HC Deb 08 December 1943 vol 395 cc978-9
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I would like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Business for to-day. In the event of the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister being carried, can you give an indication what allocation of time you propose to make among the various Amendments which you are intending to call?

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for asking me that Question. The programme which I suggest to the House must depend for its success upon the co-operation of hon. Members themselves. There are three subjects, and the time is limited. The Government have proposed to give two extra hours, so I propose that the first Amendment goes on until three and a half hours after the commencement of the Sitting and that we have a Division until, say, 15 minutes later. The next Amendment will then go on for two hours and the third Amendment for a further two hours, which should enable us to get the Motion for the Address finished within the time allowed.

Mr. A. Bevan

While appreciating the great difficulties which you have, Mr. Speaker, in a matter of this kind, may I ask whether it is not likely to create rather a serious precedent if the movers of the first Amendment wish to press it to a Division, for you to accept the Motion "That the Vote be now taken" after so short a Debate? I have known Mr. Speaker refuse to take a similar Motion after a whole Friday's discussion, on the ground that the time given had been inadequate, and it is rather serious if we are to have such a Motion accepted after only two and a half hours' Debate.

Earl Winterton

On that point of Order. As I understood your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you did not suggest that you would accept a Motion, "That the Question be now put." I think my hon. Friend's question is based upon a misapprehension. All that you asked was that the House should co-operate.

Mr. Bevan

The only way in which the House can co-operate is not to challenge a Motion, "That the Question be now put." If Mr. Speaker accepts the Motion after such a short Debate, he is going to be put in a very unfortunate position.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that with good will on all sides I shall not be asked to accept a Motion of that sort, and the difficulty will not therefore arise.

Mr. Maxton

I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) desires that the time given to the first Amendment should be shorter or longer, but the hon. Gentlemen who are associated with me in that Amendment are agreed that they want it to go to a Division, after a much shorter Debate than we would desire, but in order to suit the general convenience of the House. I should not like to see a precedent of that kind established, but we take it that we shall have support for our composite Amendment from all those who have criticised the Government so consistently since the beginning of the discussion of the Motion for the Address.

Mr. Gallacher

In the Debates that have taken place on the King's Speech and the various Amendments has it not been the case that many very long and repetitive speeches have been made, and is it not possible for Members to confine themselves to the minimum of time, as happens in Scottish Debates? They could get their points across and get speeches concluded without unnecessary delay.

Mr. Speaker

What the hon. Member suggests is a counsel of perfection. I should be very glad to see it followed. I would point out that yesterday, for instance, speeches averaged more than half-an-hour each. I can only draw the attention of hon. Members to the matter.