UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME) (REPORT STAGE AND THIRD READING). (Hansard, 1 May 1934)

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)
I would say very little to take up the time of the House on the Motion. Last Thursday I informed the House that the Government were doing their best to come to an agreement. We have decided to allot six days to the remaining stages of this Bill. We were very anxious indeed that the allotment 172 should be made with the consent of all parties in the House. I suppose that that, as an ideal, cannot always be carried out, but I can assure the House that we have done our very best, and that the Table which I now propose, and which is embodied in the Motion, has been passed after very full consultation and that it represents the maximum of agreement that there can be.
The House will perhaps be pleased to hear that we did quite sincerely make the attempt on this occasion to have the Table passed by a committee representing all sections of the House. I should have liked to see the experiment tried, because I have always been in favour of a guillotine being worked in this way by a committee, the Government first of all saying how many days, in view of their programme for the whole Session, they will allot to any particular Measure, and then handing over those days to a representative committee to allot. We found insuperable difficulties on this occasion, but it may be that, by removing a certain very substantial obstacle which appeared in the course of the discussion, we may at last come to the very happy conclusion that there will be no guillotine without a committee. I can assure the House that we have gone as near to that as we possibly could on this occasion, and that the Timetable which I move and which is embodied in this Motion is the result of those negotiations.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
On this side of the House we are desirous to take as little time as possible in discussing this Motion, because we want the time for the full discussion of Clause 19 which has been recommitted. We are glad that the Clause has been recommitted. There was a very large number of Clauses—a quite unusual number—which passed through Committee practically without any discussion. We think that the allocation is the best that there can be within the limits of time allowed by the Government, but that the allocation of five days is too small for the Report stage. The Committee stage showed, without any suggestion of obstruction, that a mass of very important Amendments was not discussed and that many important principles embodied in the Measure were not fully discussed.
173 With regard to what the Prime Minister has said about a committee and a time-table, in our view that is a matter that should be fully discussed by the House. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) which made a number of suggestions for dealing with matters of business, but we think it would be undesirable to alter the practice of the House in the middle of the stages of a Bill by applying only one of those suggestions, and that that should be done through the usual channels without the House having an opportunity of discussion. It is very desirable that the machinery of the House of Commons should be quickened, and we shall welcome an opportunity for discussing the report of the committee. In view of the fact that we consider that five days are far too few for the discussion of this very important Measure—the most important Measure that has been before the House for years—we shall oppose the Motion.

§ Sir HERBERT SAMUEL
We, on these benches, on the other hand, concur in the Motion that has been made. We express our appreciation of the efforts made by the Government to meet the general convenience of the House in this matter, and we appreciate the fact that they have agreed to recommit the Bill, which is a step for which we pressed in regard to the Clause dealing with the debt. As to the desirability of having a committee for allocating such time as may be available for the stages of an important Government Bill, here again I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who has just spoken. I think the Government were wise to suggest to the House that an experiment should be made in a particular case, and no difficulties or obstacles were raised by us to the adoption of that proposal. It would have been quite feasible for a committee to have been set up consisting of various parties to decide precisely what the allocation should be within the general Guillotine Motion in order to meet the general convenience of Members.
It is true that it is desirable that there should be changes in our procedure, and 174 that the report of the committee which was presided over by the hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Mines should receive the attention of the House on some definite occasion allotted for that purpose. On the other hand, we might well have proceeded, as this House often does proceed, by way of trial and experiment in particular cases, allowing experience to show whether the procedure adopted should be made permanent or should be modified. Having said so much, it is unnecessary for me to say more, except that we shall support the terms of the Motion now proposed to the House.

§ Mr. OSWALD LEWIS
This is the second time that we have discussed a Time-table Motion in respect of the Unemployment Bill. I believe that some hon. Members hold the view that the guillotine method of closure is not the proper way to deal with the difficulties of getting a contentious Bill through Committee of the Whole House but, whether that be so or not, I think all are agreed that if we are to use the Guillotine the present method of deciding upon the time to be taken and the allocation of that time is unsatisfactory. Some very significant words were used by the Prime Minister when we were discussing the Time-table Motion before on the Bill. On 19th December of last year he said : It is only fair for the House to know what time the Government believe they can afford for the full discussion of this Bill through all its stages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1933; col. 1140, Vol. 284.] This is not the right way to approach the question of the time to be given to the Bill. It is not a question of what time the Government of the day think they can afford, but of what time is necessary for the adequate discussion of the Bill. If the present principle is to be followed, there is nothing to prevent a Government from deliberately overloading their programme and saying that all the time that they can afford for a particular Measure is so many days, that time being, in fact, grossly inadequate. Valuable as the experiment which the Prime Minister suggested might be, of taking days already decided upon and of deciding their allocation by a committee representing the different parties, I suggest that that method would not 175 really go to the root of the matter. I would urge the House to consider whether the time has not come when the question of how many days should be given to a Bill in Committee or on Report should be decided, not by the Government of the day, but by some impartial Committee of the House set up for that purpose. Until that is done, the Opposition of the day will never feel that they have been really treated fairly by the Government in respect of the allocation of time, and, while the feeling persists that they have not been treated fairly, it is obviously bad for debate in this House. I have taken the opportunity of making these remarks because it is the only chance that we get to discuss the subject.

Captain CROOKSHANK
I should like to ask one question, in order that we may be quite clear. The Prime Minister

Table.—Report Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.
		P.M.
First day -	Now Clauses	7.30
Clauses 1 to 4	11.0
Second day-	Clause 5	7.30
Clauses 6 to 13 -	11.0
Third day -	Clauses 14 to 17 -	7.30
Clauses 18 to 35 -	11.0
Fourth day-	Clauses 36 to 38 -	7.30
Clauses 39 to 44 -	11.0
Fifth day	Clauses 45 to 65, new Schedules, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Reportstage to a conclusion.	11.0

Table.—Report Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.
		P.M.
First day -	New Clauses	7.30
Clauses 1 to 4	11.0
Second day-	Clause 5- -	7.30
Clauses 6 to 13 -	11.0
Third day -	Clauses 18 to 35 -	7.30
Clauses 14 to 17 -	11.0
Fourth day-	Clauses 30 to 38 -	7.30
Clauses 39 to 44 -	11.0
Fifth day -	Clauses 45 to 65, new Schedules, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion -	11.0