SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 19 April 1937)

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of Order. Before you call any Amendments, Sir Dennis, may I ask you a question? In order to serve the convenience of the Committee I ask whether you could indicate now the specific Amendments that you propose to call. There is considerable doubt among my hon. Friends, and probably in other parts of the Committee, as to your intentions.

§ The Chairman
I do not see any reason why I should not do that at once. On Clause r I do not propose to select the first Amendment on the Paper. The second is out of order. Both Amendments to Clause 2 are out of order. The first Amendment I shall call on Clause 3 is that in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to leave out "income tax." The next one that appears to be in order is that of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), and the Amendment following that is in order, being consequential on an earlier one in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester. On Clause 4 the only Amendment in order is that in the names of the hon. Member for Colchester and others, to leave out Sub-section (2). On Clause 5 the first Amendment on the Paper appears to be in order. Then I come down to an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), in page 3, line 18. On that I feel some doubt, but when the time comes I shall ask the hon. Member for an explanation of it. The remaining two Amendments on that Clause are, I think, in order.
When I say that some of these Amendments are in order, I must add that in one or two cases I shall have to reserve my right to change that view if I find in the Debate that an Amendment means something different from what I expected. On Clause 7 the first Amendment is consequential cm an earlier Amendment; the second one is out of 1444 order. The Amendment to Clause 8 is a consequential Amendment. The Amendment to Clause 9 appears to be in order. Then we come to the New Clauses. As I am at present advised, the first three are in order, but the next one, to include Glasgow in a Special Area, is out of order. The next two are in order. The last one, in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan), is out of order, and the Amendment to the Title I do not propose to select.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On that statement I desire to make several submissions, which I will preface by saying this: Your decision has confirmed our predictions. In fact, what is now intended reduces our proceedings to a complete farce. In our case, all the Amendments of substance are disposed of in this summary fashion. My submissions are these: In effect your decision amounts to the wiping out of all Amendments which refer to extensions of the Special Areas. But it will be noted that the Financial Resolution upon which the Bill is based and the Bill itself both provide for an extension in certain circumstances to other areas, that is, areas other than those described as "special" in character. In those circumstances it is very difficult to understand why your decision was reached. But let me most specifically direct your attention to the matter under review. In paragraph (c) of the Financial Resolution the following words appear: enabling the Treasury to give financial assistance for any area outside the Special Areas. I submit that that fortifies our argument that reference to extension of the areas is justified and in order. Moreover, in the Bill itself, in Clause 5, Sub-section (2), the following appears: If the Minister of Labour, upon representations made to him, is satisfied as respects any area"— I wish to emphasise that— not being or forming part of a Special Area"— something quite distinct in character— that there is, and has been for a considerable time, severe unemployment in the area; that, unless financial assistance is provided under this Section to a site-company which will operate in the area"— that is an area outside the Special Areas— 1445 there will be no immediate likelihood of a substantial increase in employment in the area"— again a substantial reference to areas other than "Special" Areas— and that employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression in those industries; he may direct that this Section shall apply to the area. The area there is an area other than a Special Area. I think I speak the mind of every hon. Member on this side of the Committee when I say that in these circumstances I cannot understand how and why your decision was reached. I speak with the utmost courtesy, but in the circumstances necessarily with the utmost firmness in order to convey what is in the minds of my hon. Friends. It does seem to me that the matter ought to be reconsidered. This is perhaps not the time to accuse the Government of having employed a mean and malicious device in order to prevent hon. Members on this side from raising this issue—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member can raise a point of Order, but he cannot go into the question of the scope of financial procedure applicable to the Bill, which has been the subject of Debate.

§ Mr. Shinwell
For the time being I withdraw any accusation against the Government, but I still make the submission that we are fortified in our contention that these Amendments are appropriate and strictly in order and relevant to the Bill, having regard to the fact that both in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill itself provision is made for an extension to areas other than those described as "Special" in character.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has raised a point of Order on my ruling, and that is the only thing with which I have to deal. I can answer very simply and easily indeed. As far as I can gather the hon. Member rests his entire case on words which he quoted from paragraph (c) of the Financial Resolution: enabling the Treasury to give financial assistance in any area outside the Special Areas. The hon. Member stopped there, and if the Resolution had stopped there no doubt there would be something in the hon. Member's contention. But it does 1446 not stop there. It goes on to refer to "any area outside the Special Areas," as to which a number of conditions have to be complied with; and if those conditions are not complied with the extension to those areas is outside the Resolution.

§ Mr. Shinwell
But on the assumption that those conditions will be applicable—and I take it from the Bill that that is intended—in these circumstances a reference to the Special Areas and the extended areas would be strictly in order. But I do not rest entirely on paragraph (c) of the Financial Resolution. I have directed attention to Clause 5, Sub-section (2) of the Bill itself, and on that I should like to have your guidance.

§ The Chairman
That Clause has nothing whatever to do with my decision. What I am bound by is the terms of the Financial Resolution. What was the first point of the hon. Member?

§ Mr. Shinwell
About the conditions to which you referred, in the Financial Resolution.

§ The Chairman
I do not know of any Amendment which I have ruled out and which would come in in that way, but if the hon. Gentleman can draw my attention to any particular one now or when we come to it, I shall deal with it.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I would direct attention to the Title of the Bill, and the last line, which contains the words "and to certain other areas." There is an Amendment which you have ruled out. It is by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), in line 15, after "areas" to insert: or in any other area where the Commissioners deem that it is in the public interest. Surely, it is not irrelevant to add to the Clause the words "where the Commissioners deem that it is in the public interest?" I agree that it is a qualification, but not a qualification that should put it out of order.

§ The Chairman
It is not a question of the Title of the Bill, but whether the Amendment is within the terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is founded.

§ Mr. Neil Maclean
Further to the point of Order. Is it not the case that while the Financial Resolution covers the Bill, 1447 at the same time the conditions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) are conditions which are being placed in the Bill by the Government, and that, consequently, the Financial Resolution must operate in these other areas as well? That, surely, is within reason.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Member. These extensions are not only within the terms of the Financial Resolution but are identical in words. To that extent, therefore, they are in order. If the Bill as drawn went beyond the Financial Resolution I should have to rule that part of the Bill out of order.

§ Mr. Maclean
The Government have made extensions in this Bill going beyond what was in the first Act, which it seeks to amend, and those extensions are covered by the Financial Resolution and I submit, with all due respect, that some of the Amendments which you have ruled out of order go no further than the extensions which the Government themselves are making in the Bill, and only define those extensions much more definitely than the Government have done. May I put something to you which you may not have had in your mind when you decided to rule out certain of these Amendments? There is this point, for which the Minister of Labour can vouch, that certain Amendments fall into line completely with Cabinet decisions which have already been made. For example, the City of Glasgow, which is excluded from the operations of this Bill, as it is not considered a Special Area, has by a Cabinet Minute been specified, I understand, as a Special Area for the purpose of receiving Government contracts. I have a letter from the Minister of Labour to that effect. I see that the Minister of Labour shakes his head.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)
The hon. Member is making a statement which is not warranted. Glasgow is not certified as a Special Area at all.

§ Mr. Maclean
I did not say so.

§ Mr. Brown
That is what I understood. It is specified as one of a long list of towns to have preference for Government contracts which are in the Ministry of 1448 Labour distressed areas, but that has nothing to do with this Bill.

§ Mr. Maclean
I suggest that the Minister of Labour should ask for a copy of the letter which he sent to me, in which he will find that he states expressly and definitely that Glasgow, for the purpose of Government contracts, is to be considered a Special Area.

§ Mr. Maclean
Well, as a distressed area, shall I put it? What is the difference between a distressed area and a Special Area? Is it not the case that those areas which originally were described as distressed areas were for the purpose shall we say, of euphony, given the name "Special Area"? Can the Minister of Labour name a single district which today is classified as a Special Area which was not first a distressed area? If Glasgow and other towns are to be considered Special Areas for certain purposes, why is it that they cannot be included in this Bill definitely and explicitly instead of under such a phrase as appears in Sub-section (2) of Clause 5: that employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression in those industries. The worst unemployment might not be in those industries, but in other industries, but although the unemployment might be very great, and above the average percentage in the Special Areas which are included in the list, that particular area would not be included in the Bill. I submit that these points should be borne in mind when we specify Special Areas, more particularly as even with this Financial Resolution the Treasury have power to do certain things under this Bill with respect to the areas which are not being classified as Special Areas.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member put two points of Order, and I will deal first with the latter point, concerning the question of Special Areas and his reference to a Cabinet Minute about the City of Glasgow. The question of Special Areas for the purpose of the Rulings which I am obliged to give does not depend upon any person's idea or definition of the words "Special Areas," and if a Cabinet Minute does describe Glasgow or any other area as a Special Area for some 1449 purpose or another that could make no difference whatever to my Ruling, because I am bound by the definition of Special Areas which is in the Act. His first point was this: He alleged, or suggested, that some Amendment, which I do not think he specified, was in order and within the terms of the Resolution because it merely defined more strictly particular areas referred to in the Clauses of the Bill. If it only defined them more strictly, without any extension, then I think the Amendment would be in order, but I have not been able to find any such Amendment which does not extend the area. If there is any particular Amendment which the hon. Member thinks defines but does not extend, perhaps when we come to it he will call my attention to it, and I shall be able to deal with the point.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I submit that such an Amendment is the one submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), which does not extend things at all but merely qualifies. It speaks of or in any other area"— that is provided for in the Bill and in the Financial Resolution— where the Commissioners"— and there are Commissioners provided for in the Bill and in the Financial Resolution— deem that it is in the public interest. That is merely a qualification; there is no extension.

§ The Chairman
I think it must be clear from the first four words that it must be an extension. It is an addition. It says: or in any other. That is something more than is in the Resolution.

§ Mr. Shinwell
But this phrase: "or in any other" was taken from the Financial Resolution. Those are not new words.

§ The Chairman
It is not in the same connection.

§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. Gentleman says that they are not in the same connection. Which, connection has he in mind? May we have the benefit of his guidance?

§ The Chairman
Those words: or in any other 1450 are strictly defined in the Resolution, and we cannot go beyond what is in the Resolution.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies
I speak with a little feeling on this subject, because the district which I have the honour to represent is to be one of the other areas.

§ The Chairman
There is no Question before the House. I have been dealing with certain points of Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to raise a point of Order, I will ask him to do so at once and let me know what it is.

§ Mr. Davies
The point I want to make is that you have ruled out two Amendments dealing with Clause 2 and in that way you have, if I may say so with respect, stultified the Committee as regards extending the provisions of Clause 2 to other areas which, in our opinion, ought to be brought in, and which can be brought in, I think, without going outside the terms of the Financial Resolution. I would ask you, therefore, to be good enough to say whether, once you have ruled out those two Amendments to Clause 2, we shall be able when we come to Clause 5 to provide those other areas with the facilities which are to be forthcoming under the Bill.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member knows very well that it is no question of my wishes or my discretion. I am bound, as the Committee are bound, by the Resolution, and, whether it be on Clause 2 or Clause 5, I cannot allow any Amendment which extends the benefits to areas to which those benefits are not given by the Resolution—not by the Bill itself, but by the Resolution.

§ Mr. Harold Macmillan
You kindly gave us a general indication of the Amendments which you proposed to call and others which, for the reasons you have stated, are out of order. May I ask whether you would prefer that any point which a Member might wish to raise about a specific Amendment being ruled out of order should be taken now, or will you preserve the rights of Members to raise points in connection with their Amendments as we come to them? We might wish to put reasons why further consideration should be given to the question of a specific Amendment being out of 1451 order. It is a mere matter of convenience—whether you would prefer that we should put our points as a whole now, or as the different Amendments are reached?

§ The Chairman
I have already said with regard to one particular point which was raised that it might be better to consider whether the Amendment did come within the terms of the Financial Resolution when we came to that Amendment. Generally speaking, I think it is more convenient that points relating to specific Amendments should be raised when we come to them, but in a case of this kind, where there are a large number of Amendments ruled out for the same reason, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to know beforehand what the position is. May I be allowed to say at the same time that I must keep this discussion as to what Amendments are in order strictly within the limits of points of Order? We must not allow the discussion to develop into such a Debate as we had the other day on the advisability or otherwise of the procedure of the House of Commons being such as it is. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan) asked me a question, and it may be for his convenience if I answer it shortly. He wants to know the reason why I ruled out a new Clause at the end. The reason is that, in my opinion, it is definitely outside and beyond the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Macmillan
Attempts made in Committee to widen or alter in any way the definition of words in the Resolution are necessarily out of order, but, if I understood you aright, you have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had stopped at a certain point he would have been in order, since the Financial Resolution defined the exact condition which must be satisfied in order to bring an area within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, any alteration of those definitions, if it is to be in order, must in no way add to them. I understand that that is the position. I think it is the doctrine of the Committee stage that anything which widens the Financial Resolution in any way and which may, therefore, throw upon the Treasury an additional charge, is out of order, yet even that has been otherwise interpreted by the Chair in the past, where it has been a mere 1452 matter of definition or of better words. It is true that a definition may slightly extend, but if we are to be kept to the original definition, and are not to be allowed to alter it by one iota, the work of the House of Commons on this stage of the Bill is made completely impossible.

§ The Chairman
I gather that the hon. Gentleman is not now dealing with the particular matter of his proposed new Clause.

§ Mr. Macmillan
No, Sir.

§ The Chairman
My reply to him is, first, that I am not aware of any custom or of any single case in which a Ruling has been given from the Chair which has allowed an extension beyond the terms of the Resolution with regard to the expenditure of money or the extension of benefit. The second point is, as I suggested just now, that I cannot allow discussion as to whether the procedure of the House of Commons is what hon. Members would wish it to be or not.

§ Mr. Macmillan
Further to that point of Order, so that hon. Members may quite clearly understand the situation. There have been all kinds of Debates and discussions in the passage of legislation dealing with benefits of all kinds, such as widows' pensions, when Amendments have been moved and Ministers have made concessions. The whole procedure of the Committee has been based upon Amendments which have, in many cases, altered the public charge. I remember many Debates on matters of a similar character. May I ask whether the difference is because the Financial Resolution in such cases merely stated the general purpose of the Bill, while the present Resolution states every detail and, in fact, is the Bill? There have been cases where Amendments have been moved involving an increase in the expenditure of Government money.

§ The Chairman
There are two things which may explain what the hon. Member has in mind. One is the case of an Amendment which although it may in some way alter the amount of a distribution of benefits, does not increase the amount to be distributed. The other case, which, I think, he probably had in mind when he refers to certain pensions, is when certain moneys are being dealt with in a Bill and are payable, not by the Exchequer, but out of a fund. That is a totally different matter.

§ Mr. Aneurin Bevan
You have been exceedingly kind, Sir Dennis, in putting the Committee in possession of such information as you have. We are aware that, under the Rules of the House, you are under no obligation to do so, but you will understand that we have great difficulty this afternoon. I want to raise a point of Order arising directly out of your last remark. I do not understand how an addition to the number of Special Areas in any way imposes an additional charge under the Bill. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under pressure from the House, agreed to bring forward a Bill because hon. Members in all parts of the House were extremely dissatisfied with the limitation of Special Areas under the principal Act. We are now discussing the matter in the form of a Bill, as a consequence of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House an opportunity of dealing with this matter in a much more substantial manner than would have been afforded under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
It is difficult for us to understand the Ruling which you have given. As I understand the position, there is nothing in the Financial Resolution to prevent us from describing the whole of Great Britain as a Special Area for the purposes of the Bill, yet the Exchequer contribution is limited to £2,000,000. It would be entirely different if the Bill established a title on the part of the Special Areas to a particular sum; if it established, say, seven Special Areas, each of them to have £1,000,000. To add an eighth Special Area would increase the amount to £8,000,000. As a matter of fact, the provision of money, under the Financial Resolution and the Bill, is entirely in the hands of the Government. They need not spend a brass farthing on the Special Areas. They limit themselves to a sum of £2,000,000, but are under no obligation to spend it. In my submission, it would be possible to add to the number of Special Areas without in any way imposing an additional charge upon the Treasury, and I submit that Amendments which have for their purpose an extension of the number of Special Areas are not out of order.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has overlooked one or two points. An 1454 Amendment is not out of order merely because it quite certainly means an increased charge; it is out of order also if it permits, or might permit, of an additional expenditure. That, I think, disposes of a—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members will kindly let me finish my sentence—of a considerable part of the hon. Member's contention. He put forward another contention with regard to the Special Areas. An Amendment such as he suggests, entirely apart from whether it would cost more money or not, would be out of order for another reason. When a Resolution fortified by the King's recommendation provides for the expenditure of certain money for the benefit of certain persons or certain areas, an Amendment is out of order, as being not in accordance with the King's Recommendation, if it proposes to vary the beneficiaries who will benefit by the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Bevan
It is a part of my submission that the extension of the area does not involve even the risk of additional Treasury charge, because that is limited under the Bill. The maximum amount of it- is laid down in the Bill and was laid down in the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, no risks are involved of an additional Treasury charge. In the next place, the nature of the legislation now before the Committee leaves the expenditure of money entirely in the hands of the Government and of the Treasury, up to the prescribed legislated limit. It is, therefore, impossible, owing to the very structure of the Bill, for the Committee to impose one halfpenny of additional charge upon the Treasury. We do not indicate the amount which any recipient is to have, and by adding to the number of recipients we do not, therefore, add to the burden of the Treasury. The second point put by you, Sir Dennis, I would say with great respect, is of more substance than the first. Here we come to our difficulty, and also to the difficulty in which you as well as the Committee are placed, and in which you ought not to be placed, as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. Here we have a complete exposure of the difficulties of the Committee. We understand now, that the purpose of the Financial Resolution is not to prevent the Committee imposing a charge upon the Government over and above that which was intended by the Government, but we have a clear 1455 admission that the language of the Financial Resolution has been drawn in order to frustrate and limit the Committee in legislating upon this matter.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is now discussing matters which have nothing to do with my Ruling. The form in which the Government choose to draft a Resolution is a matter with which I have nothing whatever to do. I have to deal with the Resolution not merely as it was drafted, but as passed by the Committee and by the House of Commons on the Report stage.

§ Mr. Bevan
It has been admitted on many occasions, and it was stated by the Prime Minister in the course of the discussion which we had the other day, that the purpose of the Financial Resolution was to protect the Government against an additional charge being imposed upon it in Committee, but it is clear to us, and this is what reduces the proceedings to an absolute farce and means that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been a victim of a Government conspiracy—

§ The Chairman
I hope that the hon. Member, who has expressed his sympathy with the Chairman of Ways and Means, for which I am very grateful to him, will, with the help of the Chairman, confine his remarks to questions for which the Chairman can deal. I honestly confess that I get a little bit confused in trying to distinguish points of Order from questions which have to do with the conduct of the Government.

§ Mr. Lawson
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) uses these words in his Amendment: or in any other area where the Commissioners deem that it is in the public interest. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Commissioner already has power to do certain things outside the Special Areas if, in his opinion, he can create work inside the Special Areas? If a Commissioner thought that letting a factory in some area would give work over the boundary, he has something like that power under the law as it stands. It seems to us that your Ruling not only limits the Commissioner's power as it exists, but also hinders the discussion of the power which he has.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is wrong. If the Commissioner has power already, no Ruling of mine would limit it, and any attempt to give the power by an Amendment of this Bill is superfluous and unnecessary.

§ Mr. Maclean
In replying to the point of Order put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), you said that one of your reasons for ruling out of order a number of Amendments was that they would add to the areas which would come within the scope of £2,000,000 that was voted for allocation by the Commissioners. I may have misunderstood your reply to my hon. Friend, but it appears to me to mean that there could be no extension of the areas, because that would involve an increase in the amount—that the amount was limited to a certain sum, and that the areas, therefore, were limited to a certain number.

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member has not quite fully understood what I said. I said that, even although the amount might not be increased, the Amendments would be out of Order.

§ Mr. Maclean
The point was that the number of beneficiaries might be increased. Is it not the case that Clause 5 of the Bill gives the Minister of Labour power to increase the number of beneficiaries? The Clause is headed: Financial assistance for provision of factories, in certain other areas, and it gives definitions of the particular areas that can be brought within the benefits arising from the Clause. Subsection (2) says: If the Minister of Labour, upon representations made to him is satisfied as respects any area, not being or forming part of a special area"— and goes on to define the circumstances in which the Minister of Labour has power to give benefits to other areas which are not Special Areas?

§ The Chairman
That is because the Minister has power to do that under the Financial Resolution. It cannot go beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Maclean
If the Minister Las power to do that under the Financial Resolution, he must have power, in my submission at any rate, to do certain of the things which are suggested in the Amendments that you have ruled out of order.

§ The Chairman
No, he has not. No Member of the House, nor even the Government, can move any Amendment which would include in the Bill anything that would go beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
May I raise a point of Order? It is based upon lines 18 and 19 of the Money Resolution, where it says: enabling the Treasury to give financial assistance for any area outside the special areas. My point is that the Bill as it is now drafted does not interpret the Money Resolution in the sense in which we understand it. I understand that under the Act of 1934 the Commissioners have power to deal with areas, and my point is that the insertion of my Amendment would not enlarge the total expenditure provided for by the Bill, and therefore we ask that the Amendment should be given further consideration to enable us to deal with the question in this way.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that my answer on that point must be very short, because it is merely a repetition of what I have already said. The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers would definitely increase the areas beyond the areas defined in the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, it cannot be moved. I think that the time has come when we ought now to get on. If any special points of Order with which I have not already dealt are raised on any particular Amendments, they can he dealt with when we come to them.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I hope it will not be regarded as discourteous to yourself personally, Sir Dennis, if I move to report Progress.

§ The Chairman
I could not accept that Motion in face of the fact that this question has been raised already within the last week or two, and has been the subject of debate and decision by the House.

§ Mr. Shinwell
With great respect, Sir Dennis, there is considerable doubt on that score. I desire to submit that, in spite of your efforts to guide the Committee in this matter, there still remains in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself considerable doubt as to the wisdom of curtailing our deliberations in the manner indicated. Might it not, in all the circumstances, be more appropriate if we reported Progress and gave ourselves a further opportunity, and in the interim afforded you, Sir Dennis, an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter and taking into consideration the various points that have been submitted to you by hon. Members on this side? A further point that I wish to make is that you yourself, in response to several questions, have indicated that it might be appropriate at a later stage if, in response to any questions that might then be put to you, you indicated whether certain Amendments were in order or not. It appears to me, for what it may be worth, that in view of the fact that I myself submitted to you a request that you should guide the House at the outset, so that we might know what we were expected to do in the course of our subsequent debates, and that you indicated your agreement with that view and have acted accordingly, it might be desirable now that we should adjourn for the time being, so as to allow you to give the matter further consideration.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has given me, by his own words, the opportunity of again giving my reasons for refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress. He referred to the question of the wisdom of curtailing the Debate in this way. That, however, is a matter of the perfectly well established procedure of the House, and, therefore, is not a matter to be debated at this moment. Beyond that, as I have already said, it is a question of the established procedure of the House which actually was debated a short time ago. The hon. Member also made a reference to my having suggested that these points might be raised again on separate Amendments when we came to them, but I was very careful to say that, if any new points of Order arose not already dealt with on any particular Amendment as we came to 1459 it, I would deal with them. On the particular point on which I have ruled so repeatedly this afternoon, I cannot do otherwise than adhere to my Ruling; and I may say, in reference to the hon. Member's remarks, that if I were to consider it for days it would make no difference, because I did have, not only the opportunity, but the duty, of considering this principle very carefully when the Financial Resolution was before the House; and the whole procedure has been considered by me, in conjunction with the best advice I could get, in connection with these particular Amendments which are on the Order Paper now.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Am I to understand from your statement that, even if you had time to consider these matters, you would not change your mind, and that in no circumstances are you likely to reconsider the matter? If that be your decision, I am at a loss to understand why you permitted any debate or any submissions at all. If that be your attitude, it is, if I may say so with very great respect, a rather remarkable attitude for the Chairman of a Committee to take.

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member can scarcely realise exactly the meaning of what he says. I think that on consideration he will agree with me that, when it is the Chairman's business actually to decide what Amendments are in order and what Amendments are not in order, it is the Chairman's business to make up his mind, and to make up his mind perfectly definitely. I have done so, and to the best of my ability I have not allowed any debate on my decision. But I have done what is customary, and what I am always anxious to do, that is to say, I have answered hon. and right hon. Members' questions if they have not understood the reasons for my Rulings. I hope I have done so as clearly as possible, and I think they ought now to be taken as being understood. I must again repeat that, so far as any question of the advisability of the procedure is concerned, my opinion on it one way or the other does not arise. I might regard it as very bad or very inadvisable, but that would not alter the fact that I am bound by that procedure as long as the House continues to keep it in existence.

§ Mr. Stephen
In connection with the request of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that he should be allowed to move to report Progress, I would like to submit to you that, the situation having now arisen that the Government see the difficulties in which the Committee is placed, and there being a universal wish to try to do something with regard to the areas in question, it might be advisable that there should be a short discussion on the Motion to report Progress, to allow the Government to give their opinion.

§ The Chairman
I have already refused to accept such a Motion.