HC Deb 01 December 1942 vol 385 cc1019-24
Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)

With respect, I desire to draw attention, Sir, to a Ruling of yours which, as it stands now, and if it is allowed to become a precedent, and if it is copied into Speakers' Rulings, may have the effect of seriously curtailing the debating rights of Members of Parliament. As I understand it, your Ruling, which occurred on the Adjournment on 17th November, can prevent any subject being debated twice in the same Session. In other words, it would appear that the proposed Debate on Post-War Reconstruction, which is to take place to-day and on the next Sitting Day, is out of Order, and so would be Debates on Independent Tribunals, Darlan, Electoral Reform, and many other matters which have arisen this Session and have been replied to by Ministers.

The wording of your ruling in this particular case is characteristic of many of your Rulings—clear and concise. With your permission, Sir, and for the convenience of the House, I will quote what you said on that particular occasion. You intervened during this Adjournment Debate to say: After looking at Erskine May I have come to the conclusion that the hon. and gallant Member is making a repetition of a Debate which has taken place in the house. You then proceeded to quote the following passage from Erskine May: It is a wholesome restraint upon Members to prevent them from reviving a Debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or bill from being offered twice in the same session, if, without being offered, its merits could be discussed again and again. Then you went on to say: The hon. and gallant Member is clearly going against that Rule and I must ask him to go on to some other subject. With respect, I would point out that the quotation from Erskine May to which you referred was not a Rule but was the elucidation of a Rule which, incidentally, might not apply in this case. But the important part of your Ruling and that which affects all Members of this House was yet to come. In reply to your intervention I said: Am I entitled to make reference to what occurred in a previous Debate? You, Sir, replied: The hon. and gallant Member was making a good deal more than reference. He was almost quoting the previous Debate from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I then said: I bow to your Ruling, and in that event I shall not continue on the lines to which you have drawn my attention. In other words, I would not continue quoting from the previous Debate. Incidentally, the only reason why I had briefly done so was in order that those hon. Members who were then present but who had not been present on the previous occasion, would understand what it was all about. You, Sir, then said: I would go further and ask the hon. and gallant Member to get on to some other subject. I then asked: Do you mean, Sir, some subject other than the new facts to which I desire to draw attention about Prince Paul? You, Sir, replied, and this is the real substance of your Ruling: Some other subject than Prince Paul. That-has already been debated this Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1942; cols. 315–316, Vol. 385.] I think the House will agree that nothing could be plainer than that Ruling. In other words, a subject cannot be raised twice in the same Session. As matters stand, an important precedent has been created which intimately concerns the Privileges of all Members of this House inasmuch as it restricts debate to a very narrow compass. The "Daily Telegraph" has already quoted this Ruling of yours, Sir, as an established fact, and therefore, for one reason and another, but especially for the benefit of the Members of this House, I am sure it would be appreciated if you were to clarify the position.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member is not accurate in his statement that I gave a Ruling which created a precedent. On the other hand, my Ruling is entirely founded on the precedents and the Rulings laid down in Erskine May, which I would remind the hon. and gallant Member is the authority upon which the practice of this House depends. The ground upon which. I called the hon. and gallant Member to Order on the occasion to which he refers was his repetition of a subject which had already been recently debated. The Rule of Order which governs this matter is stated by Erskine May on page 316. The hon. and gallant Member has quoted it. I will quote it again: It is a wholesome restraint upon Members to prevent them from reviving a Debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or Bill from being offered twice in the same Session, if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again. It appeared to me that the hon. and gallant Member was violating, this Rule—and that was the Ruling which I gave—by repeating on the Motion for the Adjournment the same facts and arguments which he had previously stated on the Motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech. That was why I called him to Order. If he has new matter to offer and refrains from canvassing the merits of the matter already discussed, I might not intervene. But I must be the judge as to how far those requirements are fulfilled.

Captain Cunningham-Reid

May I make one more submission? You have said to the House that you have quoted a Rule. With all deference, may I point out that it is not a Rule which you have quoted but an amplification of a Rule? Perhaps, you will allow me to read the Rule, which I submit does not apply in this case.

Mr. Speaker

The passage which I have quoted and on which I based that Ruling is quite clear.

Mr. Bellenger

May I ask, Sir, if you would be good enough to define a little more clearly the words "when a Debate has been concluded"? Many of us would like to raise current issues, some of them very urgent, such as that of pension appeal tribunals. Are we precluded from raising such issues because Debate upon them has already been concluded? Could you, Sir, state your interpretation of that phrase?

Mr. Speaker

A question may certainly be raised again in the same Session, but exactly the same facts and arguments cannot be used as those used in a Debate which has previously taken place and has been brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Shinwell

Does that not mean that Members in discussing the conduct of the war will be debarred from referring to facts relating to the conduct of the war which have already been mentioned in the same Session?

Mr. Speaker

That question certainly has not been concluded.

Mr. Bevan

Do you realise, Sir, that if hon. Members are forbidden to repeat arguments on the same subject in the same Session, longer and longer silences will be imposed upon the House as the Session proceeds, and before the end of the Session we shall hardly be able to make speeches at all?

Mr. Buchanan

The Ruling which you have just given, Sir, is one which many will not challenge, but it raises this point which I think ought to be faced squarely, and I draw attention to it without suggesting any kind of personal criticism. I have been a number of years in this House, and every Session I have heard subjects repeatedly debated. As an illustration, I mention the subject of unemployment insurance The "not genuinely seeking work" provision was debated, day in and day out, often by the same Members, and as one of the participants I frankly say that I often used the same arguments because they were the only arguments to use. I know, Sir, that these Rules are subject to broad interpretation in the light of the circumstances which exist, not only in the House, but in the country, and that, in your position, a general view must be taken in giving these Rulings. The hon. and gallant Member who has raised this matter is not attached to any of the larger groups in this House. Some of us who do belong to those larger groups have often repeated ourselves. I hope, Sir, you will not take it as offensive on my part if I suggest that in the public interest it would be well to make clear that no action is being taken against the hon. and gallant Member that would not be taken against other hon. Members in this House and that he is not being singled out in any way on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Member and the House can feel assured that I always act perfectly fairly as between one hon. Member and another in this House and that in these matters no distinction is made between hon. Members, however important they may be or may consider themselves to be. Nor do I think the House can really think that this Rule in any way hampers debate. I have been in the House for a number of years, and I have been Speaker for nearly 15 years, and I have never come across an instance of this Rule being applied before. Evidently, therefore, the House has not been debarred from debating certain issues at great length, but this was a glaring case of a repetition of the same arguments and the same facts that had been used on a previous occasion, and I therefore felt bound to state the Rule.

Mr. Maxton

It is true that they were the same facts and the same arguments, but is it not a fact that the same facts and the same arguments were being repeated by the same man that really made the case an aggravated one, and that individuals, independent Members represented on their own, and even Members of small parties, are going to be very seriously handicapped if the larger parties can raise the same topic and the same arguments but with a variety of speakers when the smaller groups cannot ring the changes in that way?

Mr. Speaker

I have to apply the Rule of Standing Orders which deals with repetition by Members of their own or other people's arguments.

Mr. Woodburn

Is it not the case that the common sense of the Ruling is that the House does not want to re-open the Boer War?

Captain Cunningham-Raid

May. I put this point, Mr. Speaker? You have quoted what you state is a Rule. With all due respect, Sir, it was only half a Rule you quoted, and I am sure you will allow me to put the remainder and pertinent part of the Rule so that the House can see whether it applies in this particular case. What you quoted was an amplification of the main Rule, which says (ninth edition, page 364; 13th edition, page 316), that a Member, while speaking to a Question, may net allude to Debates of the same session upon any question or Bill not then under discussion. The question that upon the Adjournment was then under discussion was the matter on which you stopped me, which in turn arose on the new Question, "That this House do now adjourn," and, therefore, I contend that, if you had read the whole of this Ruling it would not have applied to this case, and I would ask you to take that into consideration. I might also point out that the edition I have here of Erskine May is an early edition, and in the earlier edition there are parentheses which make it quite clear to what Rule a particular paragraph applies. The edition in question is the ninth edition, and I think that if you would refer to that on some occasion. Sir, it would make it clearer that possibly this submission of mine is correct.

Mr. Speaker

We always take the latest edition.

Captain Cunningham-Reid

It is in the latest edition as well, Sir.