HC Deb 21 April 1943 vol 388 cc1696-731
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)

I beg to move, That the Order of the House of the 12th November, relating to Business of the House, be read and amended by leaving out paragraph (3). The object of this Motion and of the other Motion on the Paper standing in the name of the Prime Minister is to give the Government power to move the suspension of the Rule for a limited period of time. This proposal arose out of discussions which have taken place recently with regard to our business arrangements, and I think this idea found support from hon. Members in all parts of the House. There have been occasions within my experience when it has been the desire of the House to extend Debates for a definitely limited time, perhaps an hour or two, and when frankly, as Leader of the House, I rather hesitated to propose the suspension of the Rule, because the Debate might drift on longer than most Members of the House would wish. I think this new arrangement would meet the convenience of the House on such occasions, and the Motion which I propose, which has been drafted by the authorities of this House, would carry it out. The House will understand that this power would be additional to the power which the Government already possess, and which they must maintain, to move to suspend the Rule for an indefinite period. Hon. Members will see that the second Motion is somewhat longer, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the House and make for easier reference to set out again the Rule, with the various amendments which have been made, in full instead of amending what has already been amended. That is the purpose of the two Motions, and I hope they will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

I do not wish to detain the House longer than it wishes to be detained, and first of all I wish to say to you, Mr. Speaker, how grateful I am to you for deciding that we can discuss the two Motions together. I would say to the Leader of the House that I think it was most unfortunate that more notice was not given us, particularly as regards the terms of the second Motion. I only became aware of the terms on getting my Order Paper in the House to-day, and there has not been time to organise a proper discussion about some of the evils which I read into it.

Mr. Eden

I should like to make it clear that the Motion was put upon the Order Paper last week, so that the House should know about it.

Mr. Stokes

I apologise to my right hon. Friend. My Whips did not call my attention to it. I withdraw my criticism. May I first make it clear that those who think as I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"]—that will be made clear as we go on—do not object to paragraph (a) of paragraph 8 of the second Motion but that we have every objection to paragraph (b), unless we can get some modification from the Government. As I understand it, the custom of the House prior to the war was that the suspension of the Standing Order should be moved at the commencement of business, so as to give everyone an opportunity of knowing what was being done, and the Motion for the suspension was put upon the Order Paper. That procedure was amended on 12th November so as to enable the Government to move its indefinite suspension at any time, and we do not object to that, but it does seem that if the Government are now to be allowed arbitrarily to decide the length of a Sitting of the House it ought to be done after notice has been given, or at least at a time when other hon. Members are present in the Chamber and will have some opportunity of expressing their views. The Motion says that this may be done without notice and at any time, and therefore it is conceivable that it might be done when the House was extremely empty, and the Government could then proceed with Business which otherwise would be substantially opposed. I want to ask that at least arrangements should be made for notice to be given.

I can quite see that when the suspension is to be made for an unlimited period there is not much object in debating it, but as one of the small minority of Members of this House who really represent the people, I wish to safeguard the interests of the people and to ensure that our view is heard, and I can well conceive that this new Motion might be used to operate against the will of the people. As one who does not submit himself to the bludgeonings and lecturings and circumventions of Whips and other people, I would ask that the Government should postpone proceeding with this Motion if they cannot at once clarify the situation and assure us that there shall be no unfair treatment of the minorities here. I know that the reply will be that the usual channels will look after that, but some of us have not got any usual channels, and it may be that our curtailed liberties will be further restricted. [Interruption.] I speak for myself, and I have several usual channels, but to my regret they are so often blocked, and I cannot get a message through. Therefore, I wish to make this protest, and if I cannot get satisfaction on the point, I propose, with the support of other hon. Members, to divide the House.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

It seems to me that this proposal would deprive back benchers of some of the rights which they now possess, and for that reason I view it with some concern. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, but, as I see it, there is no justification for this proposal at this time. Had there been any definite obstruction on the part of hon. Members in the conduct of Business, there might be some reason for it, but the occasions on which the House has sat longer than the Government Whips desired it to sit have been extremely few. Apparently the only reason why this proposal has been introduced is because there are occasions when hon. Members wish to speak but are not to be allowed to do so, because the Debate will have to be closed by a certain time. It is often when the Rule is suspended indefinitely that the back-bench Member has an opportunity of taking part in the Debate. I would remind hon. Members that the average time spent in this House on debating any particular Motion, is about six hours, if one excludes Questions and frequently, on important subjects, about half that time is taken up by Front Bench speakers on both sides. In those circumstances it does not seem fair that back benchers should be deprived of a right which they now possess.

I saw in a newspaper at the week-end a suggestion that the reason for this proposal was that when agreements had been arrived at by the leaders as to when debates should end, the back benchers sometimes dared to prolong debate in spite of such agreements. Some of us would like to know who are these leaders. At any rate, there are times when even those who have leaders are justified in differing from them. My right hon. Friend in whose name this Motion stands has, himself, on occasions, opposed his leaders, and I think it will be agreed that the occasions when he found himself in conflict with the leaders of his party were those occasions when, as the country realises, he was most right. I feel this is a serious matter concerning the Privileges of Members, and back benchers have not so many Privileges that they can afford to be deprived of this one. On this question of taking away the right of debate, I would remind the House that every hon. Member has an equal right to take part in Debates and to represent the views of his constituents and hon. Members will only want to prolong debate at a time when they feel strongly there is need for a wide expression of opinion. Because there is no justification for this proposal, in practice or in theory, I ask the House not to approve of it.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)

While I agree that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put forward what might be regarded as a reasonable objection to the proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is under a complete misapprehension of what the proposal actually means. If my recollection serves me right, this arrangement to move the suspension of the Standing Order without notice, was proposed to protect back benchers. The proposal is that, if, in the course of Business, it is found that more Members desire to speak than are likely under the ordinary procedure to get the opportunity of speaking, the right should be reserved to the Leader of the House at any time during the d[...]y, to move that the time should be extended for a definite period. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is actually opposing his own interests in seeking to prevent it being possible for the Leader of the House to move an extension.

Mr. Stokes

I never said anything of the sort. I said specifically I had no objection to the suspension of the Rule for an unlimited period, but that if it was to be for a limited time only, I thought it was likely to operate unfairly for the back bencher.

Mr. Woodburn

I must confess that, to me, my hon. Friend's attitude still seems unreasonable. I should imagine that it would still be to the disadvantage of back benchers if, on any particular day, because the suspension of the Rule for an unlimited period could not be secured, they were not to get any extension at all. From my hon. Friend's own point of view and from the point of view of the House generally, I cannot see why there should be any objection to this power being reserved to the Leader of the House. I think it would be an advantage that the Leader of the House, if, in the course of a Debate, he found it desirable to have the time extended, should have the power to move the suspension of the Rule for a limited time, or for an unlimited time, as circumstances dictated.

Mr. Holdsworth (Bradford, South)

I do not think the last speaker has quite grasped the point. As one who has been a Whip, I want to assist the Leader of the House as much as I can now that I am no longer a Whip, because I know the difficulties which exist in war-time. But I am most anxious to see that the Privileges of the Private Member are retained, and I think this Motion is wrong on the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). No one could object if an unlimited time were given and an appeal made that the Debate should close at a reasonable hour, but I think it is dangerous to fix a limit to the period of extension, and that is why some of us object to the proposal. I do not object to the Leader of the House having the power to move the suspension of the Rule, even without a Debate, if it leaves us an unlimited time, because when that Motion is carried and when we have got on to the Business to which it applies, we have the opportunity of expressing our views. But if there is a consensus of opinion that a certain matter should be debated adequately and a limited period, say of an hour or something like that, is allowed, then Private Members are deprived of opportunities of expressing their views by the very fact of that limitation. What I suggest is that we should give the power of suspension, with or without notice, but for an unlimited time. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have it now."] I know we have it now, but why circumscribe what we have now, by putting in a limited period? That is the whole question at issue, and I suggest that this proposal might be reconsidered from that point of view.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

I do not think the House fully understands the position. As I view it, I think this proposal would be an advantage. Suppose, for example, that there is a Debate on old age pensions and that the feeling arises that we ought to have further time for it. Negotiations can then take place under this proposal, and if the Leader of the House is agreeable, the Rule can be suspended for a period of, say, three or four hours. He can say, "I am prepared to agree to continue for a certain length of time, but I want a definite period fixed at which the Debate will conclude." I am assuming that the Leader of the House is reasonable and has a regard for the view of the majority in the House. I would be prepared to accept the fixing of a definite period, and I think three or four hours would do. I have sat here as we have all sat here on occasions while a Debate has gone on from hour to hour, wondering how long it would take to finish it. On the whole I think this suggestion a good one. It all depends, of course, on the reasonableness or otherwise of the view taken by the Leader of the House, but from what I have seen of the present Leader of the House he is always willing to take into account the opinions of hon. Members as to the length of time desired for a Debate. He has always been amenable to the views of the House, and if we should ever get a Leader of the House who acted otherwise, why then would be the time to kick. The House of Commons always has the opportunity of making its protest. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be too late."] It is never too late for the House of Commons to get anything altered, and if I found that the Leader of the House was not acting in a reasonable way, I should raise objection in some form or other. At the moment I am agreeable to the suggestion in this Motion.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

Although I was somewhat dubious about the proposal; possibly it is a matter for experiment. As I see it, suppose there is a Motion by the Leader of the House to extend the Debate for two hours, and the Motion is carried. The Debate goes on for two hours; what happens? There are still Members who wish to continue the discussion. They can seek to catch the Speaker's eye, and if the discussion is going on, the Government will either have to move the Closure or give another day for the business. Possibly the Government will be in a stronger position to have Mr. Speaker accept the Motion for the Closure if they have given an additional two hours. I can scarcely recall, after having been here for 20 years, an occasion when Mr. Speaker has refused a Government Motion of that character. I can see a possibility that there might be more occasions when there would be an extension of the period of debate under the proposals now put forward by the Government, but the Government will be put in the position of having a certain moral justification for asking for the Closure, and for getting it. It is very much a matter for experiment. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member who took objection originally in this matter, after many failures to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I am not in a state of enthusiasm for the Motion one way or another, but I think the House should try it for the time being.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)

I have a suggestion to make to the Leader of the House. It is obvious that a Motion that the Government may suspend the Rule at any time is in the interests of back benchers. War-time conditions make it impossible for notice of the Motion to be given, but the back bencher may well benefit by that fact. The Motion to suspend for a limited time is however a little dangerous, because occasions might, and almost certainly would, arise where back bench Members who are interested in some particular Debate would wish for a longer period than that proposed by the Government. I therefore make the suggestion that the position could best be met in this way: Although an ordinary Motion for the suspension of the Rule is not debatable and can only be divided upon, I suggest that where the Government are proposing to suspend the Rule for a limited time they should allow that Motion to be debatable. Many of the objections that have been voiced to-day would then vanish. It would be well for the House to decide whether the Motion should be for a limited time or for an unlimited period. That I believe would meet many of the objections of back bench Members to the present procedure.

Mr. Murray (Spennymoor)

Earlier in this discussion an hon. Member suggested that sweet reasonableness might meet the situation. My mind runs back to the time when we were discussing the Beveridge Report and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal that we might finish the Debate. Then I remember that the Leader of the House came in about an hour later, and asked also that we might give up the Debate. If the time of the Debate had been fixed with that sweet reasonableness, we should have been compelled to finish at an hour when some of us would have had no say at all. Some of us sat here for eight or nine hours in order to get into that Debate. We ought to be allowed opportunities, when we are interested in the subject and are willing to sit here for eight or nine hours in order to have an opportunity of speaking. Hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of getting their speeches off their chests. If I understand anything of this House of Commons, I believe it is one of the most horrible things to have a speech on your chest when a right hon. Gentleman comes in and says, "Close down, gentlemen, please." I hope the back benchers will press this matter that we should have unlimited time when a subject is important. We have our constituents to represent; remember that. Our constituents are anxious that we should let our voices be heard in this House, and, when a matter is of great importance to our constituents, we ought to have unlimited time to get our speeches off. I remember the story of a man who once went out to deliver a great speech. He said, "Friends." He scratched his head. Then he said, "Only God and I know what it is taking to get this speech out." Then he scratched his head again and said, "Now, only God knows."

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)

There is a great deal of misapprehension among hon. Members about what this Motion proposes and what the effect of rejecting it would be. Before the war and in ordinary times, there was a Rule, the 11 o'clock Rule as it then was, which could be suspended. There had to be no Debate. It was made at the beginning of the Sitting, with notice. That suspension was only used to further the Business of the Government. When the Government wanted to make certain of getting a piece of Business through they had the right to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule. Government supporters usually used to vote for it, and the Opposition to vote against it. It would have been a mistake to allow it to be debatable, as that would have wasted the very time that the Government wanted to save.

Mr. Holdsworth

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government used the suspension of the Rule only to facilitate their Business. I do not think that is quite correct. In the main it was correct, but if the Government knew that a Debate was likely to take a long time, they used it also for that purpose.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct, and I do not think it was a point on which to interrupt my speech. It is a point on which the hon. Member's opinion differs from mine. I adhere to my statement that, as a rule—I will put that in—it was used by the Government in order to facilitate the passage of their Business. Since the war and the alteration of the hours of sitting, we have been very much restricted in time, and the Government have made this concession, that they will sometimes move the suspension of the Rule in order to allow a little longer time for Members to have a Debate, but they have always retained the right in their own hands to move that suspension. A good many of the speeches made to-day proceeded apparently upon the assumption that the House could have a suspension of the Rule when it liked, and that it could be moved by anyone in the House. Of course, that is not the case. The Government have retained through all this business the sole right in their own need, if they will it, and not otherwise, of moving the suspension of the Standing Order. It is quite true that when they do so for the purpose of allowing a Debate to go on, they do so on the initiative of other persons in the House who want a longer Debate. What would be the effect of turning down this proposal? The effect would simply be this, that the Government would only move the suspension for their own Business on the one hand, or when they were quite willing for the Debate to go on indefinitely, and generally they would probably not take that view. They would prefer to stand pat and do nothing.

It was suggested that a great number of Members would like, on many occasions, particularly in view of the length of the day now and the shortness of Parliamentary Business, to go on an hour or two longer; in fact, that on a particular day the hours of sitting should be those which were suggested when we arranged our present hours. The Government have indicated that if that were the case, they might be willing, probably would be willing, to suspend the Rule far more often than at the present time. If Members will bear that in mind, I think they will see that so far from this proposal limiting their Privileges, it really extends them, because at the present time, and after it, the Government technically have the absolute decision in their own hands in every case. They are not likely to give a suspension for the wishes of the House except on very occasional opportunities, because they will not want to have this suspension for any great length of time. If this alteration in the Rule is made, then the Government are far more likely to be willing to accede to a feeling running through the House that one or two hours of additional time might be given. What prevents the Government from doing that at the present time, and what prevents other Members of the House who are quite willing to see a reasonable extension given, is this: Under the present Rule, once the extension is given, it may go on indefinitely, half through the night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members have asked me a question. My answer is that it may be the wish of one Member here and one Member there to sit here all night, but it may equally not be the wish of the great majority of the House. Whenever that is so the great majority of the House will support the Government in refusing to give an indefinite suspension of time, whereas the great majority of the House would be willing to support the Government in giving a limited extension of time. It is because I think that is the prevailing opinion in the House as a whole that I hope the House will support this proposal, which will be to the advantage of Members generally, because it will enable us to suspend the Rule far more frequently if we know that in so suspending it we are not opening the door to an all-night Sitting, which many of us do not want under present circumstances.

Mr. Eden

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with these points, by permission of the House. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for what he said. I think there are one or two points which I can clear up which may facilitate a decision. This is not some sort of Government plot, nor is it arranged to facilitate Government business. That is not the purpose. So far as I am concerned, as a member of the Government I should have no regrets if this Motion was defeated, but I should have regrets as Leader of the House, and I should like to try and explain just for a few minutes why. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on one point. I think he must assume that under any Rules the Leader of the House tries to meet the wishes of the House; otherwise, everything becomes nonsense straight away. On that assumption it would certainly not be normal practice for the Leader to move this Motion without notice. I think the normal practice would be to give notice so that Members should have full information in advance. If we keep this power, occasions may arise when Members would like an hour or two hours extra. I have known occasions when I have felt that I would have liked to have been able to move such an extension, but when I have not felt like giving an indefinite extension. Therefore I would like to have that power.

Mr. Stokes

The right hon. Gentleman says that the object of the Leader of the House is to meet the wishes of the House. What about the rights of the minority according to the Rule as it now stands? Would he regard a minority as representing the wish of the House?

Mr. Eden

That is not very easy to answer. It seems almost to answer itself. I would naturally try, and I do try, to take account of that fact. Secondly, someone has said that if this power is once given to the Leader of the House, all sorts of terrible things may happen thereafter [Interruption]. That is what an hon. Member said. The hon. Member who made that interjection was not in the House. There is no danger whatever of that, because this power lapses at the end of the Session and would have to be renewed again. I suggest that we take the view of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and take it as an experiment. Let us see how it works. I think that as the result of experience Members will like it and will wish to continue it. If they do not, they will not agree to its renewal. This is not being done to provide the Government with special facilities at all. If the Government want their Business, they suspend indefinitely, and away they go. This is to provide Members with a little more time when it may be thought necessary without interfering with general Rules which have been accepted.

Sir A. Southby

Would the Leader of the House consider the advisability of allowing Members of the House to move to amend the Government's Motion in the case of a specified period of suspension?

Mr. Eden

The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is that it should be debated? I think that would be difficult. I believe the result would be that we should spend most of the extra time debating as to whether we should have it or not. Let us see how this thing works. It is purely an experiment, and I think it will be useful, and we can repeat it if it is desired. If not, hon. Members need not renew it.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)

If, during a period when the Rule has been suspended for a limited time, it is found that the wish of the House obviously is to continue beyond that fixed period, would the Leader of the House consider it? Perhaps this should be addressed to you, Mr. Speaker; would it be in Order to use this Rule again, and to suspend for a further fixed period, or to suspend for an indefinite period during the same Sitting? It seems to me that, knowing the fact that this House can always do what it wishes to do, that would be the way in which the Rules could be used, and could be used for the benefit of the House.

Mr. Eden

I think the only way out if that was the position would be to give another half day or make some such arrangement. We could not possibly suspend the Rule again during the same Sitting.

Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)

Having heard the second statement of the Leader of the House, I am even less reassured than by his first statement. It seems to me that there is no necessity for this Motion at all, none whatever, because it would appear quite clearly, I hope, to a few Members of this House feat there is no reason for the Government to have the opportunity of suspending the Sittings of the House for a limited period because they can always do that, with their great majority, by moving the Closure. I know nothing against that, Therefore I think we have to look a little deeper for their motive. Why is it that they do not want to have to move the Closure, having suspended the Rules of the House for an unlimited period? They do not want to do that because they could then be accused of stifling debate. I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge. What will happen in future is that on practically every occasion when we suspend the Rule it will be done for a limited period, and the opportunity for every Member to have his say will be taken away. The only time when some Members get a good chance in this House to get their speeches of their chests, as an hon. Member has put it, is when the Rule is suspended for an unlimited period. I believe that by this Motion the rights of private Members are being further encroached upon. I would remind the House that, as the result of our war-time rules and regulations, private Members' rights have been taken more and more. We are not allowed to introduce Private Bills, and many other Privileges have been taken from us. The fact that we are going to be limited on certain occasions as to the time in which Members can address the House is an additional encroachment. It is, to my mind, a further imposition upon back benchers and should be resisted. It should not be the Leader of the House who is advocating this, but the Chief Whip, because this seems to me to be just another of his sinister children.

Mr. David Adams (Consett)

I agree with those who believe that this is likely to prove a very serious limitation of our powers of debate in this House. Experience shows that when the Rule is suspended, the sense of the House brings the Debate to a conclusion within a reasonable time. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in my judgment, gave the case away, when he supported the Government. He assumed that the Government would make the period sufficiently long to enable all Members who desired to speak to do so. He mentioned three or four hours. Shall we have any guarantee that one hour or an hour and a half will not be considered sufficient by the Government? Once this Motion is passed, it will automatically become the rule and the law in all future Sessions. It has been said that this will prevent long Sittings. Why should it do so? Has not the time been reasonably used by Members? We are giving the Government the right to say that Debates should be strictly limited, and that some hon. Members who desire to speak should not be allowed to do so. We know that not everything that the Government introduce is acceptable to Members, and we, the back benchers, desire to put our own point of view. That right will depart, except with the good will of the Leader of the House and the Government. They have all the powers they desire now to enable them to stifle debate, except the power to limit the time at the disposal of the House.

Mr. Bernays (Bristol, North)

I would just like to say that this proposal gives me and some of my hon. Friends some concern. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the result of not passing it. What is more important to me is the question, What would be the result of passing it? I have only one comment to make. It seems to me that we are taking from ourselves the very powerful right of keeping the Government up all night on a particular issue. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite support this proposal, because they have used so powerfully in the past the weapon of the all-night Sitting.

Mr. Tinker

This is war-time. We have altered things because of the war.

Mr. Bernays

I agree; but there is a danger in doing things in war-time which you would not do in peace-time. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) spoke of the importance of getting things off your chest. It seems to me that the use of the all-night Sitting is rather to get concessions from the Government. I have known concessions to be given at three or four o'clock in the morning which would not have been given if the Sitting had been limited. The House should consider very carefully before granting the Government this power.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

The hon. Member said that this concession was for war-time. As I understand it, it is not for war-time, but for the Session only. I am in favour of the Motion, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider one point, relating to the first two lines in paragraph 10. With the experience he gains, will he give consideration to the elimination of part of the first two lines of paragraph 10? He has said that he is willing to do all he can for the convenience of Members and to meet the wishes of the House. After giving a limited suspension, he might find it the wish of the House, and not against the wishes of the Government, that a further short extension should be given. Would he consider whether it would then be possible for the Government, on the same day, to grant a further extension? I am not asking for an answer now, because I propose to vote for the Motion, but I ask him to consider it in future.

Question put, That the Order of the House of the 12th November, relating to Business of the House, be read and amended by leaving out paragraph (3).

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 12.

Division No. 17. AYES.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke) Peto, Major B. A. J.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) Graham, Captain A. C. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Agnew, Comdr. P. G. Grenfell, D. R. Price, M. P.
Albery, Sir Irving Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehavan) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Procter, Major H. A.
Assheton, R. Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham) Pym, L. R.
Banfield, J. W. Grimston, R. V. Quibell, D. J. K.
Barr, J. Gruffydd, W. J. Radford, E. A.
Barstow, P. G. Guy, W. H. Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral, T. P. Hannah, I. C. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Beattie, F. (Cathcart) Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley) Harvey, T. E. Rickards, G. W.
Beechman, N. A. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ritson, J.
Beit, Sir A. L. Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.) Roberts, W.
Benson, G. Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P. Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Bird, Sir R. B. Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Blair, Sir R. Hicks, E. G. Rothschild, J. A. de
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. Higgs, W. F. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Bower, Norman (Harrow) Hill, Prof. A. V. Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland) Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. Salt, E. W.
Bowles, F. G. Hollins, A. (Hanley) Savory, Professor D. L.
Boyce, H. Leslie Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown) Selley, H. R.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. Horsbrugh, Florence Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hughes, R. M. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Buchanan, G. Hume, Sir G. H. Snadden, W. McN.
Burden, T. W. James, Wing-Corn. A. (Well'borough) Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. James, Admiral Sir W. (Porte'th, N.) Stephen, C.
Burke, W. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypoal) Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. Jewson, P. W. Storey, S.
Campbell, J. D. (Antrim) John, W. Strickland, Capt. W. F.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g&C'km'n) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cary, R. A. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Summers, G. S.
Charleton, H. C. Key, C. W. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Sutcliffe, H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
Colegate, W. A. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Tate, Mavis C.
Collindridge, F. Lawson, J. J. Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)
Conant, Major R. J. E. Leonard, W. Thomas, I. (Keighley)
Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M. (N'flk,N.) Leslie, J. R. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Levy, T. Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)
Craven-Ellis, W. Liddall, W. S. Thorne, W.
Critchley, A. Linstead, H. N. Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley) Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood) Thurtle, E.
Culverwell, C. T. Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Loftus, P. C. Tomlinson, G.
De Chair, Capt. S. S. Mabane, W. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Doland, G. F. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
Douglas, F. C. R. McCorquodale, Malcolm S. Wakefield, W. W.
Drewe, C. McEntee, V. La T. Ward, Col Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Watkins, F. C.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich) Mack, J. D. Watson, W. McL.
Ede, J. C. McKie, J. H. Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. McNeil, H. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Mander, G. le M. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel) Marshall, F. White, H. (Derby, N.E.)
Ellis, Sir G. Martin, J. H. White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)
Emery, J. F. Mathers, G. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Messer, F. Willink, H. U.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Mitchell, Colonel H. P. Wilmot, John
Foot, D. M. Montague, F. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwih, W.)
Foster, W. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Woodburn, A.
Frankel, D. Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale) Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury) Wootton-Davies, J. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Muff, G. Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham) York, Major C.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. Oldfield, W. H.
Gammans, Capt. L. D. Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Garro Jones, G. M. Petherick, Major M. Mr. Boulton and Mr. A. Young.
Gates, Major, E. E. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Bellenger, F. J. Granville, E. L. Turton, R. H.
Bernays, R. H. Horabin, T. L. Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Bevan, A. Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lipson.

Ordered, That during the present Session the following provisions shall be substituted for paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 1:— '(8) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, either with or without notice, and either at the commencement of public business or at any time thereafter, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect either—

  1. (a) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House' or
  2. (b) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House' for a specified period after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.

(9) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to the business so specified shall not be interrupted if it is under discussion at the hour appointed for the interruption of business, may be entered upon at any hour although opposed, and, if under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any Standing Order, may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business.

Provided that business exempted for a specified period shall not be entered upon, or be resumed after the expiration of that period, and, if not concluded earlier, shall be interrupted at the end of that period, and the relevant provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Standing Order shall then apply.

(10) Provided always that not more than one motion under paragraph (8) may be made at any one sitting, and that, after any business exempted from the operation of the order is disposed of, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.'"—[Mr. Eden.]