§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)I beg to move, in paragraph 3, line 3, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
This is the first of a number of Amendments to our Standing Orders which
§ stand in my name on the Paper. All business connected with the Standing Orders is business that is essential for the House of Commons as a whole, and, when alterations are made in the Standing Orders, the object of such alterations is the greater convenience of the Members of the House. It was brought to my notice in the earlier part of the Session, by a Memorial signed by more than half the Members of the House, drawn from all parties, to the effect that they thought that certain alterations should be made, with regard principally to time and the division of Debate; and I thought that it was a good opportunity to have the whole question of the allocation of time between private Members and the Government examined by a strong Committee of private Members, who might report to the House, and then the House might, as it thought fit, either adopt or decline to adopt their recommendation.
§
Such a Select Committee was set up, and its terms of reference were as follows:—
That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to consider the present allocation of time for such public Business, whether Bills or Motions, as is not Government Business, and to report whether any alterations in the Standing Orders relating
515
to the transaction of such Business are desirable.
§ I think the House will agree with me that the Committee was a very representative one. Its Chairman was a very old Member of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), and it also included, from my side of the House, the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland (Sir P. Goff), who had been instrumental in preparing the Memorial to which I have alluded, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders), a very old Member of the House, who has been in office and has had a long experience. The official Opposition were represented by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), the chief Whip of the party, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who has been a Member of the House, on and off, for a large number of years. The Liberal party also were represented, and it is quite proper that their representation should be by one of the younger Members of the House, according to length of service, the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen).
§ The Amendments on the Paper all represent points on which the Committee were in agreement, I think unanimously, unless it be in one case, to which I shall allude when we come to the Amendment relating to it. The reason why I am asking the House to consider these Amendments this evening is simply that, if the House desire that these alterations in procedure should take effect next Session, the alterations in the Standing Orders must be made before next Session begins, because the first business in a new Session is always the Ballot for Notices of Motion, and if these Amendments are adopted, there will be, an alteration in the Ballot, which I shall describe when we come to that particular Amendment. It may, perhaps, be convenient that I should, if I am in order, say a word on what is included in these Amendments, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did earlier to-day in describing the Amendments that had come down from another place. It may possibly clarify the discussion that may take place on these Amendments as they are separately moved, and it will, I think, give the House a better picture if they 516 are not familiar with the Report of the Business are Select Committee.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)I think that I ought to take the feeling of the House as to whether, on the first Amendment, there should be a general discussion of all the Amendments.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think that that will be, as the House has indicated, more convenient. The changes are very simple, although the wording of Amendments is always, to the lay mind, rather complicated.
The Amendments to the first three Standing Orders give effect to what has been our annual practice since 1921, namely, the alteration of the times of Friday sittings to eleven to four instead of twelve to five, which are the times stated in the Standing Orders, and were the times until 1921. It has been found in practice that the earlier hours on Fridays are a great convenience to Members of the House, and so it has been that every Session that one particular Motion has been put and carried without discussion or Division; and the Committee think that the time has now come when these hours should be embodied permanently in the Standing Orders, so that it will not be necessary to put that Motion again. The next one deals with the same question.
Then comes a Clause marked "Precedence of business at different sittings." That really is a radical amendment of the existing Standing Order No. 4, and the reason it is put down here as a new Standing Order is that it is so much simpler to put down the old Standing Order No. 4 as it will be when amended, so that hon. Members can see exactly what the new Standing Order will be. Sub-section (d) of this new Order is exactly the same as Sub-section (f) in the old Standing Order No. 4, which will have to be repealed if this new Standing Order is substituted for it, but the earlier part of the new Standing Order gives effect to the following re commendations of the Select Committee, that one whole day, a Wednesday, should be set apart in each week up to Easter, instead of two evenings, and one evening between Easter and Whitsun as at 517 present; secondly, that on the day when Private Members' Motions have precedence the first Motion should be considered until half-past seven and the second Motion taken after half-past seven—that was a unanimous recommendation—and, thirdly, that two extra Fridays should be given after Whitsuntide to Private Members for the remaining stages of their Bills, and that two of the Fridays now available after Easter for Second Readings should be given to the Government in lieu thereof. That was a recommendation in which the Chairman of the Committee did not concur, but as he is in the House at present, he will doubtless, if desired, give the reasons that animated the Committee when we come to discuss this point.
May I say a word first about the division of time? I have considered very carefully, and have taken some opinion on the matter, though it is entirely open to the House to say the hour they prefer—I have been considering the time named by the Select Committee. My own feeling—and I have long experience as a private Member—is that there is a great deal to be said for half past seven as the hour at which to divide the sittings as against a quarter past eight. A quarter past eight is not an equal division, to begin with, and, secondly, when Government business ends at a quarter past eight it often happens that there is a, string of Divisions, which seriously cut into the time at the disposal of the private Member, or it may be of a, Bill put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I have known occasions when it has been a quarter to nine or even later before the Member can start his discussion. If he has a whole day, it will be very unusual to have more than one Division at the fixed hour, and if the fixed hour is half past seven, you get a perfectly fair division for each private Member's Motion or Bills if they are put down in the evening.
Further, the Committee point out this, and I think there is something in it. It often happens that a, private Member has a Motion which arouses a good deal of public interest, and if the Member who draws the first place in the ballot has an opportunity of bringing in his Motion immediately after Questions, he has a perfectly fresh House—the House does 518 not want to go to its dinner—and probably a fairly large one, and he may very well get much better consideration and have a better Debate on a Motion at that time than he would get if he did not get in till perhaps half past eight or a quarter to nine. I think that is a very genuine reason. Now hon. Members will see that when they have a whole day taken up, we shall not want the two ballots that we have always had for the two separate evenings, Tuesday and Wednesday, immediately the House assembles after the Recess. You will have one ballot each week, but in that ballot the two people who draw the two first places will get, one the morning part of the day, and the second one the evening. That explains the reason why, if the House thinks fit to make this change, it must be made before the House reassembles. I think that is quite clear. The Committee state—I have had this shown me by my right hon. Friend next to me; I take it from him and I have no doubt the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will confirm it—that under their changes the amount of time allocated to private Members is practically the same as it was under the old arrangement. There is no real gain in point of time, either to the Government or to private Members. I shall have to give an instance before I sit down where the Government, hoping to make a good job of this, give up three-quarters of an hour of their time, but it does not arise on this. If that is passed, the old Standing Order No. 4 will have to be repealed, because that takes its place.
Then we come to counting out on Friday. This again was an unanimous recommendation of the Committee, that one o'clock p.m. should be substituted for 4 o'clock p.m. as the time at which the House may be counted out on a Friday. The reason for that is this. At present there is no such power. If a Private Member cannot get a House by one o'clock it is extremely unlikely that he will get one at all and it has happened in practice more than once that the House has been counted out but it was impossible to adjourn. Members who were interested stayed hoping a House would be formed, but a House was not formed and the officials and Mr. Speaker and those who were here had to stay till four o'clock before the House could be 519 adjourned. The Select Committee have reviewed the matter very carefully and taken evidence and they consider it would be a wise precaution, and one for the protection of Members, if some such order were inserted. If Members do not care to come and support a Bill in which they are interested and make a quorum, it is very unfair to keep those who do come, and I think on the other hand it may be some stimulus to Members to realise that if they do not take the pains to come and support their Friends, the whole thing will be lost.
Then we come to Standing Order No. 8. That has to do with Bills set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means and it simply takes out words which, if these Amendments are passed, are unnecessary. Standing Order No. 8 forbids private business being put down on Wednesday between Easter and Whitsuntide. Unofficial Members will no longer have those evenings and that Standing Order is not necessary. The remaining ones merely substitute, in various places in the Standing Order where such substitution is necessary, the time half-past seven in lieu of a quarter-past eight, which is now the dividing time. I think it would be wiser on the whole to keep half-past seven as the dividing hour, not only in these evenings for the private Members but also in the two other cases that arise, that is, for the private Bills put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the cases where, with the support of the requisite number of Members, the Adjournment of the House is moved on a definite matter of urgent public importance. For the general benefit of Members, the Government are quite willing to concede on those occasions that extra three-quarters of an hour. That, I think, is a simple explanation of the proposals made by the Committee. I am not quite sure which is the more convenient way, whether to have a short general discussion or for Members to say what they have to say on the Amendments.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI should propose to allow observations on the changes as a whole to be made on the first Amendment.
§ Mr. T. KENNEDYI cannot imagine that there will be any prolonged debate 520 on this Amendment, or, indeed, on the Amendments to the Standing Orders as a whole. I have been asked to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that, as far as we are concerned, we are in complete agreement with the proposed Amendments. The Report of the Committee on which I served was a unanimous Report. I think that, as far as the opportunities and the interests of private Members are concerned both with regard to Motions and to Bills those privileges are completely preserved, and, indeed, improved under the proposed Amendments. In all parts of the House there has been a feeling for a considerable time that the 8.15 Debates on private Members' Motions were quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of the time available, and I think there can be no doubt at all in any part of the House that in future the allocation of a complete day for private Members' Motions will lead to far more satisfactory and far more conclusive discussions. I think also, and hon. Members who have examined the proposals will agree, that there will be far more likelihood of private Members' Bills, especially of a non-controversial character, reaching the Statute Book than there is under the present Standing Orders. As regards the proposals relating to Friday's business, I consider these Amendments as necessary and, indeed, purely formal. For these general reasons, I hope that the House will not only accept the first Amendment but will also agree, without unnecessary debate, to the adoption of the whole of the recommendations of the Committee.
§ Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONI am glad to be able, on behalf of my party, to say that we thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) has just said. We are strongly in favour of these Amendments. It has long been felt by private Members that their being curtailed on moving their Motions after 8.15 has reduced the chance of their speeches being quoted and appearing in the Press of the country, and, from that point of view I think it is of very great advantage. The second point is, as has just been said by the previous speaker, that noncontentious Bills introduced into this House will have, under this new arrangement, a real chance of getting on to the Statute Book. There is a third point which is well worth observing. It is, that 521 under the Amendments, private Members, the unofficial Members, will get just as much time as they have had in the past, and I think the arrangement whereby Motions are to be moved during one day in the week will afford to Members a real chance of getting a fair division of the time with Government business. The Amendments, as far as I can see, are very desirable, and I have much pleasure in supporting them.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In paragraph 5, line 2, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "four."—[The Prime Minister.]