HC Deb 04 March 1921 vol 138 cc2169-83
Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)

I beg to move, That, until the end of the financial year, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed. In moving this Motion I wish to assure the House, in the first place, that we are not putting it down from any feeling that there has been undue discussion so far during the Session. On the contrary, the Government have no complaint of any kind to make in that respect. I put down the Motion because I feel sure that it is in the interests of getting through the business, and for the convenience of the House. It is not put down with any idea of having all-night Sittings; on the contrary, my object in putting it down is to prevent all-night Sittings. The House knows perfectly well that very often a short time after eleven will enable us to get through a subject with adequate discussion, obviating the necessity for its being re-opened the next day, and in that way to save a great deal of time without any loss of the efficiency of the House. As the House knows, the business must be got through by the 6th April, and it is not in our power to alter it There might easily, of course, be a discussion as to whether our being in that position was due to bad management, but the fact remains that we are in that position, and that the business has to be got through. As regards the possibility of a charge of bad management, I can only repeat what I said at the opening of the Session. Nobody dislikes this congestion and the feeling that we are working against time, more than I do, but the only possible alternative was to ask the House to meet earlier. It was a choice of evils, and even now I am still convinced that I took the course which at the time commended itself to the House, and which, I think, would now commend itself to the House. I hope, therefore, that the House, without undue discussion, will give us this Resolution, and I assure the House that we do not intend to make any unfair use of it. I hope there will be no late sittings at all, and certainly nothing approaching all-night sittings. The only possibility of that will be at the very end of the time, but if we pass this Resolution I hope it may be avoided altogether.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend, with his usual fairness and courtesy, has admitted that the discussions which have taken place hitherto since the Session began have not been even tinged with any degree of obstruction. My right hon. Friend claims that, whatever may be the faults of the past with regard to the management of Government business, it is no use discussing that now, but that we must make the best of things as they are. That is quite a practical position to take, but at the same time I think I am justified in pointing out that the real reason for the Motion now before the House is the number of Supplementary Estimates, namely, 35. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend is responsible for that, although I suppose he is responsible for most things that happen here. The real responsibility rests with the chiefs of the various Departments and their Parliamentary representatives here. I think that the House is entitled to say, as I certainly do on behalf of those who act with me, that there has been this gross miscalculation of the financial expenditure of the year. There are a number of most important Supplementary Estimates yet to be dealt with. We have dealt with ten of them, and one is being withdrawn, but I do not suppose that that involves any real loss of time, because, no doubt, it will be included on the day which has been allocated to the remainder of the Supplementary Estimates relating to Ireland. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend, however, that he should tell the House what are his proposals with regard to the rest of the Session after the 31st March. There are twelve or fourteen Parliamentary days left, including Fridays, before the 31st March, and I think it is not too much to claim that the whole of those days should be devoted to financial business—Supplementary Estimates and the Votes on Account. It is really all too little time in which to deal with them. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what Bills he proposes to introduce. First of all, we have the decontrol of the Mines. That is a day which will certainly be fully occupied. There is not the slightest chance of that Debate concluding before eleven o'clock. Is he going to allow any Department or its persistent Parliamentary chief to push him into granting any one of these remaining days, or even a portion of the day, to any of their little Bills? We know what happens in these circumstances. All last Session, with the best intentions, my right hon. Friend got up and made the statement he made yesterday, but as soon as the days begin to run we find so-called little proposals made, legislative and otherwise. As soon as we begin to debate them we realise often the immense importance of them. The position I put very strongly is that the right hon. Gentleman should be rigid in his determination in the days between now and 31st March that he will not give way nor allow any of his colleagues to give way on these matters. It is a primary duty to the nation in the very limited time allotted to us to discharge as fully as we can a reasonable, business-like, examination of the financial business before the House.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

We oppose this Motion. The Leader of the House has told us that he was not asking for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule on account of undue discussion. I can assure him that the undue discussion has not been on this side of the House this Session. It has been among the supporters of the Government. It was very pathetic yesterday to see the Minister of Labour having to get up time and again, covering the same ground as he had covered in pre- vious speeches on account of Members spending most of their time in the Smoke Room instead of listening to the discussion. I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to keep the supporters of the Government in hand in exactly the same way as we keep our people in hand. Whenever any of our speakers get up they have always something material to impart. I really now speak sincerely. I think too much of the time of the House is wasted, especially by the supporters of the Government, who make obstructive speeches, and after making them are afraid to go into the Lobby. If the Leader of the House will keep his own Members in hand and, when they ask Ministers to repeat over and over again, tell them "the question has been replied to, do not waste the time of the House," we shall not want this suspension. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take his Members in hand the same as we do.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words "provided that discussion upon Supplementary Estimates shall not, on any day, be continued after 1 a.m. or on any Friday after 6 p.m."

I regret that my right hon. Friend has had to make this Motion. He is so conciliatory in manner and is such a master of debate that it is very difficult for private Members to deal with his speeches. He weaves the net round us so delightfully that one finds oneself entangled and the liberties of the House slipping away before one knows where one is, but I feel that this Motion is not justified. It can only be justified on two grounds, either that there really is no time, or that there has been obstruction. I do not feel that the Government is really justified on the first ground. If there is no time it is really their own fault. After all, they must have been aware, before the House met, that looking at the condition of Ireland, there would be several Motions for the Adjournment at 8.15 which would be granted by the Speaker. They ought to have taken that into account. They know perfectly well that in every Session there is a series of Motions for the Adjournment which take up half a day. Did they take that into consideration when they wore mapping out their time? I do not feel that on the question of time they are justified. If they had met three or four days earlier this Motion would not have been necessary at all. The right hon. Gentleman himself has agreed that there has practically been no obstruction at all I have attended the Debates practically nearly all the time, and I am sure hon. Members will agree that there has been no obstruction. Therefore, I feel that a certain amount of fairness is due to back benchers in this matter. The Leader of the House must know from experience that a Motion of this kind means late sittings. I have seen him put Motions on the Paper like this before, and have heard him make the same reasonable speech, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to sit late. I am sure my right hon. Friend will not deny that he has said that over and over Again.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I do not remember it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am really not misrepresenting him. We have heard him say it before, and in nearly every case we have had all-night Sittings. It stands to reason that it leads much more to obstruction than to let the discussion go on perfectly freely. These late Sittings are most demoralising. If we have to come at 11 o'clock in the morning to a Committee and then sit through the night and all night it is really only people of the very strongest physique who can stand it. Quite apart from that, I believe it really leads to this House being brought into contempt by the public outside. You cannot possibly discuss Legislation with any good results at all at these late hours of the morning. So that from that point of view I feel that this Motion ought to be very much modified. I counted up the amount of money this morning and I find that there remain between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 of public money in these Supplementary Estimates. Certain points in them appear to be extremely controversial, though they can probably be cleared up by the Government when the time comes. I know a good many of my hon. Friends will be very dissatisfied because my Amendment does not go far enough. A great many people think midnight is quite late enough. I am sure that midnight is quite late enough, but I put the Amendment in this form in order to show that I do not want to restrict the Government more than is absolutely necessary. Un- less there is some paramount, vital reason, which I cannot see, against the Amendment, I beg the Government to accept it, and let us get to bed after one o'clock in the morning.

Sir H. CRAIK

I beg to second the Amendment. To pass these very important Estimates, many of them involving principles of the highest importance, which will require discussion, in the small hours of the morning, is unfair not only to the Committee but to the taxpayer generally. I am glad that the Leader of the House admitted that there is no obstruction. I do not believe there is any obstruction. We know what happened before our Adjournment at Christmas. Some of the most important Votes were hurried through, Votes involving the most disputatious matter, at three or four o'clock in the morning. We were told that it was very unlikely that we should sit long after eleven o'clock, but we know from experience what happened. In previous years many of us were ready to stand these long Sittings, but such prolonged Sittings are now becoming a very serious drain upon our strength. At such late hours, even if our strength will sustain the strain, we are not really fit to criticise Votes, and it is impossible to get any real effective attention and criticism, or any serious attempt to curtail expenditure. In spite of our remonstrances, these important Votes are passed in the early hours of the morning, and they are scarcely reported in the newspapers, and pass unnoticed by the taxpayer. We are anxious, as far as possible, to show the utmost loyalty to this Government, and it is only in extreme measures that I have voted against them, but I feel sure that the Leader of the House will not find it very successful to attempt methods which the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches suggested would be adopted in his party. We are constituted in a different way, and we would not be subject to that drastic discipline which he would impose upon his party.

Mr. W. THORNE

I am opposed to the Motion and to the Amendment. It is perfectly evident that whether it is this Government or any other Government, time must be found in which to do the business of the House. I disagree with the methods adopted by the Government for doing their business. During the whole time that I have been in this House, I have been absolutely opposed to doing business after 11 o'clock at night. I have brought the question before the members of our party on more than one occasion, and I have told my constituents that I absolutely refuse to sit in this House or in other houses after 11 o'clock at night. [Laughter.] Perhaps I ought to insert a qualification and say, except my own house. The Amendment gives the Government two hours after 11 o'clock. I have suggested that the House should meet at 12 o'clock each day. If that suggestion is accepted the Government would have an additional two and three-quarter hours every day at their disposal. I know that the serious objection that is raised in regard to that suggestion by business men, and especially those gentlemen who belong to the legal profession, is that they cannot get their business done before 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It seems to me it is very much better to agree to meet at 12 o'clock every day instead of meeting at 3 o'clock and sitting until 1 o'clock. Some years ago I read the history of the life of Cobden, and it was stated that late sittings in this House practically broke him up. Late sittings do nobody any good, they break up our health, and impose a good deal of hardship upon the officials of the House. If every hon. Member expressed his own views, I think the majority would say they were in favour of meeting at 12 o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gather from those observations that hon. Members are not in favour of that proposition. The time will arrive, however, when you will treat this as a business assembly, and meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, and finish at a reasonable hour at night. If I am in order, I should like, when we have dealt with this Amendment, to propose to leave out all the words after the word "That" and to insert the words "the House shall meet at 12 o'clock."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have accepted the only Amendment that has been put forward, to add words at the end of the Question, and I cannot now go back.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD

If I had not been a Member of this House for 16 years, I should feel inclined to vote for the Amendment, but I know that if you make a limit of time, whether you make it one, two, three or four o'clock in the morning, it is quite an easy matter for those who are determined to obstruct business to defeat the object in view. There are always half a dozen or so Members on one side or the other who are prepared to save their fire until all the others have fired their shots, and then to start operations. I shall vote against the Amendment, because if you fix such a limit you have defeated the object which the Motion has in view. When Motions of this kind have been made before there has been some latitude with reference to possible emergencies. For instance, the situation in reference to the Conference with the German representatives may result in definite action being taken which may involve us in a serious position. I should like a statement from the Leader of the House that should such a serious emergency arise this Resolution would not bar us from considering the matter, and that, if private Members generally thought that there was a case for a Motion for Adjournment to discuss some special national emergency, that could be done.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The Motion for Adjournment remains.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD

If this Motion does not prevent the Irish Members from moving an Adjournment every day on a "definite matter of urgent public importance," and they can get every day from 8.15 to 11 o'clock, I think that the Resolution is not sufficiently stringent. When a discussion on a Supplementary Estimate has lasted for about an hour there is no reason for continuing the discussion. It is not worth a pail full of cold water. It is mere party tactics on one side or the other and of no real benefit to the nation. If, therefore, the Resolution is so drafted that these extraneous matters can be moved day after day the whole object of the Resolution is defeated. You will be obliged to have all-night Sittings if you are to discuss your Supplementary Estimates at all. In reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Ham, my experience is that we have more often got home at something like 9 or 10 when it has been understood that the whole time is at the disposal of the Government. We have been able to many hours at home which otherwise we should not have got through such Motions as this. This is a Motion for shortening the working day of Parliament, and if matters relating to a real emergency cannot be excluded by this Motion I shall vote in favour of it.

Mr. BONAR LAW

This Motion does not interfere with the Motion for Adjournment. If the House should not desire such a Motion, then if a sufficient number of Members keep their seats the Adjournment is not given. In addition we can rely on Mr. Speaker not to give it unless there are reasonable grounds. If such contingencies as my hon. Friend suggests arise, then the House would have to consider a change in reference to Motions for Adjournment, and would find some other way of dealing with the matter. My right hon. Friend referred to the introduction of Bills up to the end of the financial year. No Bill will be introduced or pushed forward in which there is the smallest controversy, unless in the ease of the coal emergency, which has to be dealt with before Easter. I can give that promise definitely. I was charmed by the compliments paid by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), but I would have appreciated them more did they not take the form of wishing to alter our proposal. I am willing, for the sake of argument, to admit his contention that it is our fault business is not more advanced, but that does not alter the fact that we are in this position, and that the business has to be done before the end of the financial year. The time is limited. The suggestion of the hon. Member as to the hours seems a reasonable one, and I should be disappointed if we have to sit beyond the hours which he indicates. There has been no obstruction on the Estimates. But we cannot be certain that something may not cause a certain appearance of ill-temper in one section or the other which might produce obstruction and, suppose coming near the end of the financial year we found that business could not be got through except by giving a longer time, then if we accept such an Amendment it would drive the Government to ask the House to pass a Resolution to get rid of the whole business.

I was greatly interested in what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Griffiths). I listened one day for several hours to a debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which was conducted entirely by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend tells me that not one of them gets up to say something which is not relevant or which has been said by somebody else. I think that he is mistaken. He asks from me an undertaking that I will get as good behaviour from my supporters as he has got from his in that respect. I am not fond of giving pledges which I cannot keep, but I will give this one, that unless the supporters of our party are as reasonable as those I see opposite, I will certainly not attempt to lead the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I would like to make a suggestion. I think it is quite possible, by an arrangement between what are called the Front Benches, to provide that Members who are interested in any particular Supplementary Estimate should meet, and those of us who are called the usual channels would know what they really desire to discuss. If we have that information I am sure that the Labour party and ourselves can arrange with the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary that those Estimates shall come on first and that the Estimates which are not of very great importance—there are some which do not raise any point of vital consequence—shall be taken without unnecessary discussion. I think that could be done by a system of grouping and then it would be quite certain that none of the important Estimates would come on after 12 o'clock at night. That is rather a change from the usual party procedure, but I suggest it in the interests of business and economy. Certainly all on this side of the House will do all they can to facilitate the working of such art arrangement.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I say at once that any arrangement of that kind will be gladly welcomed by the Government, and we shall do everything we can to facilitate it. I do not mean an arrangement merely with the official Opposition, but with the whole House.

Earl WINTERTON

I have seen many of these arrangements, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) will agree that often when such arrangements are made across the floor of the House some Member or Members want to raise questions which to them seem very important, but which do not seem important to the majority of the House, and that then they have been accused of a breach of faith in discussing the subject. I think the Leader of the House was a little premature in agreeing to the suggestion. I do not think it would facilitate what we all want to see, namely, that due attention shall be given to every aspect of the subject of Estimates. Frequently what appears on the face of it to be a most innocent Estimate veils a most important question of policy or principle. I agree largely with what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward). If you have in the Amendment the definite hour of 1 a.m. or 2 a.m., the result will be that the Government, not from any necessary badness on their part, but owing to the facts of the situation, will regard that as the ordinary hour for the House to rise, and we shall on every occasion be sitting until that hour. On the other hand, much as I regret the whole principle of the abolition of the Eleven o'clock Rule, there is no doubt that when it is abolished and the House has to face the possibility of an all-night sitting, coming to a decision is facilitated. I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends on this side appear to disagree with the point put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne). I thought it was a good point. I do not think it is feasible to sit as early as he suggested. Let me suggest an alternative to the Amendment. In the altered conditions of the composition of this House, compared with fifteen years ago, the House might well meet an hour or so earlier. I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House the practical advantages from the private Member's point of view of such a proposal. Where a Government is in power with such a large nominal majority as this Government possesses, it is the case, but was not so in the old days, that when the House sits late a large number of Ministers do not attend the sittings at all.

I have a comparatively short recollection, dating back 10 years. In the old days when there was an all-night Sitting practically every Minister was present. I believe it is true that both Gladstone and Disraeli asked an explanation of any Ministers who were not present. We have left those days. What happens now? There is an important question before the House, let us assume. Only the Minister concerned and the Leader of the House, and possibly an Under-Secretary or two, are present in addition to those Members of the House who are interested in the question. It is therefore possible for the Government the next day to bring forward an equally important principle, to have another set of Ministers sitting up, and so on. The House would thus have before it really important business two or three nights running and it would be got through the House in the early hours of the morning. When the Government had necessarily to take longer time from the House and they were compelled to sit an hour earlier, it would mean a certain amount of inconvenience to them and that a large number of Ministers, all who had questions down, would have to be present. That would make them far more careful than they are now about taking extra time from the House. I was rather surprised to see that in some sections of the House a laugh was raised against the hon. Member for West Ham in quoting the case of the late Mr. Cobbett. I do not think it was an excuse for laughter. I have seen some old and valuable Members of this House who sat up night after night dealing with matters in which they were interested. I think it is extremely serious to expect some Members of the House of a certain age to sit up night after night. The only alternative to their doing so is for them to absent themselves. I hope the Leader of the House will again consider whether it is possible in times of emergency for the House to meet at two o'clock instead of at 2.45.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment for I think the House has been convinced that we must give the Government the time if they are to get through the financial business. I wish to protest against the speeches of the hon. Member for West Ham and the last speaker in their advocacy of an earlier Sitting. I think the House should take the first opportunity of saying that it is not in the public interest that that change should take place. We want business men to be Members of the House. We want men who are in touch with law, banking, commerce, the stock exchange and merchandise, men who can afford to give part of their time to the House, but cannot give the whole of it. If you have earlier Sittings you will have two classes of Members only—one, the very rich man who has no need to go to business, and the other the professional politician, who has nothing whatever to do except House of Commons work, and who makes professional politics his life's task. That is the very class we do not want in this House.

Mr. SWAN

Should the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House be carried, would that result in taking away the privilege of Members to raise an important matter at Question Time and, in the event of the reply being unsatisfactory, raising the matter again on the Adjournment at eleven o'clock?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member ask me that question?

Mr. SWAN

Yes, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The House could no doubt cut short its Debate on the ordinary business, if such matter arose, and then there would be the time up to 11.30 p.m.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I handed in this Amendment because I believed the Government would accept it, and I also hoped it would receive more favour in the House, but it has not received the favour that would justify one in going to a Division upon it, and therefore I would propose to withdraw it. I feel, however, that I must vote against the main Resolution as a protest against what I believe to be the mismanagement of Parliamentary time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That, until the end of the financial year, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed.

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 28.

NOES.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) Sexton, James
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Holmes, J. Stanley Swan, J. E.
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) John, William (Rhondda, West) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Briant, Frank Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) Waterson, A. E.
Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morgan, Major D. Watts Wignall, James
Finney, Samuel Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)
Galbraith, Samuel Redmond, Captain William Archer Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Glanville, Harold James Rose, Frank H.
Hartshorn, Vernon Royce, William Stapleton TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.