the Undersecretary of the Department concerned should be members and vote on the decisions to be arrived at?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that a Select Committee is a Committee of fifteen persons ordinarily, unless the House otherwise order. The Committee is appointed by the House itself, but the names which are suggested to the House are names proposed by the Whips representing the different parties. The numbers upon the Committee are proportionately in accordance with the numbers of the various parties in the House. With regard to the question whether there are any cases in which two Ministers have sat upon the same Select Committee, I have had the records searched, and I can only find two cases, although there may be more. In I891 on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill there were two Ministers appointed by the House to sit upon the Select Committee, and again in I392 on the Telegraphs Bill two Ministers were appointed. I have not discovered any case in which both the Minister and the Under-Secretary have been appointed.
§ Colonel YATEConsidering that we have now a Coalition Government in power, and that the old party politics are more or less in abeyance, could not the opportunity be taken to deal with great Imperial questions on Imperial lines instead of on party political lines? I ask the question with reference to the case of the Government of India. The Secretary of State for India informed us on Thursday that in the nomination of names to the Joint Select Committee on this Bill he had submitted the names of so many Conservatives, so many Liberals, and so many Labour representatives. The result, I see, is that of the seven members so selected, six are the very members who spoke in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's own particular scheme in the Debate on the Second Reading. Consequently, when the representatives of the Governments of the Provinces in India, who have submitted an alternative scheme, come to present their case before the Committee, they will have to face am adverse majority of six to one. I would, therefore, ask whether such a Committee should not be appointed on Imperial lines instead of on party political lines in England, and whether, considering that 1400 there is no precedent for both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary being members of such a Committee and voting upon that Committee, an alternation, could not also be made in that respect?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking me to override the decision of the House. That is impossible. All the criticisms which he has made should have been made, and indeed were made, on the nomination of that Committee. The House has not accepted the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I certainly could not reverse the decision to which the House deliberately came after discussion.
§ Captain ORMSBY-GOREMay I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in order in suggesting that Select Committees appointed by the House are biassed and will not consider the evidence put before them? As one of the members of this Committee, I wish to repudiate hotly the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion that I go on the Committee prejudiced in any way. I wish to hear the evidence put before me.
§ Sir R. COOPERHas the time not come when the thirty odd independent Members of this House should have some representation on Select Committees?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAn independent Member means that the Member does not belong to any party, and the result would be that every one of these thirty Members would in each case have to be put on Select Committees of fifteen. I do not suppose that that is what the hon. Member intends.
§ Colonel YATEMay I ask the Leader of the House if he is willing to consider the advisability of dealing with this great Imperial question of the future of the government of India on really Imperial lines?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI really cannot see any cause of complaint. I accept the view which was expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, that those who are appointed will look at the evidence in an impartial manner. As regards the House of Commons, there was no Division on the Second Reading, and almost no speeches against it, and it is therefore natural that the majority of the Committee should be in favour. Taking the Committee as a whole, I think it is a very impartial one.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask whether we shall have the same full rights on the Report stage of revision of the Bill as we have in the ordinary way?
§ Mr. SPEAKERCertainly. The fact that the Bill has been sent to a Select Committee does not debar the House from considering it on Report in the same way as any other Bill.
§ Mr. STEWARTWill there be any Committee stage on this Bill?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill there not be an ordinary Committee stage in this House as well?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes; the Bill will have to be taken in Committee here.
§ Mr. STEWARTThat is all right.