Mr. EdwardsI desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are prepared to advise the House as to the best step that should be taken to enable a greater number of Members to take part in Debates on subjects which arouse general interest, such as foreign affairs?
Captain CazaletMay I put to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of view arising out of the recent Debate on Palestine? I am not, of course, raising any question about the absolute right of the Chair to call whom it likes when it likes, but merely the one issue of the inordinate length of speeches. Out of 11 hours' Debate on Monday and Tuesday, official party speakers and Privy Councillors occupied just over eight hours. The average length of their speeches was 40 minutes. Only seven ordinary back-bench Members spoke. One of these spoke for an hour; one delivered a maiden speech; and one was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who, perhaps, is hardly an ordinary Member. Excluding these, only four completely ordinary back-bench Members spoke, and all of them limited their speeches to the comparative brevity of 20 minutes. I would put it to you, Sir, that when a very considerable number of Members in all parts of the House feel strongly on a particular issue, that only some six out of 600 should be able to speak is really a denial of free speech and a negation of Parliamentary government. If the time for debate is strictly limited, speeches must also be limited. I recognise that one of the results—
§ Mr. BuchananOn a point of Order. [Interruption.] I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was putting a further question to you arising from the question addressed to you by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards).
§ Sir I. AlberyOn a point of Order. Is it in order, when one hon. Member has risen to put a point of Order, for another hon. Member also to rise to put a point of Order?
§ Mr. BuchananThe matter now appears to have become a subject of debate, and in that case I think I ought to be allowed to make similar comments to those of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet).
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it would probably be more convenient if I were allowed to answer the original question that was put to me. The subject which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) is covered in the reply which I propose to give.
Captain CazaletYou have on former occasions offered to the House certain advice on this matter, but it has been followed for only a very short time.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am quite prepared to advise the House as to the steps that might be taken to enable a greater number of private Members to take part in Debates, but whether it follows my advice or not is quite another matter. I have done so on previous occasions, and my advice has either fallen on deaf ears or on unruly tongues. The suggestion I have to make, and it is one that I have made a good many times to the House, is that Members—and when I speak of Members I make no distinction; I include, Ministers, Privy Councillors and private Members—should all curtail the length of their speeches. The remedy for that, unfortunately, is not in my hands; it is entirely in the hands of the Members concerned, and is a matter over which the Chair, as the Chair, has no control whatever.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham made some remarks with regard to Time-tables for Debates. Under the system which is now very often operated in this House, of a Time-table, either by agreement or by the Guillotine, under which the Debate is curtailed and a 2502 Time-table fixed, it seems almost an obvious corollary that there must be some time limit to the length of speeches. The Debate on Palestine last Monday, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, was a flagrant case in which a few Members monopolised the time of the House. Twelve Members took part in the Debate, and, except for three short speeches, the other Members occupied an average of 40 minutes each. From these figures it would seem that the Chair is helpless to get more Members into the Debate.
Perhaps, as my advice is not always taken on this subject, my experience may have a greater effect than my advice. I venture to say that no one has listened to more speeches than I have, nor has anyone been in a better position to judge of their merits. I assure the House that, with few exceptions, the short speeches are the best and most effective. It is reputed that Disraeli, when he was once asked by a new Member whether he advised him to take part often in the Debates of the House, replied, "No, I do not think you ought to do so. It is much better that the House should wonder why you do not speak than why you do." My advice in this matter is very much the same with regard to the length of speeches as that given by Mr. Disraeli; it is much better, when a Member resumes his seat after he has made a speech, for the House to have the feeling that they wish he had gone on longer instead of wondering why he did not stop sooner.
Mr. EdwardsI am sure that the whole House appreciates very much the terms of your reply. If I may say so, it was a magnificent speech. There is one question I would ask you. I wonder whether you recall the statement made, I think by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who, following a certain hon. Gentleman who had taken an hour, said that no Member had compressed so many words into so few thoughts. I want to ask you, will you contemplate the position that Members may find themselves in if during the Recess we should happen to be suddenly recalled, as we have been recalled before, and 600 odd Members come here representing their constituents—I assume we all come here on a parity—but we come and follow the general practice, and we know for certain that at the beginning of the proceedings we shall listen to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of 2503 the Liberal party and perhaps the Leader of the Independent Labour party. We shall then listen to the right hon. Member for Epping and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who since he took a back seat has come very much to the fore; and then, perhaps, we shall have the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Do Privy Councillors have any special privileges in this House? Many of these right hon. Gentlemen never come to this House except when they want to speak. I think it is not unfair to say that many of them take no part whatever in the general work of the House; they walk in here, and seem to assume that they have a right to speak.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must not myself disregard the advice I have just given, by making a long speech. It does appear that some Members are more often called than others, but on matters of great importance, such as foreign affairs, and so on, it is generally the Members who have some special knowledge of the particular subject before the House, who often speak as representing a considerable body of opinion. There are also the Members to whom the hon. Member has referred, the Privy Councillors, who by tradition and practice have a greater right to be called than other Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It has been the common practice of the House for many years. With regard to those Members, the Privy Councillors, I do make the suggestion that I hope they will show consideration for other Members who wish to be called, and will never abuse the privilege which, according to long-established practice, they undoubtedly enjoy.
§ Wing-Commander JamesArising out of the original question. Having regard to the fact that there is some misunderstanding in the Press, particularly in the "Times," may I bring to your notice the fact that on the second day of the Palestine Debate, out of three hours and 23 minutes of debating time, and excluding a comparatively short winding-up speech, only 18 minutes fell to supporters of the Government Motion on the Paper?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that that alters the opinion which I have already given, as on the previous day some Members monopolised too much time.
§ Mr. SandysIt is sometimes the practice for the Chair to ask Members, before they are called, for an assurance that they will limit their remarks. I wonder whether that could not be a more usual practice, as it would ensure shorter speeches?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do that myself. Some Members faithfully carry out this undertaking but there are some Members who tell me that they will speak for 10 minutes and then they speak for half an hour.