HC Deb 15 November 1945 vol 415 cc2420-43

Motion made, and Question proposed, That— (1) An Allocation of Time Order relating, or so much thereof as relates, to the Committee stage, made in respect of a Bill committed or to be committed to a Standing Committee shall, as soon as the Bill has been allocated to a Standing Committee, stand referred without any Question being put to a Sub-Committee of that Standing Committee appointed under paragraph 2 of this Order. (2) (a) There shall be a Sub-Committee of every Standing Committee, to be designated the Business Sub-Committee, for the consideration of any Allocation of Time Order or part thereof made in respect of any Bill allocated to that Standing Committee, and to report to that Committee upon—

  1. (i) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill;
  2. (ii) the hours of sittings, if any, additional to those set out in paragraph (3) of the Order of the House of relating to Standing Committees;
  3. (iii) the allocation of the proceedings to be taken at each sitting; and
  4. (iv) the time at which proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be concluded.
(b) As soon as maybe after an Allocation of Time Order relating to a Bill committed to a Standing Committee has been made, Mr. Speaker shall nominate the Chairman of the Standing Committee in respect of that Bill and seven members of the Standing Committee as constituted in respect of that Bill to be members of the Business Sub-Committee to consider that order, and those members shall be discharged from the sub-committee when that Bill has been reported to the House by the Standing Committee. The Chairman of the Committee shall be the Chairman of the Sub-Committee; the Quorum of the Sub-Committee shall be Four; and the Sub-Committee shall have power to report from time to time. (c) All Resolutions of a Business Sub-Committee shall be printed and circulated with the Votes. If, when any such Resolutions have been reported to the Standing Committee, a Motion "That this Committee doth agree with the Resolution (or Resolutions) of the Business Sub-Committee," is moved by the Member in charge of the Bill, such a Motion shall not require notice, and shall be moved at the commencement of proceedings at any sitting of a Standing Committee; and the Question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate, and, if resolved in the Affirmative, the said Resolution (or Resolutions) shall operate as though included in the Allocation of Time Order made by the House.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

8.7 p.m.

Sir C. MacAndrew

I beg to move, in line 6, at end, insert: Provided no Allocation of Time Order shall apply to the Committee stage of any Bill now under consideration in a Standing Committee. This Amendment, again, is a machinery one. It deals with the question of an Allocation of Time Order, affecting any Bill at present under consideration in Standing Committee. There would be many serious difficulties and part of the nucleus of the Committee would require to be discharged, and it would be impossible to carry it out.

Mr. H. Morrison

This is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a machinery matter. There is no intention on the part of the Government to apply it in relation to a Bill now under consideration. I am not sure that we could have done so without coming to the House to reconstitute the Committee. In any case, if I give my assurance that the Government have no intention of doing this, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, because, hereafter, the words would have no meaning.

Sir C. MacAndrew

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out, "sittings," and insert "hours."

We regard this as an important matter and one on which we hope the Lord President will be able to meet us. It is one which is really designed to facilitate the proceedings of a Standing Committee. As I read the Order now, the number of Sittings will be decided by the Sub-Committee, which may be only four people. If you had the number of hours fixed, instead of Sittings, then the difficulty with regard to the lack of a quorum would, it seems to me, be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman, in his remarks earlier this afternoon, indicated that he was not prepared to agree to make some alteration so that the number of Sittings could be extended by one in the event of there not being a quorum at a particular sitting, for the reason, as he indicated, that there had been, in the past, on certain occasions, people in the corridor outside the Committee room with a view to there not being a quorum on that occasion. That may have happened in the past but I submit that if no provision is made for dealing with cases when, non-intentionally, but because of a wave of influenza or for some other reason, there is not a quorum, then, if the number of sittings are limited, it seems to me that the Standing Committee will be deprived of having a proper opportunity for considering that part of the Bill which is allotted to it.

If you have, instead of sittings, a number of hours allotted then, if you have no quorum at one particular sitting, the hours will go on to another occasion. I suggest there should be some provision in this Order for dealing with the case where there is no quorum, not because of deliberate abstension, but for some other cause entirely. Indeed, with the Government's vast majority, I should have thought that the steps suggested by the Lord President of deliberate abstension to prevent there being a quorum would have been avoided if the hon. Members who support the Government attended the meetings of the Standing Committee. Seriously, I suggest we should not be leaving this Order in as good a form as it could be, if we did not make some provision for extending the number of hours during which a Bill could be considered in Committee in the event of one Sitting, or a certain number of hours, being unavoidably wasted through one cause or another.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

I beg to second the Amendment.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

This is an arguable matter, but the Government gave very careful consideration to it and, on the whole, we thought that the proposal before: the House was the right one. There is involved in this, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, the question of a quorum and I think on that matter and on the point of getting a time by which the Committee should conclude the Committee stage, the more we go upon the basis that it is the duty of the Committee to do its work and the duty of hon. Members to see that there is a a quorum, the better and the safer it is. In any case I would prefer it as we have it on the Paper for the time being but, of course, we can see how this works in the light of experience. It is a new and a fairly novel matter, this business committee proposal within the allocated time of Standing Committees, and we shall have a lot to learn as we go along. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not be pressed and, in any case, I would prefer that the House should adopt the proposal that the Government have made on the understanding that we can watch and learn as we go, and if other and better proposals would be wise later on, we shall certainly be willing to examine them.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I wonder whether the Lord President will agree to the following suggestion. I see the difficulty of making these codes too complex to begin with, but a very difficult situation might quite easily arise under which all quarters of the Committee agreed that some mishap had really deprived the Committee of an opportunity of quite legitimate and necessary discussion if they were to do their work properly. If something of that kind arose, it is not within the competency of the Committee, or of the business sub-committee of the Committee, to put it right. If the Lord President will say that, in the event of something like that arising, he will come back to this House for the necessary Order to give extra time to the Committee to make up for lost time, then I think that might enable us to get over the difficulty, but we have great diffidence in leaving it where it stands.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I will say this, that I do not anticipate that such a real and substantial difficulty will arise, but certainly, if something that cannot be foreseen arises, whereby the Committee have really unavoidably lost time that could not have been foreseen and it is as obvious and patent as all that, I would be willing to consider on the merits ad hoc and specific action at that time. I hope that will meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams

I think there is a great deal in what the Lord President said, that we cannot possibly tell exactly where we are going. He also said that we must watch and learn as we go on. I have done a certain amount of watching and learning about Standing Committees upstairs—not very much possibly, but something—and, quite frankly, I want to see this procedure made good and I say, with equal frankness, if you are going to lay down blocks of days as sittings, you are always liableto have something happen that upsets a sitting. If you give three or four sittings to a Bill, there is that liability, and it is a thing which those of us who have experience of this work know can happen. If on the other hand you say, "This Bill has to be through by a certain date, and a certain number of hours have to be given to it," then I believe you have secured a watertight method. Of course, we know that the Lord President is an astute political man, but I warn him that the way offered by this Amendment would be really more in the interests of the House. I do not want to see the Lord President having to come down here to change this and that thing and the sittings of the House in the next year or two; I want to see it done now, because I believe it is the only really satisfactory way. As far as I am concerned I should really hate it if I had to tell the Lord President in a year or two that I warned him about this, that and the other thing and that he was wrong all the time. I suggest this is one of the cases in which if he took the reasonable line and went a little further it would pay him in the end and it would be in the best interests of the House as well.

8.18 p.m.

Sir R. Young

The only objection I can see to this is that when we were considering the matter in Committee we did not encourage the Committee to partition a Bill. What we thought was that, if a date was put for the termination of the discussion of the Bill upstairs, the Standing Committee would accommodate themselves to the time placed at their disposal. If you scrap the suggestion of sittings for that of hours, you may only increase the sittings from two-day to three-day sittings a week. I do not think that is to be encouraged. However, the real point was that there would be a Motion in the House saying that the Bill should be reported on a certain day, and we were not encouraging the Committee to divide the Bill up into parts. If the Committee took that method then, of course, they could very easily determine the number of sittings to each portion of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I propose to take the next two Amendments together.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in line 12, leave out from "sittings," to end of line 13.

This Amendment has been put down with a view to getting an explanation from the Lord President of the Council as to the precise purpose of the words which it is proposed to omit. In the preceding Order there is a proviso that: Nothing in this Order shall prevent a Standing Committee meeting at hours additional to those set out in sub-paragraph (a) of this Order. As I read it, this part of the Order under consideration, would provide that the Sub-Committee, it may be only four Members of the Sub-Committee, could prescribe the hours of sitting additional to the normal hours, and then, when the matter comes back to the Committee, that question must be put without Amendment or debate. It seems to me, that these four Members of the Sub-Committee should not be able to settle what the hours should be, without the other Members of the Committee being able to express some view upon it. Therefore, I suggest that the Sub-Committee should merely report on the hours of sitting, which would be required to get through the business by the fixed date, and it should then be left to the Committee it self, to decide how best to fit in these particular hours, and on what date.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would put one additional point, and perhaps the Lord President would explain what the intention is. I assume it is intended that the Business Sub-Committee may have two reports, an initial report, with the allocation which is intended at the beginning, and, if that does not work well, I presume the Business Sub-Committee would be entitled to make a second report, advising modification or extension of the first report. I would like to get from the Lord President, whether that is his understanding of this provision. If that is so, do the words which we are proposing to leave out really apply more to the second amending report, than to the first report? I see great difficulty about the first report bringing anything under this sub-heading at all. The first report would bring in the ordinary Tuesday and Thursday sitting, because we are told that the Wednesday sitting is only to be an expedient if you are in difficulties. I wonder whether this is the picture: That the first report of the Business Sub-Committee recommends so many sittings on Tuesday and Thursday, but if these should be subsequently continued, the Business Sub-Committee would come along with another report and say, "We think there ought to be an additional sitting," and that may be a sitting Wednesday morning, or some other time, and then it would be necessary to provide additional bours. If that is the intention, I can see the good sense of the Order. Perhaps the Lord President can tell us, first, whether it is possible for the Business Sub-Committee to come along with a second report modifying their first report, and, if that is possible, do the words which we move to leave out, fit that case of an extension on a subsequent occasion?

8.23 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I do not complain about hon. Members not being sure about this, because I admit that I had to make some inquiries myself. I understand that the intention is that the Business Committee, before the examination of the Bill is commenced, will produce suggestions as to how the Committee should handle it in relation to the Guillotine time limit. It may wish, in relation to these two lines which it is proposed to omit, to propose that the Committee shall sit upon additional occasions. Subsequently, as the Bill goes along the Committee, while intending to adhere to the over-all time by which it will report the Bill to the House, may find it would like a little more time, or it may wish even to adjust the sittings of the Committee and modify them to meet the general convenience. It is for that reason that these various alternative powers of the Business Committee are inserted in this proposed Standing Order, so as to give the necessary elasticity on the first occasion that they report, and, if convenient, on the second or other occasions, during which they may report revision of the proposals.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in line 15, after "which," insert: provided that the Committee shall have sat not less than the specified number of sittings of two and a half hours. Subsection 4 (2) says that the Sub-Committee may report to the Committee the time at which proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be concluded. The first question which I want to put to the Lord President of the Council is this: Does that mean that the entire proceedings, or the proceedings on any particular part, if the programme is a little bit behind, that they can report to the Committee that the proceedings shall be brought, at that moment, to a conclusion on that part? If it is a proposal that the Sub-Committee report the time at which the total proceedings of the Committee shall be concluded, then I hope that the Lord President will accept this Amendment, which merely provides a safeguard to ensure that the number of sittings of two and a half hours, originally contemplated for consideration of a Bill in Committee, have in fact been available, and used for consideration of the Bill. I am sure that the Lord President does not want the Committee stage of a Bill to be cut short by some fortuitous or accidental circumstance, and that he does desire that a Bill shall have proper consideration by the Standing Committee in the time allotted. That is why this proviso is put down to ensure there shall be the allotted number of two and a half hours before the Sub-Committee can exercise their power of reporting that this matter shall be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I beg to second the Amendment.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether this was in relation to the total finish of the Committee stage of the Bill, or whether it could be applied on particular days. The answer is that it can be applied on particular days, and need not necessarily relate to the final date. With regard to the Amendment, we have taken the line all along, and I understand the Select Committee accepted that, that what the House would do, would be to give the Committee directions that it must complete a Committee stage by a certain date. If so, it is for the Business Sub-Committee of the Committee to decide, and to report to the Committee, the time that should be allotted. If we once start making allowances, subject to something utterly unforseeable and really serious, the Committee might have bad luck one day, there would be no quorum, and therefore you must extend. I would sooner that in those circumstances the Business Sub-Committee should meet again, and say, "We have lost a certain amount of time, or we have not made such progress as we would have liked, and we would like the rest of the Bill to be properly examined; we there fore propose that the Committee should sit for additional days or hours," as the case may be. I think we must place the responsibility on this Business Sub-Committee to comply in the most convenient way with the directions of the House, and I would advise the House that the proposals of the Government in this respect should be adhered to.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I think that the next three Amendments can be taken together.

8.31 p.m.

Sir C. MacAndrew

I beg to move, in line 18, leave out from "nominate," to "members," in line 19, and insert "eight."

I am much obliged for your suggestion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I feel most strongly about this matter, and I will explain why. Under the present proposals the arrangement is that the Chairman of a Standing Committee, in a case where a Time Order has been set up, will be the Chairman of a Business Sub-committee, and that the other Members of that Sub-Committee will consist of seven Members of the Standing Committee nominated by Mr. Speaker. That will have the result that the Chairman and those seven Members will have to draw up the time-table and arrange the guillotine, and however well they do it there will be a section in the Committee who are dissatisfied. That will reflect on the Chairman, and anyone with experience of the chairmanship of Standing Committees in this House knows that the secret of getting a Committee to run smoothly is that everyone is without a grudge against the Chair. That is absolutely necessary. If the Chairman is trusted by the Members, the Committee can get along very well. In pitchforking the Chairman into this position of having to be responsible, I do not think it is a fair argument to say that he is there to hold the ring. We are working on party lines in this House and party lines remain, and though the Chairman, for two hours on two days a week, is put in a rather higher position, he very soon comes back to his normal position of being Lobby fodder.

My Amendments seek to achieve that, instead of nominating seven Members from the Standing Committee, Mr. Speaker will nominate eight, and he will nominate one of them to be Chairman of the Business Sub-Committee. When they come to their conclusions, and are agreed, the Chairman of the Standing Committee will be handed a fait accompli which he will carry out. He will not have been in any way responsible for drawing it up. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help Chairmen of Standing Committees by keeping them clear of controversy. The amount of trouble one has to take already in explaining why a particular Amendment has not been called and trying to keep the peace is already great, and it would not be fair to make our job any more difficult. It is not in the least a spectacular job, but a lot of tact is required, and I do not think it is fair to do anything that will cause the Chairman more difficulty. The third Amendment proposes that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, whom I wish to see appointed from the eight Members of the Standing Committee, should also be Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee.

I do not think the duties of the Chairman will be more difficult, but hon. Members should realise that we are increasing the length of the Sittings of Standing Committees by 25 per cent., and the Standing Committee Chairman is the only man in this House who has not a deputy. The Speaker has a deputy, the Serjeant-at-Arms has a deputy. They can go out for a minute or two if they wish. The Chairman of a Standing Committee cannot, and I do not think that is right. It should be altered, and this is the easiest way to do it. I have no wish, by having a Deputy Chairman, to try to put the work on his back, but I would like to have someone to whom I can say, "I am going out for a minute or two. Call such and such an Amendment next." I hope that these three Amendments will be accepted in the form they are in. I feel very strongly about the matter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try my scheme and, if it does not work, go back to the other one. Being the Chairman of a Standing Committee is a difficult job; one has to be everyone's friend. Do not let us start this scheme by making the work more difficult.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams

As one who has never taken the Chair in a Standing Committee, but only here in the House, I think it is impossible to contradict the claim that there should be some means of providing a deputy for the Chair on the occasion of long sittings, and also for any other emergency. That is so because we are trying to make the work of these Standing Committees more satisfactory all round. We desire to see that they do not break down, and it is essential that there should be some machinery in a Standing Committee of that size, dealing with matters of first-class importance, to have a Deputy Chairman available in some way or other. That is a point which should be dealt with, even if the other Amendments cannot be met. It has always seemed to me, in watching Committee work upstairs, that the Chairmen of these Standing Committees had a task of great difficulty. I have seen them sitting for very long periods and it was obvious that the whole thing would have been better conducted if there had been a Deputy-Chairman to take over for half an hour or even an hour.

In regard to the first Amendment, there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. The Chairman comes off the panel, he may be of this or the other party, and he has to conduct the affairs of the Committee. Under this scheme, before the Committee works there is this new organisation, this new Sub-Committee of the Committee which is to lay down a time-table procedure and how it will work we do not quite know. It is a new feature, and we do not know how it will work. Would it not be better to allow the Speaker to choose someone for that particular purpose? As far as these Chairmen are concerned, some are first-class, but they may not have had any connection with anything on the lines of time-tables previously. Mr. Speaker will know of Members who are capable of doing that work and will also be able to choose an hon. Member quite outside the ordinary run of a Committee who might be a specialist, and might have the gift of getting seven or eight Members together and coming to an arrangement. It would work quite well, and it is a strong argument for not allowing the Chairmanship of the Sub-Committee to fall to the same person as the Chairman of the Committee but to someone nominated from outside. I feel sure that the Leader of the House, in his wisdom—and he has great skill—would be meeting this Amendment by saying: "Oh, well, I am going right outside; I am going to make myself absolutely safe." He is a great believer in safety first. I would venture to suggest to him that he should accept these two of the three Amendments.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I much appreciate the kindly, and almost fatherly, manner in which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) advised me in the course of his observation, which, I know, he meant in the most friendly way. On this series of Amendments, I am able to reciprocate with a good deal of sympathy what has been said, particularly on the second point. I am not quite so sure of the point about the danger of running the Chairman into a controversial atmosphere, because I am anxious that this Business Committee shall not be a controversial business at all. I am anxious that its members should sit in a friendly way round the table, and do the best for everybody in the time available. It may well be that the Chairman will not take the responsibility, presumably, for initiating the Allocation of Time Order. That, presumably, would be the responsibility of the Government—or the Government, after consultation with the Opposition, may bring in an agreed thing—but it may well be that the Committee, in the course of the discussion, may get into a tangle, and that the Chairman may intervene and say: "Probably, if this were agreed to, it might meet all points of view of the Committee," and the Committee may say "Yes." If it said "No," it would not matter. I believe there was a conference when a voluntary guillotine was made on the India Bill, and the Chair was taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means. If that is so, it shows it can be done. I am not sure that the Chairman, who would, presumably, have studied the Bill, would not be the best person for that job, and I am not convinced that it would land him into a controversy, although it is a fair point to raise.

On the second point I have great sympathy, especially as the Committees are to sit for a full half hour longer at a stretch, and I have great sympathy with the Chairmen of the Committees in this matter. They can, of course, adjourn the Committees for a few minutes if they wish, but it is an unpleasant thing to have to do, and I am very sympathetic about it on those grounds. I admit, if I were to give way on the second ground—it might be a matter of convenience—that thereby I should be more sympathetic about the first ground, about the merits of which I am not so sympathetic. Therefore, I approach the matter not in an unfriendly way. This is my difficulty. As the House knows, Mr. Speaker is unfortunately at present indisposed, and I have not been able to consult him about this. The responsibility and burden of selecting the Deputy-Chairmen as well as the Chairmen would, under the proposal, fall upon Mr. Speaker. I do not like agreeing to this without consulting him about it, because he is experienced in these selections and would have to carry the added burden. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be so good as not to press his Amendment, and would withdraw it, I will undertake to go into the matter with Mr. Speaker when he is better if it then see no great difficulties and, if it is the will of the House to be sympathetic, I will bring up the additional Motion, which I hope we can carry through.

Sir C. MacAndrew

Thanks to the very generous attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mainningham-Buller

I beg to move, in line 31, after "and," insert "if."

I desire, if I may, to discuss, together with this Amendment, the next Amendment on the Order Paper standing in my name.

If these Amendments were carried, it would mean that in line 31 the sentence beginning "And" would read as follows: And if the question thereon be resolved in the affirmative the said Resolution or Resolutions shall operate as though included in the Allocation of Time Order made by the House. As the Order stands at present, as I read it, any Resolution of a Business Sub-Committee must, when it is reported to the Standing Committee and the Motion is moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill, be put and decided without Amendment or Debate. I think that is wrong for the reasons I will state. I think it is right that this Business Sub-Committee, when it makes its Report, should not have that Report challengeable, but should make it in the nature of suggestions to the Committee. That was the term the Lord President himself used just now in answer to my right hon. Friend when he was talking about the hours of sitting. If they are suggestions to the Committee, the Committee should have an opportunity of considering them, and it is no use, in this connection, using the argument that, if this question is allowed to be debated or amended, it will merely be used for purposes of obstruction, because the time taken in discussing any Report of the Business Sub-Commit- tee will not extend the period within which the Bill has to be reported back to the House as a whole.

It is really leaving too much power in the hands of the Business Sub-Committee to say that no Report of theirs, if accepted by the Government, must be moved without anyone being able to debate or amend it. May I put the following suggestion to the Lord President? Suppose, for instance, there were, on the Business Sub-Committee, a number of Members who were singularly ignorant of trade union organisation and plans, and unaware of the fact that a conference was going to be held on a Wednesday of a particular week when Parliament was sitting, and they reported that this particular Standing Committee, on, which were a number of trade unionists, should sit on that particular Wednesday. It may be that the influence of the trade unionists upon the Minister in charge of the Bill would suffice for the Question not to be put. One must, as the Lord President said, have regard to the Opposition as well, and is it not right, when a Report comes back containing suggestions, that the Members of the Standing Committee should be entitled to make some representations with regard thereto? Is it not right that there should be some power of Amendment by the Members of the Standing Committee, or are they going to be subject to the complete control of a Business Sub-Committee, consisting of not more than seven, and, it may be, only four, telling them precisely what they have to do if it be the case, that the Minister in charge of the Bill, puts the Motion?

8.49 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I would like to put the case from a slightly different angle. At one time in this House there was no provision for any Motion being put without Amendment or Debate, but there is one Motion, and only one, I think, of this type which can be put at present, either in the House or in Committee, without Amendment or Debate, arid that is the Closure. There is an essential difference between the Closure and a timetable settled in advance. The Closure is only granted by the Speaker, or the Chairman, and he has the whole situation laid out in front of him. He can see almost at a glance whether or not it will be an appropriate occasion to allow a Closure.

But here we are dealing with something wholly hypothetical. We are dealing with the future conduct of Debate, and nobody can be such an omniscient prophet as to be able to foresee everything that may happen. Two heads are always better than one, and I suggest it will simplify things very much, if anybody on the Committee who happens to have a point of his own is allowed to put it. The Committee may sympathise with him against the Business Sub-Committee. It will not take more than five or ten minutes at the outside, because everybody knows he cannot talk at large without diminishing the time available for discussion. It is in nobody's interest to obstruct or to be long-winded. I think if we start off with the consideration of a Bill in circumstances in which somebody has some bottled up objection that he is not entitled to state, we start off in an atmosphere, if not of friction, at least of dissatisfaction, which could be avoided if we would only allow five or ten minutes in order to have the whole thing tidied up in a friendly way. Therefore, I think it would be very much in the interest of the success of this scheme that we should allow some short Debate before the matter is put to the Vote.

As the Lord President has said, this is experimental. If we find that people do make improper use of this liberty, and that the right of other Members to occupy the time on the Bill is being displaced by somebody or another occupying too much time on Procedure, this has to come up again next year; it is a Sessional Order and it can be altered. I suggest we should start this year by giving the extra liberty. If that does not work it can be taken away, but do not let us start the other way round with a Rule which may produce a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and which, so far as I can see, will not be of use to anyone.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I make no complaint about the two speeches which have been made and which have been most reasonable, as has the whole of the discussion. A model of Parliamentary decorum has descended upon us today, and we have all been very good. I gathered from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Amendment that he had the impression that there was only one Motion on the Floor which, could be put without Amendment or Debate, and that was the Closure, but, with very great respect, I think there are a number of others that can be put on the Floor without Amendment or Debate, such as the Suspension, of the Standing Orders, numbers of Supply Days, one way or the other, I believe, and there are some others.

Mr. Reid

Surely none of these stops the ordinary Member's right of free speech? When I said "one Motion" I meant a Motion which would stop people from talking, whereas otherwise they would be entitled to talk.

Mr. Morrison

I did not know the right hon. and learned Gentleman was selecting Motions that he does not like, as distinct from the Motions that I like. From that point of view, he may well be right, because I am not quite sure how many kinds of Motions he does not like. I only say that it is not unprecedented, and, from such study of Parliamentary history as I have been able to make, I should say that the tendency for a certain number of issues to be settled under Standing Orders without Amendment or Debate has inclined somewhat to increase.

On the merits of this matter, let us consider what they are. First of all, there is a Motion on the Floor which fixes the overall time in Committee upstairs, and, if the Government so wish, the overall time on Report and possibly the readings of the Bill. Therefore, the real grievance, if any, on the part of the Opposition has been examined and has been capable of the fullest ventilation and argument on the Floor of the House, namely, the overall amount of time which the Government propose to give under the guillotine of the full House. Therefore, it is not the case that the Members are swamped with a Motion, without the right of Amendment or Debate, because the main Motion—the one where the real grievance, if any, arises—is the Motion on the Floor fixing the overall time; that is debatable and, I presume—I am not sure—amendable. I am not sure about that, but I think it is. That stage is reached after Debate and consideration. It then goes upstairs to the Committee for the Committee to make arrangements whereby it can derive the most convenient use of the overall time. That is not really a controversial matter. That is a matter of sense, of judgment and of getting the best common- sense use of the time available. I do not want that to be regarded as controversial if we can help it. I hope it will not start in that spirit.

I think, therefore, that being the only thing to be done, the question is: What is the best way for democracy to go about its work? If I may say so, I thought that the observations upon democratic procedure by the Mover of the Amendment might have incurred the sincere displeasure of Mr. Lenin who might have described this rather crude and elementary conception of democracy as he described other things at some time—an infantile sickness of the Left. Democracy is not only a matter of the right of every man on a body to have a row and to lift his voice and vote. Democracy is also a matter of the best machinery for the implementation of the democratic will. I suggest in this case that, rather than 50 people having a hefty argument as to how they are going to use this time, it is far better from the democratic point of view for those 50 people to let eight of their wisest people, chosen by Mr. Speaker himself, get round the table and see what is the best way to do it. When they have done that they can then come back to the Committee and report. The question is whether the report should be put without Amendment or Debate, or whether the 50 people should start examining the report and see if they can make improvements within the limits of the time allocated. I know what would happen if 50 people discussed this report which the Committee had settled carefully and quietly in a little room; I know what would happen with 50 people tearing it to pieces. They would get into a real tangle.

I know that the House sitting as a whole—I have seen it—has thoroughly enjoyed itself getting into a tangle. The more it got into a tangle the more it enjoyed itself, and I shared the enjoyment, except when I was the Minister trying to get a Bill through. I really have seen the House getting thoroughly happy; the more it got itself entangled the happier it became. That is all right for a night-out in the full House of Commons, and I would not deny the House these little pleasures, but it is a bad business in a Standing Committee, which ought to be a businesslike affair. On the point that someone may forget a Trades Union Congress—Heaven forbid that anybody should forget a Trades Union Congress—or other organisations like the Bar Council and so forth—and even the Derby has been taken notice of in the course of Parliamentary history—I only suggest to hon. Members who have these things on their minds and want them to be taken care of that they should take one of the eight Members of the Committee aside and say, "My dear friend, don't forget this, that, or the other, and please remember my own convenience in this little difficulty. "This is the way business is done; this is the way the wheels of Parliamentary democracy run round with great smoothness. In view of the fact that, on the whole, I have demolished the Amendment, with politeness, with good humour, with completeness and with absolute philosophic conviction, I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.

9.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but it is so self-evidently desirable to put in the Amendment that I do not think we can accept his view. He said, first, that when there was a Time-Table Motion the real grievance of the Opposition is that there should be an overall allocation of time at all, and that is where the argument and such bad feeling as is engendered occur. That may or may not be so, but here we are trying to avoid mistakes by the Business Sub-Committee. It is human to err about time-tables as about other things. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Well, this is the democratic thing to do; eight Members of the sub-committee to discuss it and 50 to accept the decision." But the eight Members are not nominated by the Standing Committee; under this proposal they are nominated by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Morrison

Carefully hand-picked—and wisely.

Captain Crookshank

Hand-picked and wisely, but it does not follow that the other 42 Members have the slightest idea why anybody has been selected. It seems to me an odd definition of democracy; but this is not the moment to discuss that. Mr. Speaker, whose wisdom in this matter I am not questioning, will no doubt take advice and select the most suitable Members, but even so there is a possibility of mistake. As there is the sanction that any time given to any discussion on the time-table does come out of the global allocation of time there is no incentive on anyone's part to prolong debate on that subject, but there may very well be occasions when it will be necessary to make an alteration. With all their wisdom and charm the seven selected Members may have overlooked some point which is of importance to some area of the country or to some industry, and not have given sufficient weight to" the need for debate on one part of the Bill or another. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the analogous case for putting the Question without Debate or Amendment is that of the Closure, and that is indeed one of the reasons why we deprecate that this method should come in here, because that very fact made it look as though it were a form of Closure. My right hon. Friend wants to make this a good businesslike arrangement, and I have supported his proposal right through, and I am sure that hon. Members who were on the Committee did their best to make it workable, as has been the case with previous voluntary time-tables, but we want to guard against the possibility of error, and this does not leave any loophole. He is using words which to all who study our procedural matters are inevitably linked up with the Closure, and we think it is a pity that the word should stay in, and we hope the right hon. Gentleman will respond to this appeal.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

If I may say another word on the subject I find it difficult to be hard-hearted in view of the reasonable spirit in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put his point. I would make only two observations. One is that it is so easy for a Committee, even with no ill will, to use up a lot of time in trying to straighten out a matter of this kind. It

is ten to one that instead of straightening it out they will make it more confused than ever and use up a considerable amount of time which would be better employed in the examination of the Bill. It is not a question of the Opposition or a majority of the Committee being troublesome. It is a question of, possibly, a number of Members of the Committee being argumentative and difficult and thereby using time that in a way is unfortunate. It is not as if a genuine mistake cannot be put right. The Committee of eight will represent parties on the Committee and, therefore, various points of view will be there.

If, however, they make a mistake there will be ways of impressing that upon them by way of conversation and unofficial consultation. I am sure that, if they have really made a mistake, the Committee itself would wish it and it would be competent for the Sub-committee in that case to have another meeting and bring up another report revising the original proposal. I am sure that they would do that. I think that in the interests of all concerned it is the best way to do it. It puts a firm responsibility on the Committee of eight, which I am sure they want to try to discharge in a most sensible way. I am anxious not to encroach upon the time of the Committee for its legislative tasks. I hope we shall try out this Sessional Order and see how it works, but in the light of the information before me and my present feelings, I do not think that it would be wise to make an amendment whereby there could be a full debate on the simple business of the allocation of time within the overall time limit.

Question put, "That the word 'if' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 239.

Division No. 21.] AYES. [9.7 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hogg, Hon. Q.
Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H. Cuthbert, W. N. Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Astor, Hon. M. Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield Howard, Hon. A.
Baldwin, A. E. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Beattie, F. (Cathcart) Duthie, W. S. Jarvis, Sir J.
Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Eccles, D. M. Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Boothby, R. Erroll, Col. F. J. Jennings, R.
Bower, N. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Keeling, E. H.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Lambert, G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Gates, Maj. E. E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Carson, E. Gridley, Sir A. Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G. Grimston, R. V. Lucas, Maj. Sir J.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M. Haughton, Maj. S. G. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster) Prescott, Capt. W. R. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Maitland, Com dr. J. W. Price-While, Ll.-Col. D. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Prior-Palmar, Brig. O. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Raikes, H. V. Turton, R. H.
Marples, Capt. A. E. Ramsay, Maj. S. Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Renton, Maj. D. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Maude, J. C. Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Ropner, Col. L. White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)
Mellor, Sir J. Ross, Sir R. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Nield, B. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) York, C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Spearman, A. C. M. Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Osborne, C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Major Mott-Radclyffe and Mr. Drewe.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Studholme, H. G.
Pitman. I. J. Sutcliffe, H.
NOES.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McAdam, W.
Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Mack, J. D.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Ewart, R. McLeavy, F.
Alpass, J. H. Farthing, W. J. Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Attewell, H. C. Follick, M. Mathers, G.
Austin, H. L. Foot, M. M. Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Awbery, S. S. Forman, J. C. Medland, H. M.
Ayles, W. H. Foster, W. (Wigan) Messer, F.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Freeman, P. (Newport) Middleton, Mrs. L.
Bacon, Miss A. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Balfour, A. Gallacher, W. Monslow, W.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Montague, F.
Barstow, P. G. Gibson, C. W. Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Barton, C. Gooch, E. G. Morley, R.
Battley, J. R. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Belcher, J. W. Grey, C. F. Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)
Berry, H. Grierson, E. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Murray, J. D.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Nally, W.
Binns, J. Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Boardman, H. Guy, W. H. Oliver, G. H.
Bottomley, A. G. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Orbach, M.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Paget, R. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Hardy, E. A. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Haworth, J. Palmer, A. M. F.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pargiter, G. A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Holman, P. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Buchanan, G. Horabin, T. L. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Burden, T. W. Hoy, J. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Burke, W. A. Hubbard, T. Pearson, A.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Peart, Capt. T. F.
Champion, A. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Piratin, P.
Clitherow, R. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Cluse, W. S. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pritt, D. N.
Cocks, F. S. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Proctor, W. T.
Coldrick, W. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Pryde, D. J.
Collindridge, F. John, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Collins, V. J. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Randall, H. E.
Colman, Miss G. M. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Ranger, J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Corlett, Dr. J. Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Corvedale, Viscount Keenan, W. Rhodes, H.
Daines, P. Kenyon, C. Ridealgh, Mrs M.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Kinley, J. Robens, A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Lavers, S. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Rogers, G. H. R.
Dear, G. Lee. F. (Hulme) Sargood, R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Scollan, T.
Delargy, Captain H. J. Leslie, J. R. Scott-Elliot, W.
Diamond, J. Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Donovan, T. Levy, B. W. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Dribarg, T. E. N. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Dumpleton, C. W. Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Durbin, E. F. M. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Simmons, C. J.
Dye, S. Little, Dr. J. Skinnard, F. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Longden, F. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Edelman, M. Lyne, A. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Tolley, L. Wilkes, Maj. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Wilkins, W. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton) Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Snow, Capt. J. W. Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Solley, L. J. Usborne, H. C. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Sparks, J. A. Viant, S. P. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Stamford, W. Wadsworth, G. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Stephen, C. Walkden, E. Williamson, T.
Strachey, J. Walker, G. H. Willis, E.
Straws, G. R. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wise, Major F. J.
Stringler, Capt. S. Watkins, T. E. Woodburn, A.
Symonds, Maj. A. L. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) Woods, G. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Weitzman, D. Yates, V. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Walls, Maj. W. T. (Walsall) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover) Wigg, G. E. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. Mr. Joseph Henderson and Captain Michael Stewart.

Main Question put, and agreed to.