PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS (Hansard, 13 December 1944)

§ Commander King-Hall (Ormskirk)
I beg to move, in line 2, to Leave out from "to," to the first "in," in line 3, and to insert: control the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and to advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report; to assist Mr. Speaker. The significance of this Amendment is that, if accepted, it would leave in the hands of Mr. Speaker all questions concerning the actual, textual accuracy of the reports of our proceedings. If, for 1283 example, an hon. Member disputed that he had been correctly reported in HANSARD he would, if this Motion is accepted, still go to Mr. Speaker and get the decision from him on the matter in dispute. On the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted, it would place fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates, all matters relating to the actual publishing of our reports. I think, in a broad way, it would be fair to say that in that sense the Committee would become the executive, in the sense that the Kitchen Committee is. It could be argued that yesterday's Debate showed that that is not a satisfactory arrangement, but I think it showed that the House wanted the Kitchen Committee to carry out its duties in another way and that there was no complaint of the actual organisation of the Committee. I would like to explain that in my opinion this reform, as I regard it, is very desirable and is, indeed, essential., It is a rather mournful reflection to me that there are so few hon. Members in the House, since we are really discussing a matter which I hope to show is of fundamental importance to the future of the House of Commons. I recognise, however, that those who believe this have a hard row to hoe, and we have obviously to do some hard work before we reach our objective.
Hon. Members may say that we have got along very well with the present terms of reference ever since 1911, and they might ask, Why is it necessary to make any change now? One answer would be that a good many things have changed since 1911 which was when this Parliament—and I might add, it was the last Parliament of all the Parliaments in the world to have an official report of its own—decided to have its own Official Report, and Mr. Speaker was requested to take charge of the matter. He indicated, in the words that were used at that time, that eleven of the most skilled reporters of the United Kingdom were recruited to this job. Another change which has taken place since 1911 and bears on the need for this Amendment is the rising circulation of HANSARD from a few hundred copies to its present circulation of approximately 8,000 copies. The paid-for circulation, as my right hon. Friend told us the other day, has risen by 3,000 copies in the last 1284 12 months, and it is still going up, and will continue to go up. Another thing which has occurred which bears on the need far this Amendment is the formation of a body called the Hansard Society, and it is not altogether a coincidence that the paid-up sales of HANSARD have increased to this extent during the 12 months in which this organisation has been in being. This Society is a creation which came into existence to satisfy a demand, and I think it should go on record that at this moment it is supported by nearly 150 Members of Parliament of all parties who recognise and approve of what it is trying to do. It exists to-day for something which is necessary and expedient, to increase knowledge and spread knowledge throughout the world about the proceedings of Parliament. I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it may be in your mind as to whether I am in Order but I wish to suggest to you that the activities of this Society may create a situation which will make it necessary——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in Order in introducing that question on this subject.

§ Commander King-Hall
Then I will pass on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the point of my argument was this, that if there is a great increase in the demand for and the interest in HANSARD, due to the activities of a body to which I will not refer again, it may become necessary for us to revise the methods by which we deal with that demand. I was about to pay a tribute to the Treasury for the fact that they have announced that this Society is free of Income Tax, but perhaps I will say no more about that.
There is, undoubtedly, a very great and growing public interest in our proceedings which—and I am sure the House will be with me here—should be encouraged in every way and in every respect. This development will undoubtedly give rise to a number of controversial issues. I make no complaint about that, but I respectfully submit that Mr. Speaker should not be placed in a position in which he is obliged, by the terms of reference of this Committee as they now stand, to take part in these controversies. Unless those terms of reference are amended he will be obliged to be mixed up in some of those controversies.
1285 I would like to remind the House of just one or two of those controversies, small at present, which actually have arisen during the past 12 months. One was the question of whether Members were or were not to pay for their bound volumes of HANSARD, especially when it was discovered that Members of another place continued to receive their volumes free. They had rejected with contumely the suggestion of the Treasury that they should abandon their privilege. That was a matter of controversy in this House. The Select Committee on Publications and Debates advised Mr. Speaker to take our privilege away from us and, further, advised him to refuse to restore that privilege. It was advice which I fought in that Committee, and on which I divided the Committee, although I was defeated——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in Order in debating the merits of that now.

§ Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)
Surely the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to argue that that is a reason why Mr. Speaker should not be involved in these matters. Surely he is entitled to cite an example.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That may be. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will continue his speech.

§ Commander King-Hall
The feeling of the House on this matter became manifest, and we are now waiting for the new Committee to advise Mr. Speaker to act in a contrary manner, and Mr. Speaker gave us a hint from the Chair the other day that he intends to accept that advice when he receives it. I submit that these are the kind of things which would not occur if my Amendment was accepted. Another controversial matter was the issue of the printing of Members' speeches, an issue which involved public funds. I maintain that the final decision rested with Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that it is not advisable for him to be brought into that kind of controversy. Operating rather nebulously in the background in this matter is the Treasury, which functions somewhere between the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker and the advisory function of the Committee whose terms of reference I wish to amend. The Committee advises Mr. Speaker on matters which, under the present terms of reference, involve 1286 finance. Mr. Speaker then has to decide whether he will accept or reject that advice, and when the issue is raised on the Floor of the House the Treasury may well intervene and give their point of view on the matter. The Treasury objection may touch on one of our privileges, of which Mr. Speaker is the chief guardian and defender.
I have given these examples of some of the controversial issues which have actually arisen during the past 12 months in order to illustrate the need for the reform of the terms of reference of the Publications and Debates Committee in the sense of my Amendment. But that is not all that will happen; I think we must prepare for the future. The body I referred to earlier, or even Members of the House, might wish to campaign for the publication of HANSARD at the reduced price of 3d., while accepting the view that it will have to be subsidised to some extent. That might well be—without expressing a view as to its advisability or not—a controversial matter, and it is not advisable that Mr. Speaker should be drawn into that kind of issue. As matters stand at present, all questions relating to the publishing of HANSARD—and this is an important part of the terms of reference which need amending—are finally decided by Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that any reasonable interpretation of the word "publishing" includes much more than the mere printing of a report or a book. It includes the arrangements for advertising, considering what the circulation should be and for generally making the existence of the book known to the public. I am suggesting that all these matters relating to publishing and others things of a like nature should be dealt with by a Select Committee responsible to this House.
In moving my Amendment, I am exploring territory which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has never been explored since 1911, when it was declared to come into existence, but which has never actually been defined. That is one of the difficulties into which we have been placed. It is a delicate matter to raise, as I am touching on something which is at present in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but I am doing so in order to do everything I can to safeguard the impartiality of his office. There is only one constitutional way in which Mr. Speaker himself could give the House his opinion on this 1287 subject. The only way would be that if the House divided on this Motion and the vote was a tie, he could cast the deciding vote. Otherwise, by constitutional practice it would be impossible for Mr. Speaker to let the House know what he thinks about the proposal. Although it is tempting to assume that silence means consent that may be going too far in this particular case. I have touched on the position of Mr. Speaker under the present terms of reference of the Committee, but there is another aspect of this matter which should interest the House in that it is not the desire or wish of the House that Mr. Speaker should have to struggle with the Service Departments when they lay their impious hands on our reporters, and take them away for service in the Armed Forces of the Crown. If my information is correct we have got two back, but we can still do with the other two reporters. I do not believe that the House would wish that Mr. Speaker should be left in a position in which he has to struggle with the Service Departments if he considers that officers of the House are required for the proper reporting of our Debates.
In conclusion, I ask the House to believe me when I say that by this Amendment I really believe I am raising a matter of constitutional and public importance. I very much regret that for various reasons so few Members are able to be here to listen to what is being said, but at any rate I hope they will read all about it in HANSARD. The Publications and Debates Committee, as I think Members will agree, has not been considered of any great importance up to the present time. Indeed, I have met Members who have said that they have not known that it existed. Events are going to make that Committee a very important Committee indeed, and it should be ahead of events and not be trailing behind, as it is bound to be while the present terms of reference continue in being. It is the public relations committee of the House of Commons, and it ought to be given proper powers to do its job. The public relations aspect of this House is a subject of immense importance to the whole future of Parliamentary democracy. There are not many places in the world to-day where Parliamentary democracy is in a flourishing condition; this is one of its last strongholds, and I urge that the 1288 House should do everything proper to keep public interest aroused in the proceedings of Parliament, and to satisfy what I am delighted to say is a genuine and enormous interest in the proceedings of Parliament, although that interest is accompanied by a colossal amount of ignorance of how this place works and what goes on here. I hope the Government will accept my Amendment so that the Publications and Debates Committee will be in a position to carry out its job properly.

§ Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)
I beg to second the Amendment.
I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), to whom I am sure every other Member in this House is grateful for his efforts in trying to put HANSARD on the map. My hon. and gallant Friend has worked untiringly in this matter, and is doing a very good job indeed. We had a Debate about two months ago when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to indicate that it might be prepared to agree to certain requests which were then made. We had a division, which perhaps was bad tactics at the time, but I hope that will not make any difference to the decision which I hope my right hon. Friend will announce to-day. I beg my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment. Having regard to the Debate which took place last night on the work of the Kitchen Committee it seems clear that there is a tendency on the part of certain Committees to take refuge in, or seek as an alibi, the refusal of certain Government Departments to provide them with facilities. I think it is quite wrong that the Ministry of Labour should, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, reduce the staff which is necessary for the proper reporting of Parliament. I have also a great complaint about the Ministry of Supply keeping us short of the amount of paper for what is required.
My first experience in this matter was when I raised the question of reprints of hon. Members' own speeches, and other Members' speeches, when I appealed to Mr. Speaker on the grounds that the matter was one of Privilege. Mr. Speaker did not regard the matter as one of Privilege, but said it was one for the 1289 Treasury. At that time there was a limit of 1,000 to the number of reprints any hon. Member could have. I see no reason why the Government should interfere with Members having rights of this kind. What is important is the proper reporting of Parliamentary activity and so long as the Executive, the Government, goes on unhindered and unopposed by hon. Members we can easily slip into a position in which the Government might say that there is no reason why Members should have copies of their speeches, which would mean that they were adopting the methods of a totalitarian State. I think it is invidious that Mr. Speaker should be put into the position which he occupies at present in this matter. He dropped a hint the other day from the Chair which I am sure gratified many hon. Members, and which was most encouraging. I hope my right hon. Friend will consent, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Amendment because, after all, it is an Amendment to a Government Motion.

§ Sir Reginald Clarry (Newport)
On looking at the words of the Amendment in cold print I had a great deal of sympathy at first with the proposal which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) was making, but after listening to what he and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) had to say I am dead against making any alteration. We all know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk has, if I may so put it, "a bee in his bonnet" about the distribution of HANSARD——

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
Is it not a very good bee to have in his bonnet?

§ Sir R. Clarry
Good or bad he has it, and his way of fostering that is to give authority and power to this Committee to distribute HANSARD more or less according to the decision of the Committee, without any by-your-leave of the House or anybody else——

§ Commander King-Hall
I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent me, but there is nothing in my Amendment to support that view, nor was I conscious of saying anything which would suggest that the Select Committee should not be fully responsible to this House, should not report its decisions to 1290 this House and should not be an instrument of this House.

§ Sir R. Clarry
The seconder rather gave that impression when he said that, if Members required copies of HANSARD, there was no reason why they should not have them if the House so decided. But the Committee are going to have the right to allocate them as they think fit. They are to have regard only to the decision of the House, without reference to Mr. Speaker at all. The mover said he would like to see a public relations body, committee or individual, to represent to the public generally the situation in the House, and he thought this new committee, with its new authority, would have that effect—in other words, that it could be made a public relations committee as well as a Publications and Debates Committee. I think some alteration is necessary but not quite on the lines the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated. For instance, we want to elucidate exactly what is the meaning of "publishing" and how far it goes. We considered that at one of our meetings and came to the decision that it ended with printing and did not include distribution. It can be argued that it should go beyond printing, but that should be definitely in the terms of reference. I see no reason for making the alteration at this stage without full consideration of all the facts arguing the matter in a very small House, which cannot give the view of the House as a whole.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken talking in what seemed a rather derogatory way of the very persistent efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) to popularise HANSARD. It is perhaps not surprising that it has been such a difficult and uphill job to get people in the country interested in the affairs of the House, and in the Report of its proceedings, if the Chairman of the Committee most concerned does not think it very important indeed that HANSARD should be circulated as widely as possible. There are some matters which, from their controversial nature or for other reasons, might be handled better if the Amendment were accepted. There are, for instance, two matters, which the mover and seconder touched on, on which I should 1291 like to comment. The first—which we hope will shortly be happily settled—is the question of the free issue of bound volumes to Members. In the course of a written answer recently I was able to elicit from the Treasury that the amount of paper saved——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
The hon. Member can cite the fact that he wants an increase of paper, but he cannot go into details as to how much paper is saved, or anything of that kind.

§ Mr. Driberg
I have so far cited it, with considerably more brevity than the hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed by your predecessor, Sir, in the Chair. I will, however, merely complete my sentence and pass from the point at once. The amount of paper saved was less than one-thousandth of——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not mind the hon. Member citing these questions, but he must not go into an argument whether it was right or wrong and, obviously, if the point has already been cited the position is even stronger against arguing details.

§ Mr. Driberg
I bow to your Ruling, Sir, and I am only sorry that I was not fortunate enough to be called by your predecessor. The other point on which I was going to comment, by way of citation only, was that mentioned by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) about reprints of speeches. Without going into the rights or wrongs of it, it seems an absurd ruling that a reply made by a Minister to a speech on the Adjournment is not allowed to be included in the reprint; this seems to deprive it of a large part of its value.
I should like to support what the hon. Member said about the attitude of committees, such as this Publications Committee and the Kitchen Committee, vis-à-vis the Executive. It seems to me that, if we pass this Amendment, their hands will be considerably strengthened and they will be able to get away from that rather timid and obsequious and even docile attitude which committees appear to adopt too easily towards Government Departments. They should not start by assuming that things cannot be done or that money cannot be got. They should start by assuming that things can be done if 1292 the House wants them done. I hope the Amendment can be passed, and this seems to me to be essentially a matter on which, if it is pressed to a Division, the Government might feel disposed to allow a free vote.

§ Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)
I rise with some hesitation in view of the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I always have the feeling, when he replies, that one ought not to have spoken at all. I think the reference of the Chairman of the Committee to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) was, to say the least, in bad taste. His remark about the hon. and gallant Gentleman having a bee in his bonnet was contemptible. As I said last night, some hon. Members, when they cannot argue with others, substitute some ill-mannered phrase. I dismiss it because that is all it is worth. The real kernel of this controversy is whether Mr. Speaker should be involved in this matter or not. I take a view similar to that of the mover. I can foresee a situation in which Mr. Speaker might find himself in direct conflict with this Committee, and it would be a bad thing if the House divided not really on the merits of the case, because that is not how it would be, but on whether we should give a vote of confidence to the Speaker on a decision that he had made. That would be bad and wrong because we should not be discussing the issue whether bound copies should be supplied, or whether HANSARD should be this or that, but the question of confidence in Mr. Speaker himself. We should take a more enlightened view in these days. I had a feeling in the old days that HANSARD was only of interest to active politicians, but since the war forces have been at work which have rather altered my view.
I had a letter the other week from a soldier in hospital asking me to search for a number of HANSARDS and send them on to him and friends of his in the hospital. I made an attempt to get them, which involved searching back for some time, and I was very grateful for the kindness of the Librarian. The Librarians are very kind to us. I was astounded that I had to pay for every copy that I asked for. There were eight or 10 in all and I had to pay 5s. because they were back numbers. I thought that, as a Member of 1293 Parliament, I was entitled to back numbers. I am sure that in any business firm, in which I held a similar position to that which I hold in relation to this House, I should have been supplied free. It was amazing to me that men ill in the Forces are paying attention to HANSARD. I have made some inquiries and I find that to-day attention is being paid to these matters, which was not formerly the case.
I do not know that the Government can accept the Amendment but I should like to make this suggestion. We have not examined this matter since 1911, and things have altered since then. There have been two world wars, and the outlook on politics has extended considerably. The Government cannot accept a vote of such a small House at the end of a day and we should be defeated and be called malcontents, because these phrases are now the substitutes for argument. Is it not time that the Government should set up a small committee to examine the whole relationship of Parliament to these publications, and to public access to them? One of the things that ought to be re-examined is the question of supplying HANSARD free to public libraries throughout the country, as an educational facility. No other body would handle its work as the House of Commons does. It does a creditable job every day. Look at the answers to Questions and listen to the Debates. I sent a copy to the son of a neighbour of mine and I was amazed and gratified to find the interest that the troops show.
I do not ask for a decision to-day. I ask the Government to consider this matter in the light of 1944, in the light of the new democracy which is arising, a democracy which will vote, and we must bear in mind that it is not so much the vote that matters as the education towards the vote, so that when people vote, whether they vote one way or the other, they will do so in a consciousness of what they are doing. A good knowledge of Parliament and of its work would be of great value in that education. Most Members, when they are promoted to be Ministers, take good care to see that everything they do is known in the fullest way. Watch the Minister of Information, watch them all, and we find that they display their goods in every way. Why, therefore, should not Parliament do the same and display its work and its influence? We 1294 do not ask the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment to-day, but we think the time has arrived when the whole question of the publications of Parliament and their relation to the House of Commons ought to be examined. With regard to the Government Motion itself, I would appeal to those who manage the parties and to my two Front Bench colleagues in my own party, to have regard to some of us who do not move according to good machine methods, and, when they are nominating Members to sit on committees, to have regard to the unorthodox people as well as to the orthodox.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
I am inclined to support the Amendment after hearing this Debate. At the present time, following long usage, Mr. Speaker is in charge of this Committee and his word is law in regard to HANSARD. That puts the Speaker in a rather invidious position, because if the Committee's Report is challenged it is a challenge to the Speaker. The House does not like being involved in disputes with the Speaker, because he occupies an honoured position and we look upon him with respect as the authority who is controlling the destinies of Parliament. Therefore, anything that might lead to a challenge from the House of Commons would put him in a bad position. As I follow the argument, it is that this Committee should have more power than they have now to propagate HANSARD and should be able, if they wish, to decide that HANSARD should be cheaper or issued to other sources. If they made such decisions they would report them to the House of Commons, and it would not be left entirely to the Speaker to have to decide one way or the other.
It may be argued by the Financial Secretary that the present system has existed for a long time and that, therefore, what has been done in the past ought to be done in the future. We have to recognise, however, that a greater interest is being taken in HANSARD than ever before. I have had a number of appeals for it to be sent to Italy, and occasionally I send copies to Italy and other places to people I know. It is very easy to do that. If you go to the Sale Office, and give the name and address, and pay the price of HANSARD, the Sale Office will send it. The Committee may wish to recommend 1295 that a number of copies be sent to the troops free of charge or sent to other quarters free of charge, and it would be a matter for the House to decide, and not for the Speaker. In present circumstances, if the Committee desire to do that and the Speaker took another view, the House would be faced with a dilemma.

§ Commander King-Hall
That particular point would not come under the Committee because the Treasury have already allocated 500 copies free to the Forces.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake)
The Service Departments are getting all the free copies they are asking for at the present time for use in the Forces.

§ Mr. Tinker
If the commander-in-chief or somebody in authority asks for free copies, can they get them?

§ Mr. Peake
Yes, they are getting them now.

§ Commander King-Hall
Does my right hon. Friend suggest that the Treasury will give to the Service Departments all the free copies they want?

§ Mr. Peake
We are, in fact, doing that now.

§ Mr. Tinker
I did not know that before, and it is very good. On the whole, I think that there is a case to answer, and I await with interest what the Financial Secretary will have to say in reply.

§ Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)
I intervene to support the idea which was ventilated for the first time in this discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), namely, that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should not advise the House to reject the Amendment without adopting the idea that there should be some inquiry into the set-up and the relationship of this Committee to the House and to Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment, but if it be true, as my hon. Friend has said, that there has been no consideration of this Committee's work and its relationship to the House since 1911, it is high time that there was such an inquiry. It is clear from what has been said that the whole relationship of HANSARD to Parliament and to national life will be a different 1296 business in future from what it has been in the past. It was always an amazing thing to me that the only interest which people take in this Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, with offspring all over the world, was apparently represented by only a matter of 2,500 copies of HANSARD before the war. As other speakers have said, that is going to be entirely changed and HANSARD is going to be an important thing in the national life, which is as it should be in a democratic community. My hon. Friends have spoken of the appeals they have had for HANSARD. The other day, when I was on a No. 88 bus proceeding in the direction of the House of Commons, I Observed a lady in front of me reading a periodical, which at first sight I thought was a magazine. On closer inspection, it turned out to be a copy of HANSARD. It is a thing I have never seen before. I find in my constituency that there are groups of people who circulate HANSARD among themselves. The fact that this will be a considerable business in the future and not merely a matter of a few thousand copies, makes it desirable that the whole relationship of this Committee to the House should be reconsidered.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake)
Several hon. Members have referred to the reply about to be given on behalf of the Government, but my contribution to this Debate is not given on behalf of the Government. This is a Sessional Committee appointed by the House of Commons. Its terms of reference are settled by the House and it is purely a House of Commons matter. The Motion to re-appoint the Committee is put on the Order Paper for convenience by a Government Whip, but that is merely done for the convenience of the House. I am speaking and contributing to this Debate as one of the Ministers who are answerable in the House for the Stationery Office and whose views the House would perhaps like to hear, but so far as the adoption of the Amendment is concerned, I shall have to rely upon my persuasive powers rather than upon the battalions which the Government Whip can muster on occasion in the Division Lobby. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member who has proposed this Amendment for the work which he has done in popularising HANSARD. You have only to look at the figures of circulation 1297 and the great increase that has taken place to see that his efforts have borne fruit. In my view, his efforts in this matter are highly praiseworthy, and he is entitled to the thanks of the House. He is rendering a service to, democracy in that way.
The seconder of the Amendment did, however, get a little off the line. He suggested that at the end of the Debate I might be able to announce that certain requests made to the Treasury may now be granted. He was referring to the restoration of the privilege of receiving the bound volumes of HANSARD free. I would reply that the decision to abandon the issue of free bound volumes was taken in May, 1940, not on the initiative of the Treasury, but on the initiative of the Select Committee whose re-appointment is now under discussion, and that at all times the Treasury have been only too anxious to fall in with the wishes of the House in this matter. We would at any time he ready to restore that privilege to hon. Members were it not that the Select Committee only a few weeks ago took a decision in the opposite sense. There is no question of my getting up and announcing that certain requests of hon. Members shall be granted, because the Treasury in this matter is only too anxious to serve the desires and wishes of the House.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)
In that case, is this the appropriate occasion for the House to express its opinion whether the decision of the Select Committee was right or wrong?

§ Mr. Peake
The House has already expressed its view on that matter, for we had a Debate on it only a few weeks ago. I would draw the attention of the seconder of the Amendment to the fact that it is to this very Select Committee, whose recommendations in regard to the bound volume he so strongly disapproves of, that he now wishes to hand over complete control of the arrangements for reporting and publishing HANSARD. I am, therefore, bound to point out that I think his position in the matter is a little illogical.

§ Mr. Bowles
My position in supporting my hon. and gallant Friend is that I think Mr. Speaker should be relieved of the possible embarrassment of having to be advised in this matter. I do not think very much of this Committee after seeing the names. May I ask my right hon. 1298 Friend whether, supposing my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) and his colleagues come to a certain decision, that is binding on this House? Surely, the right thing to do is to let them make their recommendations to the House and let the House have a free vote on them.

§ Mr. Peake
I shall deal with that point in the course of my remarks. Let us just try to get the background of these terms of reference. Of course, there was a time in the 18th century when the concern of the House of Commons was to prevent its proceedings being made public but, in the last century, the advantage of obtaining an accurate report of Parliamentary proceedings came to be generally recognised. Previous to 1909, when the terms of reference of this Select Committee were settled, there is a long history of complaints by hon. Members, of private printing firms which had been entrusted with the duty of reporting the Debates going bankrupt or being subsidised by the Treasury, and of Select Committees trying to devise a satisfactory scheme for the accurate reporting and publication of our Debates.

§ Commander King-Hall
Since the Minister is on a point of history, I think it is important to get it right. He has said that in the last century there were many committees to try to devise a satisfactory scheme of reporting, but objection to an official report was taken by one Committee on the extraordinary ground that one of the results would be that Ministers' speeches would be reported verbatim— which would be highly inconvenient afterwards.

§ Mr. Peake
That was in the findings of one of the Committees to which I referred, which tried to devise a sound scheme of reporting and publishing our Debates. Up to 1909 contracts were let out to private contractors to do the work, but from 1909 until to-day a scheme has been in operation which has, I think, on the whole worked well and has given considerable satisfaction. There are three parties to this arrangement. First of all comes Mr. Speaker, who is in complete control of the reporting and of the reporting staff. Then there is the Stationery Office, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself are answerable in 1299 the House, who are concerned with the printing and, in the ordinary sense of the word, with the publication of the REPORT. In the third place, there is the Select Committee, now being re-appointed, whose duties include that of assisting Mr. Speaker in these arrangements.
If I might for a moment take up the time of the House, I should like at this point to pay a tribute to the reporting staff of this House. I think that work is done in an absolutely first-class manner. Many times have I listened to halting speeches, sometimes without verbs or conjunctions, and have read next morning in HANSARD a regular, steady flow of eloquent language. On other occasions I have listened to interjections by my hon. Friends which have been inaudible owing to the flow of conversation, and when I have consulted HANSARD next morning I have discovered precisely what was said. I think that work is admirably done, and I think that the House may well be proud of it. As regards the printing and publication, there, again, I think we have a pretty good document. It is got up decently, and the print is legible——

§ Mr. Driberg
It is full of misprints.

§ Mr. Peake
I should have said there were very few misprints, considering the very short time which is available in the early morning for the production of the REPORT.

§ Mr. Driberg
Far more than creep into the average daily newspaper, which has to be produced in the same time.

§ Mr. Peake
There is no doubt, I think, that, on the whole, hon. Members are satisfied that we have a very good OFFICIAL REPORT, in good print and good form, which is delivered to us with great regularity. I think the work, especially in these war-time years, and throughout the blitz, has deserved commendation from all quarters. Let us now look at the terms of reference of this Committee as they were originally settled in 1910 and as they so remained for 33 years. They were: To assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the official report of debates; and to enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally. 1300 Originally, the latter part of the terms of reference took precedence; but a change was made in the year 1910, when the duty of assisting Mr. Speaker was given priority of order. I would draw the attention of the House to the very great importance of the second part of the terms of reference: To enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally. That means that, in relation to the Stationery Office, this Committee do the work, rolled into one, of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

§ Commander King-Hall
Could do the work.

§ Mr. Peake
Yes, they could do the work. They are empowered to do it and to report thereon to the House; so that they have a very extensive power of going into all questions regarding the cost of printing HANSARD and the price at which HANSARD is sold. They can report thereon to the House, and very many of the questions which hon. Members have raised to-day in regard to HANSARD could be dealt with by this Committee under the second part of their terms of reference, and reports could be made by that Committee to the House on those matters. I think that really answers a good many of the points which have been made in regard to the powers which this Committee have in reference to HANSARD.
Last year, at the request of the Select Committee themselves, an alteration was made in their terms of reference, which now read, as on the Order Paper, that a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates. The words "and publishing" were introduced last year for the first time. Then some new words were added: and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House. The important change made last year was that the Committee extended their powers of assisting Mr. Speaker, in addition to the arrangements for reporting, to the arrangements for publishing the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not quite sure, in point of fact, that this added very much to their 1301 powers, because I think that under the second part of their terms of reference they already had full powers in this matter.
I come to the terms of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall). Perhaps I might read the terms of reference of this Select Committee as they would be if his Amendment were adopted. They would be as follow: That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and to advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report; to assist Mr. Speaker in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally. I will deal straightaway with the terms of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to give to the Select Committee the sole executive power in the whole field of reporting and of publishing HANSARD. They would, as the Amendment says, control the arrangements. They would, in fact, become the technical and executive board of directors of a reporting and a publishing agency. Moreover, they would not be obliged to report to the House, and the House could only control the Committee subsequently by means of passing instructions. Mr. Speaker would, of course, be deprived of the authority which he has up to now exercised over the reporting staff. The appointment, for example, of a new editor, new sub-editor or new reporter would become a question not for Mr. Speaker but for the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Bowles
Would the Minister be good enough to explain why, if the Amendment were passed, the Select Committee would be relieved of the obligation of reporting to the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Peake
I did not say that they would be relieved of the obligation. There is no obligation placed upon them by their terms of reference to report to the House. If the hon. Member will look at his Order Paper, however, he will see that the Committee have power to report from time to time. I daresay that they would report, but they might not report. For example, on the very question which the hon. Member raised in regard to the restoration of the privilege of the free bound volume, they did not report to the 1302 House. They reported to Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Member knows that in that matter they failed properly to interpret the general wishes of hon. Members. That is the first objection to the proposed Amendment, that it would be setting up a Select Committee with full executive powers.
The only function left to Mr. Speaker under the terms of the Amendment would be to receive advice from the Committee on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report. What Mr. Speaker would do on receiving that advice from the Committee as to the accuracy of the Report I do not know. Clearly, the great advantage of Mr. Speaker himself being concerned with the accuracy of the Report is that he, or his Deputy, is constantly in the Chair, but if the Select Committee are to be the body primarily concerned with the accuracy of the Report I think we should find ourselves in a very peculiar position.

§ Commander King-Hall
Pardon me. My right hon. Friend is surely getting that point wrong. My Amendment does not say that the Select Committee has to give advice but it is available to give Mr. Speaker advice. Mr. Speaker, being in the Chair and not being satisfied himself on a particular matter, can ask for advice, if he wants it. The Amendment leaves in Mr. Speaker's hands full responsibility.

§ Mr. Peake
The Amendment takes Mr. Speaker clean out of the picture, so far as the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of our OFFICIAL REPORT are concerned. All responsibility for the reporting passes to the Select Committee. Then the Amendment proceeds to say that the Select Committee shall advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that Mr. Speaker would be placed in an impossible position. He would not be responsible for the accuracy of the Report and would have no power to give any direction to the reporters or the staff: he is to receive advice from the Select Committee on the question whether the Report is accurate or not. I really do not think that that is a proposition which will appeal very much to the House. I think the House should be very chary of giving executive powers to a Select Committee. The ordinary functions of a Select Com- 1303 mittee are to make inquiries, to probe into matters, to sift matters and thereon to report to the House. The only Select Committee we have with executive functions, as I think the hon. and gallant Member himself said, is the Kitchen Committee, and there was yesterday and has been in the past, to my knowledge, a great deal of criticism of that Committee, which is the only Committee exercising executive powers.
Moreover, in this matter I think one has to consider the position of the Stationery Office, which is an independent Government Department not working under the Treasury but represented in this House by Treasury Ministers. They carry on a very large printing and publishing business, with an annual turnover running into millions of pounds per annum. The Controller works under the directions of Treasury Ministers. It is now suggested that, in regard to a considerable portion of his work, he should be answerable to a Select Committee of this House. It is true that, at the present time, the Committee can and undoubtedly do call the Controller before them, examine him, question him, suggest things to him and so forth. That is one thing; but it would be quite a different thing that he should be a servant of a Select Committee of this House, who will be in a position to issue him with orders and instructions. "No man can serve two masters," and I suggest that if the Amendment were adopted, and this Select Committee were armed with executive powers which they could exercise as they pleased, the position of the Controller of the Stationery Office would obviously be quite impossible. The Select Committee, it has been suggested by one or two hon. Members, has not a sufficiently important field of work to perform. I dissent from that view. I think the advice of this Committee to Mr. Speaker on many issues in the past has been extremely valuable. I also think that the second part of their terms of reference is perhaps more important than the first. I am told that in the years after the last war, when it was necessary to try to enforce some economy in the use of paper in Government Departments, this Committee did extraordinarily good work in going into the expenditure of paper, stationery, printing and so forth, of very many large Govern- 1304 ment Departments, and making many recommendations which greatly strengthened the hands of the Treasury in enforcing economy. I hope that this Committee will not take an unimportant view of their tasks, and I hope also that the House will ponder long before it places this Committee in a position of arbitrary power with executive duties, quite independent of any controlling authority.

§ Commander King-Hall
After hearing my right hon. Friend's reply, and as I think this subject has received a preliminary ventilation, which it required, and particularly after what my right hon. Friend said about the second part of the terms of reference, which I quite agree have never been fully used, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
The Question is, That Sir Reginald Clarry"——

§ Mr. Buchanan
On a point of Order. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are about to read out the names of the Members nominated for the Committee. Can you guide me as to how I could make an observation? I do not want to start objecting to each name, but I would like to make an observation on the general composition of the Committee. I may have to do it by objecting to one name, which I would prefer to avoid if I can make some remark on the general composition of the Committee.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think it would be best if the hon. Member dealt with his point on one name only. So that it would seem less invidious, I would suggest that I read out the first name on the list, and that the hon. Member should then make his observation. That Sir Reginald Clarry"——

§ Mr. Buchanan
I do not intend to divide the Committee or expect a reply. Looking at the matter, I hope, not with any desire to be offensive, or in any personal way at all, I think we should have, on this Committee, somebody more representative of House of Commons activity. Let me be frank to my own people. Three of them are here members of the Committee, all connected with the printing trades. This matter goes much deeper than the printing trades. I know that printing is a business, but there is the ordinary activity of the House of Commons involved. I would ask them to look at their duties in that light. If it is said that I have not taken an interest in this before, I accept that impeachment. The three Members from this side are all associated with printing, and all come from the London district. Some provincial Members have something to do with the House of Commons occasionally, and if London would tolerate us we might have something to contribute. I would ask whether somebody whose standpoint was a little wider than that of what I call the syndicalist mind, might be allowed to be helpful in this matter.

§ Mr. Driberg
I would like to support what the hon. Member has said. I am sure that this Committee, like others, does a great deal of very useful work, and I do not think any of us wishes to make a personal attack on the hon. Member whose name happens to be first in alphabetical order; but it seems to me that, on the occasions on which the work of this Committee has been brought to the attention of the House, it has been found that the decisions taken by the Committee have not always been those which the House would have wished it to take. The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a decision about the free issue of bound volumes of HANSARD which, as he said, clearly did not reflect the mind of the House. One other decision the Committee recently took to which I drew attention a few weeks ago, which seems to me, although a minor one, an equally bad one, concerned the stamping of the crest of the House of Commons on the notepaper of the House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is clearly out of Order. I have allowed a very wide, indeed, an over-wide discussion. We are 1306 now discussing only one name. I allowed the hon. Member to put a point on that, but we must not go into these very technical questions.

§ Mr. Driberg
Is one in Order in formally, not emotionally, opposing the reappointment of this individual Member to the Select Committee, in view of the decisions taken by him, among other Members of the Committee, which one is citing as objectionable decisions?

§ Sir R. Clarry
The decision was not taken by me but by the Committee.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That would seem to be more a point of view on the discussion we have had, but it is a rather difficult point, and if it were put shortly I should not rule it out of Order. But I cannot allow all these points on the work already done to be put.

§ Mr. Driberg
I would conclude by putting, if I may, in a single sentence, what I was not able to put before in the previous discussion which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled out of Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is definitely out of Order, even more than before.

§ Mr. Driberg
With great respect, I am objecting to the appointment of this Committee, including this particular hon. Member, on the ground that one of its decisions was a bad one for a reason that I wish to give.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is what I am afraid the hon. Member cannot do.
Question, "That Sir Reginald Clarry be a member of the Committee," put and agreed to.
Mr. Cluse, Mr. Emery, Mr. Iaacs, Mr. Jewson, Commander King-Hall, Mr. Naylor, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Storey, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter and Mr. Graham White also nominated members of the Committee.
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Power to report from time to time:
Three to be the Quorum.—Mr. Mathers.]