HC Deb 15 November 1945 vol 415 cc2443-65

Resolved:

"That for the remainder of this Session Standing Order No. 69 shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added 'and any resolution come to by such Committee may, with the general agreement of the House, be reported forthwith'."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, being Members of the House, or any of them, though not Members of a Standing Committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

9.20 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I am afraid my hon. and right hon. Friends and I cannot agree to this at all, and I shall trouble the House very briefly with our reasons. This is not in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. The Select Committee made no recommendation on this subject at all. If I may remind the House—and I apologise to the Chairman of the Select Committee for so doing—we said this: One other difficulty ought to be mentioned. If six Standing Committees in addition to the Scottish were sitting concurrently, the Law Officers of the Grown of whom there are at present two, apart from the Scottish, would be in some difficulty in performing their duties in regard to the conduct of Bills. A partial solution of this difficulty might perhaps be found in the appointment of a third Law Officer. This, however, is a matter for the Government rather than your Committee. No one can read into those words a suggestion coming from the Select Committee that this quite novel procedure should be adopted. If the House wants to know where this proposal came from, it came from the Lord President himself, because if the report of the evidence is available to hon. Members, they will see that in reply to Question No. 268 the right hon. Gentleman did raise the question of the Law Officers and said there was going to be a difficulty—which we all admit; no one is going to say that it is an easy position for the Law Officers if there are six or seven Standing Committees sitting simultaneously. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President said, and what I particularly want to bring to the notice of the House: There is a problem with the Law Officers, if they are going to be tied to one Committee, and the solution which seems to me perhaps to be the right one, subject to the view of the Select Committee, would be that the Law Officers should have the right of attendance and the right of speech, without the right of voting. The right hon. Gentleman expresses that opinion, it seems to me, subject to the views of the Select Committee, but the views of the Select Committee were not anything of the kind, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman is doing this on behalf of the Government, entirely without the advice of those hon. Gentlemen who were appointed by the House to the Select Committee to give advice. That absolves the Select Committee from having anything to do with this recommendation. I just make the point. It is surely a generally-accepted principle that all Members of this House have equal rights in the House, and I cannot see why this House should deprive the Law Officers attending a Select Committee of the right to vote. They would be going from Committee to Committee, because their advice might be required now here and now there, and surely the solution is that they should be members of all the Committees, the same as other hon. Members. There are plenty of hon. Members whose names appear as members of more than one Standing Committee, or of one Standing Committee or of one Select Committee, or even of one Standing and two Select Committees—which is my own case—simultaneously. An hon. Member in that position has to judge for himself which is the right one, where he should be at a particular moment.

It is not unusual for hon. Members to attend one Committee to deal with one Clause and then go to another Committee to deal with another Clause. They are members of both Committees and are entitled, should a division be called, to vote in both Committees even on the same morning. The Law Officers should be put in exactly the same position. I do recognise this difficulty, that of course if you put all the Law Officers on one Committee and they are wanted elsewhere, the Government supporters are minus four if a division is called while they are not there. I would however put it to the House that we are dealing here with a Sessional Order, and an experimental one at that, and there is no likelihood during this Session of any great alteration in the balance of the political parties. Standing Committees after all are set up with a view to being, as nearly as may be, a reflection of the proportionate position of the parties in the House as a whole. Therefore, I do not think the fact that there were two Law Officers who, at a particular moment, because they were somewhere else, did not vote, would be likely to endanger the passage through Standing Committee of a Government Bill. I understand that already some Amendments have even been carried against the Government in Standing Committees, whether the Law Officers were or were not Members, or had or had not a vote. Therefore, that argument, as long as we are dealing with the present situation, is not a good one.

I deprecate the idea that any hon. Members should be entitled to come to Standing Committees and give advice, and not be full Members of the Committee. It seems to me that would be a dangerous precedent to create. We have never done anything of the kind before. It might easily lead to a proposal that Ministers should not be full Members of a Standing Committee. It often happens, for example, that a Bill which is primarily the responsibility of one Minister affects a number of Departments. It has often been the case that it would have been useful if, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for India, or some other Minister who had nothing to do with the main structure of the Bill, could have come in and expressed his views on an Amendment, a new Clause, or a Clause in the Bill. That, however, has never been our theory. The theory has been that of the collective responsibility of Ministers, and that Ministers should be able to speak for other Ministers whose interests arise during the passage of a Bill but who, for one reason or another, could not be present in the House, or could not be present in a Standing Committee because they were not Members of it. I do not speak with any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. We are simply not anxious to segregate the Law Officers from the general company of the rest of us. We feel they ought to share our burdens and responsibilities, and ought to be Members of Standing Committees only when they have full voting powers. I cannot think of any reason why this Standing Order should have been proposed. It is contrary to anything that is in the Select Committee's Report. The Lord President of the Council made the suggestion, and said that he would consider it, subject to the views of the Select Committee. The Select Committee not having recommended anything of the kind, I recommend the House not to accept the Order.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

The first thing I want to say is that whoever drafted this Order has got it wrong, because traditionally the order of seniority of the Law Officers is the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. As a former occupant of the Office of Lord Advocate, I feel bound to see that the precedence of that Office is upheld.

I am afraid the Law Officers do not quite realise what they are letting themselves in for. I have never been a Member of more than two Standing Committees at the same time, but my experience is that whichever one I went to, the other one said I ought to have been there and that something arose with which I should have dealt. Every one of the six Standing Committees is going to say, "There are three Law Officers available"—the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not a Member of the House at present—"they are all entitled to attend the Standing Committees and address them, and if we cannot have one of the three, we must make a bit of fuss about it." There will be continual trouble of that sort in the Standing Committees. I suggest to the Solicitor-General, who is the only Law Officer here to-night, that he ought to think again about this matter, or there will be great difficulty. There will be Law Officers running from one Standing Committee to another and not really being able to deal adequately with the questions that arise in any one of them. I hope there will be second thoughts about this question.

9.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)

May I say at the outset that we, on this side of the House, accept the Amendment—which is not down on the Order Paper, but which is proposed—to the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House, that the words "but shall not vote" shall be excluded. It is not as I say on the Order Paper, but the criticism of the Motion was that it might be more satisfactory, if the Law Officers were Members of the Committee and had the right to vote, as well as take part in the proceedings. That we at once accept. That is the criticism advanced by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—

Captain Crookshank

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman rising to move a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I think the Amendment must first be moved.

Captain Crookshank

Where are we?

The Solicitor-General

I rose to support the Motion. I simply intimated that we, on this side of the House, were in sympathy with the criticisms made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains borough. The Motion is down on the Order Paper with the words "but shall not vote," and, if those words are not excluded—

Captain Crookshank

While preparations are being made to move the Amendment indicated may I ask the Solicitor General why they were not made previously? I really do not know where we are. Is there to be an Amendment or not?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)

We thought we were being conciliatory to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We are all in your hands, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we would be prepared, if you regard it as a proper procedure, to accept an Amendment to leave out those last words.

Captain Crookshank

I quite agree that our point was on the words "but shall not vote," but I am not yet certain that the words of the Motion are apt, because it will then read that the Law Officers "may take part in the deliberations of the Committee." What does that mean? It does not mean anything. The Motion will have to be recast.

Mr. Dalton

We were trying to meet that point.

Captain Crookshank

I quite agree, but we must do it effectively.

Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern)

On a point of Order. May I ask what we are actually discussing?

The Solicitor-General

rose—

Hon. Members

Order, order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think I should have to rule out discussion on any Amendment which is to be moved. We are now discussing the Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir Ronald Ross (Londonderry)

The Solicitor-General was discussing the matter on the basis that there would be a manuscript Amendment, which has not been moved. Surely, we are not in Order in discussing that situation until such an Amendment is, in fact, moved. As it has been suggested by the Government, it is surely for the Government to move that Amendment and not to suggest to anybody they happen to pick from the Opposition to move it for them?

Mr. Stephen

rose—

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I understand, subject to your correction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that what is before the House at this moment is the Motion in the name of the Lord President of the Council. I understand that some dissatisfaction has been expressed with that Motion from the other side of the House. Is it not then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in your view the duty of those who are dissatisfied with the Motion to move an Amendment to it if they desire any alteration?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I can only deal with one point of Order at a time. It is not for me to indicate what should be the duty or desire of either side of the House. At present, the Motion before the House is the one which I read.

Mr. Stephen

On this point of Order, may I submit that a Motion has been moved, and criticism of that Motion has been made, and the Solicitor-General has said that the Government, while putting forward the Motion, are prepared to accept an Amendment, if the Opposition like to move it?

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

No, he did not say so.

The Solicitor-General

Can we see exactly where we have got to? A Motion was down on the Paper. I rose to support it. I rose as the result of observations made by two right hon. Members opposite. One set of observations contained a criticism of the Motion. I indicated that we, on this side of the House, felt some sympathy with that criticism. If there had been—although there is not—an Amendment down on the Paper to give effect to that criticism, we would have been prepared to receive it sympathetically. As I say, there is, in fact, no such Amendment down on the Paper. We on this side of the House have not, in the Motion which we put down on the Paper, embodied it, and we do not intend to embody it. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] We were trying to be conciliatory and we gave hon. Members opposite every opportunity—(Interruption). I said, in point of fact, that we were in sympathy with the criticism. The criticism is not on the Paper in any concrete form, and that is the end of it.

Captain Crookshank

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely there is no need for an Amendment, when it is intended to move to negative the new Order because the effect of negativing the new Order is that it is perfectly open to the Law Officers, under present procedure, to be put on Standing Committees, and the question of their voting does not arise. Am I not correct in my interpretation of the Rules of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is the correct interpretation.

Captain Crookshank

That is right? And by moving to negative this, I would have done, not only all that is necessary from my point of view, but all' that is necessary to meet the desires of the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General

rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the matter is not nearly as complicated as hon. Members on the opposite benches want to make out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, stated that the Government were prepared to delete the, last four words. Well, it follows logically from that, having regard to the objection that was then taken—because it was said that the words might not be in Order—that all that is needed is to put the words "as members" after the word "deliberations" in the Motion, so that it would read: …in the deliberations as members of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is making a speech whereas he rose to a point of Order.

9.39 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I think we have cleared our decks a little, and the net result of all the discussion is that there is this Motion on the Paper and I support it. I make no further reference to the criticism that has been made, beyond saying that the object of the Motion is that, for good reasons or bad, these Law Officers shall be enabled to take part in the deliberations of Standing Committees, although they are not members of those Committees. If the view commends itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should be members, so let it be. But the Motion as it stands is the Motion I support.

The Lord President of the Council, in opening the discussion today, intimated that the question of appointing a third Law Officer had been considered, that being the remedy suggested for an admitted defect in the findings of the Select Committee. That was subsequently rejected—and I think I detected a considerable degree of approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite—the view being that it was undesirable to increase Ministers beyond the present number. That having been rejected as a solution, and there being an admitted difficulty, it remains to adopt the solution embodied in the Motion on the Paper, namely, that the Law Officers should be entitled to take part in the deliberations of Standing Committee, with a view to affording such assistance, if any, as they are able to afford. I feel some slight embarrassment in urging the advantages on the House of the presence of Law Officers on Standing Committees, but if, for the purpose of my argument, I may assume it is accepted that it has advantages, I submit that, as a logical sequence, it would be of assistance to the Committee if the Law Officers were able to go from one Committee to another, to take part in their deliberations, on those particular aspects of the Bills being considered, which involve legal questions and legal perplexities. For those reasons I commend the Motion to the House.

May I make one observation in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)? I hope that, in view of the nature of the error to which he calls attention in the form of the Motion, he will not suspect that I am the draftsman. May I, on behalf of our side of the House, tender our apologies to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what is obviously a mistake in draftsmanship, which should not have been made?

943 p.m.

Mr. Boothby

We have listened with great interest to the speech of the Solicitor-General, and I am glad that he has corrected a most unfortunate mistake. He has acknowledged the gravity of the error of His Majesty's Government in not according the Lord Advocate his proper position. There is a question of considerable importance of principle involved, namely, whether any Members of any legislative body should sit and speak in that body, without having the right to vote. It is a question on which I feel very strongly. It opens up a completely new precedent. Hon. Members can see that we may be left with the admission that Ministers have their right to address both Houses of Parliament, without voting in one or the other. I submit that His Majesty's Government have been so impressed with the arguments made by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench that they are prepared to concede this vital point. It is not for them to say to us: "You stick in a manuscript Amendment at ten seconds' notice." It is for His Majesty's Government to get up and say, "We are so impressed by the ability and strength of the arguments addressed to the House by the Opposition Front Bench, that we propose ourselves, immediately, to take steps to rectify the error into which we have fallen."

945 p.m.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

I cannot help thinking that the Opposition are making rather heavy weather of this. I urge the Solicitor-General and the Government to stand firm. I want to see what the Opposition says about the merits of the matter. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) says the true solution is to make them Members of the Committee. I think it is, in some ways, more useful to have the Committee fully constituted with people who can vote, and let the Law Officers give their advice as and when needed. The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is realised what a heavy job is being laid upon the Law Officers. That is no argument. Whether they are made Members or not, their job is the same, to explain the legal position, and it is, of course, a heavy task. But as a matter of fact the task of going from body to body, whether a court or anything else, explaining the position, is the one thing which lawyers learn, and the Law Officers will do it. I have been in Parliament for 10 years and I have been at the Bar for some 35 years. I have seen Law Officers of considerable variety, very good and very bad, but all have been capable of going to court and explaining the position. I do not think there is any difficulty about it.

The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) says there is a question of principle. I suppose there is, but we on this side of the House did not come here with the overwhelming approval of the country, in order to leave every question of principle exactly as it always was. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had stuck to all their principles this country would still be doing hand-loom weaving. I can remember a member of the Derby family moving a Bill to destroy half the spindles in Lancashire.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

The hon. and learned Gentleman should speak on the Motion.

Mr. Pritt

To deal with the question of principle, how much does it matter? There are the Committees constituted; they are grouped, roughly, in proportion to the representation of parties in the House. Rather than disturb that representation, rather than make it almost permanently short by reason of the Law Officers being Members of every Committee, and somebody else therefore being left off, is it not fair and reasonable to say that the Law Officers can come along without having a vote? It is a sensible principle to lay down. It is almost visible to the naked eye and is perfectly harmless. As to another argument which has been used, who would be a penny the worse if a Minister addressed both Houses of Parliament, particularly if he was reasonably competent, as these are? I do not think the Government need my encouragement to stand firm.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams

The Conservative Party is always unfortunate in that we can be told by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmoth (Mr. Pritt) how very stupid we are. We realise that, after the innumerable times he has addressed us, but it does not say a great deal for his skill if he has not taught us a great deal about procedure and other things. I understand he is a very able lawyer. I hope he has better luck in the courts than here.

Mr. Pritt

In the courts I have very much less difficult material with which to work.

Mr. Williams

Possibly. I can quite understand that the hon. and learned Member would be more at home under those circumstances.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member should address himself to the Motion.

Mr. Williams

The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith is dealing with other material, recently elected, I understand. If I may come to this particular Motion, I would say there is a good deal in the principle we have always laid down—it may not matter to some but I believe it matters to the House as a whole—that as far as it is a matter of a Committee or of the whole House that a member of a Committee is the only person who can address that Committee. Under this Motion, what you are laying down is that two or three Members of Parliament, because they are Law Officers, can come in, give their opinion to that Committee, and then leave it. If we give the Government that right, why in the world should not the Opposition also have the right to send one of their legal experts to put the other side of the case? That is a perfectly just claim.

I am trying to be conciliatory and to help the Government. In days past, you always had one Law Officer, or two, on a Committee. Now they must have three or four Law Officers; otherwise, the Opposition is so able that, unless they have Law Officers available at any time, they have no chance of putting up a reasonable case. That is really a change in our principle, and, as has already been pointed out, if we are to begin this principle of certain selected Members addressing a Committee, why not allow others to put a case not only to select Committees, but also in another place?

We have got through a great deal of business in a very easy and simple way, because it has been almost entirely agreed. But there is a real definite divergence of opinion on this matter, of whether you should allow any hon. Member, however learned and however able, to go to a Committee and address it, and then go away and not take part in the real proceedings of that Committee. That is a definite principle. If the Government say they are going to enforce it, they have got their majority and can do it. It is a big principle, and it is not one which has ever been laid down on any other programme. I say, quite frankly, that I think it is a bad thing that the House, on an occasion such as this, should make a change of this kind which is, as I understand it, totally against the whole of the voting procedure of the House of Commons, whether it is in Standing Committee, or any other form of Committee.

9.54 p.m.

Earl Winterton

I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "the" and to insert this."

I wish to call the attention of the House to a mistake in this Motion—a wrong description. In the third line the words used are "of the House." I think it is in the recollection of all, at any rate the old Members, that the description is always "of this House." In the next two Motions to be dealt with, the term "of this House" is used. As there is a considerable discrepancy between the two forms, and in order to be in accord with what has been the custom, I move this manuscript Amendment.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I have made inquiries, and I am assured that, on balance, as between "the" and "this," the Noble Lord is right. I thought it might perhaps assuage the situation, if, having been out not for a cup of tea but for more solid refreshment, I came back and accepted the Amendment right away, which I do. I think the Noble Lord has dropped on a point on which, on balance, he is right. On any point on which the Opposition is right, we try to do the right thing, and I therefore urge the House to accept this Amendment. Thereafter, I will advise the House to accept a point of substance which, in the light of the present sweet reasonableness, I trust they will accept.

Mr. Gordon-Walker (Smethwick)

On a point of Order. In the previous Resolution we have already agreed to the words "the House."

Captain Crookshank

On a further point of Order. In a Resolution before that, we agreed to both "the" and "this."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

rose—

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

rose—

Hon. Members

Order.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Hogg

The House will assuredly be grateful to so many hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who are anxious to assist you in your conduct of the proceedings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but perhaps they will forgive me if I invite the Lord President to give us the advice, which he said a few moments ago he would give, because I am bound to say that I, at least, find myself in a certain amount of perplexity. I was glad to see the Lord President come back into the House in order that he might remove, as I am sure he will, the perplexity of one who has such a limited experience of administrative responsibility. My perplexity arises oat of this fact. The Motion before the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "This House"]—really consists of two propositions. The first is that the Law Officers should have the right to take part in the deliberations of the Committees, and the second is that they should also have the right to vote. When the learned Solicitor-General first addressed this House on this subject, there was, I think, a certain amount of misunderstanding about what he had or had not said. I do not think there was any misunderstanding about this point, that he accepted the proposition that the Law Officers should be allowed to vote in these Committees. Whether he was moving an Amendment, or asking my hon. Friend to move an Amendment, or whether he was asking for a negative Resolution, that proposition was conceded. What I want to ask the Lord President is this: Supposing that that proposition is conceded—namely, that the right to vote is accorded to the Law Officers when they take part in the deliberations—what need is there for the rest of the Motion? Under the existing regulations the Law Officers can be made members of all the Standing Committees and vote in the ordinary way, and the reason I am perplexed is that the Government, having in the hearing of the whole House conceded the proposal that the Law Officers should vote in Standing Committees, ought to make out some case to support the rest of the Resolution. Otherwise, I think the House would be justified in negativing it as being wholly redundant. Indeed—and again I may be wrong—I believe that there was a certain amount of confusion in the Government counsels on this, because I believe that the learned Solicitor-General, with his well known reasonableness, was about to concede this point when the Chancellor of the Exchequer pulled him down.

10.3 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross (Londonderry)

The difficulty here is that the Government have, as I understand it, conceded the point about the Law Officers voting. In the country the Government say that they are going to do what is right, but it is either right that the Law Officers should vote or it is not and the point that is now being put is one of expediency. If the Government think it is right that the Law Officers should vote surely, taking the stand they do that they intend to do what is right, they should see that the Law Officers do vote. If, on the other hand, they are treating the matter as one of expediency, and saying, "Let us toss up" or "It does not matter," I do not think they are living up to their traditions. I had not expected much from them, but I had expected more than that. The Government are constantly saying that they have been sent here with a tremendous mandate to do what is right, and then they say "If you do not like it, we will toss up," and they call in the partisan, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).

Mr. Pritt

They do not call upon me. I am not even a member of their party.

Sir R. Ross

The hon. and learned Member is "working his passage."

Mr. Pritt

rose—

Sir R. Ross

I do not see why I should five way to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Pritt

On a point of Order. Is it not in accordance with the practice and traditions of the House that if a Member attacks another Member he should give way to allow him to answer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Much depends on the circumstances.

Sir R. Ross

I hope that I have not offended the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Pritt

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and learned Member is not entitled to speak, unless the hon. Member addressing the House gives way.

Sir R. Ross

My intervention was largely in the interests of the Law Officers themselves. It is bad enough where a lawyer is expected by his clients to be in three courts at once, but if a Law Officer is expected to be in six Committees at the same time, and hon. Members opposite call frequently for the guidance of a Law Officer, then the Law Officers will be placed in a very anomalous position. The main point is: Do the Government think it right that they should vote, or are they trying to bring in an entirely fresh and revolutionary principle of people coming to Committees and taking part in their deliberations and not being allowed to vote? An utterly new principle of that kind should not be introduced at this late hour of the night.

10.6 p.m.

Major Lloyd

I desire to emphasise a point which has not been brought sufficiently into this Motion as it stands now on the Order Paper, subject to the important Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) In this Motion it is provided that the Law Officers shall not vote. The point I want to bring to the attention of the House is that the Government, in putting down the Motion, are deliberately trying to disfranchise the Law Officers. Surely, these right hon. and learned Gentlemen represent constituents: how can they represent constituents when, on important Committees, they are not allowed to vote? It is a strange kind of unconstitutional procedure, quite undemocratic, which the Government are asking us to approve in this Motion. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was puzzled why the Motion was on the Order Paper at all. The Committee never recommended it. Obviously, the idea originated in the fertile brain of the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord President of the Council. Of course, we really know why it was, and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend knows but he could not say it from the Front bench. The real reason is that the Government know that they cannot do without the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who are mentioned in this way. They are dependent upon them for understanding their own Bills. How many of the Members on the Front Bench opposite really understand their own Bills? We know this is the real reason.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)

We are all trying to clear up a murky situation. In order to bring illumination into the darkness may I add a few observations on the matter? It is clear in my recollection and, I think, of the whole House, that in the course of one of his replies the learned Solicitor-General said that, if the Opposition wished the Law Officers to be proper and full Members of the Committees, "so let it be. "These were his words, which I took to mean, that the Government had not only conceded the requirement that the Law Officers should vote, but also that they should become proper Members of the Committee. If that is the intention of the Government, and if the Lord President of the Council would accept, approve and confirm the statement of his colleague, there is no need for this Motion at all. The proper thing for the Government to do and so save the time of the House would be to withdraw the Motion from the Paper.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I am bound to say there is an extraordinary change in the atmosphere of the House since I went out to get a modest supper. Before I left there was a spirit of "sweetness and light" in the discussion. I admit that just as I went out, I heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) speaking a little in the spirit of 1929 and 1931 but now when I come back, I find an electric atmosphere almost of bitterness. I wonder what it is all about. I did try to sweeten things a little by accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord (Earl Winterton), a proceeding which I thought would be received with such surprise and pleasure by the Opposition that we would swing the rest of the proceedings through.

The thing is perfectly simple. I cannot follow what all the excitement is about. The Select Committee's report said: One other difficulty ought to be mentioned. If six Standing Committees in addition to the Scottish were sitting concurrently, the Law Officers of the Crown, of whom there are at present two, apart from the Scottish, would have some difficulty in performing their duties in regard to the conduct of Bills. A partial solution of this difficulty might perhaps be found in the appointment of a third Law Officer. This, however, is a matter for the Government rather than your Committee. A very proper observation on the part of the Committee. We are the Government and we are making a pronouncement on the issue which we have every right to do. When one is going to say something nice about a person, one says, "If I may say so," and I said, "subject to the views of the Committee." That meant I am not going to dictate to the Committee in any way, but to suggest that that made me subservient to any recommendation the Committee may make to the House, is far too optimistic a suggestion in relation to the Lord President of the Council. This is evidently an instance of the Opposition getting itself tied up in knots about something which is perfectly simple. We are on velvet. We know where we are and we are going to stay there. There is not the least confusion on this side of the House.

The problem is, that under these proposals, there will be an increased number of Standing Committees. They will go up in number materially. At any fate, that is contemplated. Therefore, if the Standing Committees are going to have the best possible service from the Law Officers, then if we do not increase the number of Ministers by adding to the Law Officers, we must make it possible for the advice of the Law Officers to be available to the maximum possible extent to this series of Standing Committees. How are we to do it? That is the simple problem. It is not a case of the Government imposing the Law Officers on the Standing Committees, but of the Government doing their best, when on the Committees, there are clamorous cries for the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. When these pathetic cries go up we do our best to meet them. We anticipate that, as often as not, the cry will go up from the Opposition arid here we are trying to meet the Opposition and we are being treated with very little gratitude in the matter.

There are several ways of doing it. We can make the Law Officers ex officio members of every Standing Committee. It would suit the Opposition very well but it does not suit me. If the four Law Officers are to be ex officiomembers of the Standing Committees, it is perfectly clear they cannot be regular in their attendance all the time at all the Standing Committees and we would be giving up two Law Officers and His Majesty's Government do not propose to weaken their representation on the Committees to that extent. Something else could be done. I throw this suggestion to the Opposition. I do not advise them to accept it, but since they are in a receptive mood I put this to them. We could alternatively provide that the Law Officers shall be ex officio members of every Standing Committee, with the right to vote ex officio. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Hon. Members like that? There is, however, some little restraint operating, and it is right that there should be, because this suggestion would present the Government with an additional Member beyond their proportionate share. I do not make such a proposal. I am far too modest; but if the Opposition insisted upon it, I would consent to give the matter favourable consideration. The fact is that both those proposals are unjust; one is unjust to the Government and the other to the Opposition.

What do we propose? We say that we want the Law Officers to be available, to the maximum practicable and reasonable extent, to the Standing Committees. When they are wanted they will go in, make their observations and help the Standing Committee to the maximum extent, and not vote in the decision on the subject in hand. What is wrong about that? It is merely a matter of finding a way in which the expert, technical advice of the Law Officers can be available without infringing-the principle that the representation of the Committees is on the basis of the strength of parties. That is all there is about it. It seems practical common sense, and there is no reason- able argument against it. I cannot for the life of me make out why, because I want to have a little nourishment—which, believe me, I badly needed—all this excitement has been aroused and all this time has been lost. I hope that hon. Members opposite will withdraw their apposition to the proposal. If they do not feel able to do so, I hope that we shall take a vote on it and allow the House to decide.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

If I understood the argument of the Lord President of the Council, he is proposing that the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General shall be reduced from their present level to that of Parliamentary counsel. The Lord President of the Council, in trying to pour oil on troubled waters, completely ignored what was said by the Solicitor-General and there was no mistake about what he said. He said that he was perfectly prepared to accept the deletion of the words "but shall not vote." That means that the rest of the Motion is completely unnecessary. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I paid the greatest possible attention to all that has been said by hon. Members opposite, and apart from ridicule, a little derision and references to cups of tea and solid meals, there has been not one word to justify this radical innovation. If provision is being made for the attendance of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as Parliamentary counsel, can the Opposition invite Parliamentary counsel to come and argue this or that? That is what we have been asked to decide. I should have thought that the Law Officers would be in the most embarrassing position when present at Committees as Members of this House if they are able to vote one way or the other, although representing thousands of constituents. To say this is a small thing involving no constitutional principle, is nonsense.

There are all sorts of defects in the Motion. First of all, the Lord Advocate was put in the wrong place. The Government admitted that. Then there was the Noble Lord's Amendment, which was accepted. Then the Solicitor-General said at the outset that those words at the end of the Motion might just as well be deleted. I suggest that we ought not to pass Motions in this form. I ask the Government to consider, even now, whether they could not put the Motion in a proper form, and try to meet the desires of this side of the House as well as gratify

their wish to exercise their large majority and what they call their mandate.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes. 105.

Division No. 22.] AYES. 10.22 p.m.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gruffydd, Prot. W. J. Randall, H. E.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Gunter, Capt. R. J. Ranger, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Guy, W. H. Rees-Williams, Lieut.-Col. D. R.
Alpass, J. H. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Rhodes, H.
Attewell, H. C. Hardy, E. A. Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Austin, H. L. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Robens, A.
Awbery, S. S. Haworth, J. Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Ayles, W. H. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Rogers, G. H. R.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Sargood, R.
Bacon, Miss A. Hewitson, Captain M. Scollan, T.
Balfour, A. Holman, P. Scott-Elliot, W.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Segal, Sqn.-Ldr. S.
Barstow, P. G. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Sharp, Lieut.-Col. G. M.
Barton, C. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Battley, J. R. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Belcher, J. W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepoole) Simmons, C. J.
Binns, J. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Skinnard, F. W.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin) Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Boardman, H. Keenan, W. Smith, Elllis (Stoke)
Bottomley, A. G. Kenyon, C. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Kinley, J. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Lee, F. (Hulme) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Lever, Fl.-Off. N. H. Solley, L. J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Levy, B. W. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Sparks, J. A.
Burden, T. W. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Stamford, W.
Burke, W. A. Lindgren, G. S. Stephen, C.
Champion, A. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Longden, F. Strauss, G. R.
Clitheroe, R. Lyne, A. W. Sunderland, J. W.
Cluse, W. S. McAdam, W. Swingler, Capt. S.
Cocks, F. S. Mack, J. D. Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Coldrick, W. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Collindridge, F. McLeavy, F. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Colman, Miss G. M. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Corlett, Dr. J. Mayhew, Maj. C. P. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Daines, P. Medland, H. M. Tolley, L.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Messer, F. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Middleton, Mrs. L. Turner-Samuels, M.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mikardo, Ian Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Usborne, H. C.
Deer, G. Monslow, W. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Montague, F. Viant, S. P.
Delargy, Captain H. J. Moody, A. S. Walkden, E.
Diamond, J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Walker, G. H.
Donovan, T. Morley, R. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Driberg, T. E. N. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Watkins, T. E.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Murray, J. D. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Dumpleton, C. W. Nally, W. Weitzman, D.
Durbin, E. F. M. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)
Dye, S. Noel-Buxton, Lady White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Oliver, G. H. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Edelman, M. Orbach, M. Wilkes, Maj. L.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Paget, R. T. Wilkins, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Farthing, W. J. Palmer, A. M. F. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Pargiter, G. A. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Follick, M. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Williams, W. R (Heston)
Foot, M. M. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Willamson, T.
Foster, W. (Wigan) Paton, J. (Norwich) Willis, E.
Freeman, P. (Newport) Pearson, A. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N. Peart, Capt. T. F. Wilson, J. H.
Gallacher, W. Perrins, W. Wise, Major F. J.
Gibson, C. W. Piratin, P. Woodburn, A
Gooch, E. G. Porter, E. (Warrington) Woods, G. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. G. Porter, G. (Leeds) Yates, V. F.
Grey, C. F. Pritt, D. N. Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.
Grierson, E. Proctor, W. T.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Pryde, D. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Pursey, Cmdr H. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Robert Taylor.
Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pitman, I. J.
Astor, Hon. M. Hogg, Hon. Q. Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Baldwin, A. E. Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C. Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Howard, Hon. A. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Raikes, H. V.
Boothby, R. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bower, N. Jennings, K. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Boyd Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W. Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland
Braithwaite, Lieut.-Cmdr. J. G. Keeling, E. H. Ross, Sir R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lieut.-Col. W. Lambert, G. Sanderson, Sir F.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Carson, E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral) Spearman, A. C. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lucas, Major Sir J. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stoddart-Scott, Lieut.-Col. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. Mackeson, Lieut.-Col. H. R. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Studholme, H. G.
Cuthbert, W. N. Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster) Sutcliffe, H.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield Manningham-Buller, R. E. Thorneycroft, G. E (Monmouth)
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V.G. (Penrith) Marlowe, A. A. H. Thorp, Lieut.-Col. R. A. F.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Marples, Capt. A. E. Turton, R. H.
Drayson, Capt. G. B. Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.
Duthie, W. S. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Wadsworth, G.
Erroll, Col. F. J. Maude, J. C. Walker-Smith, Lieut.-Col. D.
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Medlicott, Brig. F. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Mellor, Sir J. Wheatley, Lieut.-Col. M. J.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen) White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)
Gage, Lieut.-Col. C. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gammans, Capt. L. D. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
Gates, Maj. E. E. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Nield, B. York, C.
Gridley, Sir A. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Grimston, R. V. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Haughton, Maj. S. G Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Mr. Drewe and Commander Agnew.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:

"That Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, being Members of this House, or any of them, though not Members of a Standing Committee, may take par): in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote."