HC Deb 15 November 1945 vol 415 cc2344-59

Ordered:

"That the first Report from the Select Committee on Procedure be now considered."

4.9 p.m.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

On a point of Order. Would it be in Order to ask that a Special Entry be made in the Journals of the House calling attention to the fact that the Business of the Day was only entered upon at eight minutes past four, in order that it may be a warning to Ministers in the future against making these very long statements and in that way taking up the time which is allotted to Debate?

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

Further to that point of Order. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they will not prevent me from putting my point of Order I propose to do it even if I were to keep them here till 12 o'clock. I would ask whether it is not a most unprece- dented occurrence that in one afternoon there should have been three statements from the Government without any warning having been given in advance to the House. I should like to know whether there is any limit to the number of Ministerial statements that may be made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think I should point out that two of these statements were made in response to Questions which were on the Order Paper. In fact only one Ministerial statement was made which was not in response to a Question, that by the right hon. Gentleman tine Minister of Agriculture. It was no doubt a little unfortunate that that statement, which was rather long, should have fallen upon the same day as the answers to the two Questions. Before I call upon the Lord President of the Council to move the Motion standing in his name I feel that I ought to ask the House to agree, in order to avoid duplication of Debate, that on the Motion "That this House doth agree with the Committee" the Debate should be a general one on the whole of the matters concerned with the recommendations in the Committee's report, and that questions of machinery and so forth might be left to come in their proper place and not be discussed now. I take it that course is agreed.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I am not quite sure that I do. Some of the details that come later will depend upon the answers given in the first discussion, and some of them deal with matters which it is rather difficult to discuss in the general discussion. Whilst not wishing to object to any procedure which the House as a whole might wish for, I think some of the Amendments should have a proper and full discussion on the particular points which they raise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Arising out of that agreement, I think that as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) I ought to point out that his Amendment in line 2 to leave out paragraph 1 will not be called, as not being in Order, and he might therefore desire to discuss the matter in the general Debate.

4.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the general recommendations contained in their Report. On 24th August the House appointed a Select Committee to consider the Procedure in Public Business and to report what alterations, if any, were desirable for the more efficient despatch of such Business. It was an instruction to the Committee that they do report as soon as possible upon any scheme for the acceleration of proceedings on public Bills which may be submitted to them by His Majesty's Government. Now the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), have carried out this instruction faithfully, and I think the House will agree that they are to be congratulated on the speed with which they have produced their interim report, and indeed upon the fairly high degree of agreement which was reached in this Select Committee. The Committee met and took evidence during the Recess and their first report was ordered to be printed on 16th October. It is a source of congratulation that by and large they are unanimous on the main points, and generally speaking I think it can be fairly said that they accepted the proposals which were submitted to them by His Majesty's Government.

The House will recall the circumstances in which the scheme was prepared, and that the Government, while not committing itself at that stage, felt that it covered a number of proposals which were eminently worthy of consideration by the Committee and would form a useful basis from which the Committee might commence its discussions. The scheme of the Government is reproduced as an appendix to the report from the Select Committee, and I need not go through it in detail. It may, however, help the House if I briefly outline the proposals with an indication of the extent to which the Committee have departed from them. The most important proposal was that substantially all Bills should be referred to Standing Committees and the passage of Bills in Standing Committees accelerated. For this purpose, the scheme proposed the extension of sitting hours, the introduction of machinery for prescribing and enforcing a time limit on proceedings in Committee, an increase in the number of the Standing Committees, the size of the Committees being reduced if necessary for that purpose or in consequence of that decision, and certain minor amendments in the procedure and practice in the Debates in Committee.

The Select Committee have approved the proposal to refer all Bills to Standing Committees and they agree that as many Standing Committees should be appointed as are necessary expeditiously to dispose of the Bills coming up from the House itself. They recommend that the permanent nucleus of StandingCommittees—other than the Scottish Committee—should be reduced to 20, and not more than 30 Members should be added to serve in respect of a particular Bill, making in respect of each Bill a total of 50 Members; and consequently, it is recommended that the existing quorum of 20 should be reduced to 15. The Select Committee propose that the normal hours of sitting of the Standing Committees should be from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m., and this recommendation compares with the Government proposal that the Standing Committees should sit from 10.45 a.m. until 1.15 p.m. As regards the numbers of sittings, the Government had suggested an additional sitting day in the week of Committees upstairs. The Committee think, however, that the proposal that Standing Committees should sit three days a week should be regarded as an expedient to relieve congestion rather than as a normal practice, and the arrangement of sittings—after the first, which by custom is fixed by the Chairman—should continue as heretofore to decide the day upon which the Committee would sit. Time will show whether the hope that it will be possible to avoid three sitting days a week is over-optimistic, but the proposal contemplates that Standing Committees should meet more often than twice a week if the state of business requires that to be done, and the Government do not wish in these circumstances to press their point.

Another suggestion in the Government scheme which is adopted by the Select Committee is that the former Standing Order No. 49A should be revived, so that the House can be adjourned after Questions to enable Standing Committees to sit concurrently in the afternoon. They add the proviso in the interest of Private Members' time that either the half hour Adjournment should be taken immediately after Questions, and any Ministerial or personal statement so that Standing Committees could meet from 4.30 p.m. to 7 p.m., and for a further period in fee evening, if necessary, or alternatively, that the House should be adjourned until 7.15 p.m. or 6.15 p.m. if an Adjournment Motion under Standing Order No 8 has been granted

In the Motions which the Government are proposing to the House they have incorporated provisions which would enable either of these alternatives to be adopted according to the circumstances of the case. On the question of applying a timetable to proceedings in Standing Committee, the Select Committee have, I think, definitely improved on the suggestion in the Government's Memorandum. This proposal was that the House should settle the total time to be made available for the Committee stage of the Bill. Its Resolution would also contain provisions on the lines of a normal Guillotine Resolution providing for the conclusion of the proceedings on the whole of the Bill, and on particular Clauses or groups of Clauses of the Bill, by means of putting, without Debate, all questions necessary to dispose of the Business. There would, however, be a Special Committee of the House to specify the intermediate times at which proceedings on particular Clauses or groups of Clauses were to be brought to a conclusion.

The Select Committee considered with great care, as I understand it, this proposal and they have simplified it, I think, beneficially. They recommend that where the Government wish to prescribe a time limit, the Guillotine Motion should take the form of naming the date by which the Standing Committee upstairs should conclude its proceedings on the Bill and proceed to Report to the House. The Select Committee recommend or suggest that the detailed allocation of sittings to parts of the Bill should be made by a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee itself, consisting of the Chairman and seven other Members nominated by Mr. Speaker. In the case of the few Bills which will still be referred to a Committee of the whole House and for the Report stage of any Bills, the details would be embodied in the Guillotine Motion as hithertofore. The view of the Select Committee, as I understand it, was that if the House decides to limit overall the time or fix a date by which the Standing Committee is to report, on the whole, the Standing Committee, which has to do the work upon the Bill itself, would be a better body to settle the domestic arrangements of compartmenting the Clause or groups of Clauses than would a Committee of the House as a whole. We think that that is a sound argument, and the Government, therefore, accept that proposal as an improvement on the one which they put forward. It just shows how wise it was to have a Select Committee to vet and examine and, if possible, to improve upon the Government's proposals.

Of the various minor suggestions made in the Government's scheme, the Select Committee have agreed to one, agreed, subject to a reservation, to another, deferred two and rejected two. They agree that fuller use should be made of the practice by which Ministers circulate to the Committee notes of any Clauses which might be difficult to understand; and, subject to the preservation of the right of any Member to object to taking both stages on one day, to the proposed abandonment of the Rule which prevents two stages of a Financial Resolution being taken on the same day. We accept this reservation. The Committee have deferred the proposals that no Financial Resolution should be necessary to cover provisions requiring money to be paid into the Exchequer, and that a new Clause or Amendment should longer be out of Order on Report, on the ground that it imposes, extends, or varies the incidence of any rate or other local burden.

Finally, they reject the suggestions that Committee Chairmen should be empowered to disallow Debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," if of opinion that there has been adequate discussion about the Clause on Amendments before the Committee, and that on Report stage of a Financial Resolution the Question should be put without Amendment or Debate. We do not wish to press either of these points at the present stage, but we are not happy about the Committee's conclusions on these two matters. On the former, we are doubtful whether the powers of the Chairman to prevent repetition are really adequate to present day needs for the purpose of preventing possible abuse. On the last point, while we agree that the amount of time involved is slight, here again there is an opportunity of using up time to little or no purpose. We pro- pose, therefore, to ask the Select Committee to be good enough to look at these points again in the course of their general review of Procedure.

The Committee also, quite properly and usefully, draw attention in their Report to some of the practical problems which the increased use of Standing Committees necessarily entails. First of all, they point out that the Law Officers of the Crown would be in some difficulty in performing their duties in regard to the conduct of Bills, and suggest for the Government's consideration the appointment of a third English Law Officer as a partial solution of this difficulty. This suggestion has been carefully considered by the Government, but it is not one which we feel prepared to adopt. The bias should, in our view, be against increasing the number of Ministers rather than increasing the number of Ministers. There was a considerable increase of Ministers during the war. Some reduction has been made, but there are many people who think that, if anything, the existing number of Ministers is too large rather than too small. We would be reluctant to add to their number, and therefore our bias would be the other way. But what we do propose is that provision should be made whereby the Law Officers who are not Members of the Standing Committee concerned should be allowed to address the Standing Committee and be at the service of the Standing Committee as and where allowed to the greatest practicable extent, but without the right to vote in a case of that kind.

It may involve some inconvenience with the existing number of Law Officers. There is a problem, and we thought that it should be dealt with in that other way, and it will involve probably some readjustment in the work of the Law Officers. But this in itself will not sufficiently relieve the Law Officers, and as to this I would only say, first that my hon. and learned Friends recognise that they must be prepared to give up more time to attendance in Standing Committees than in the past and that, secondly, I am sure that the Government and they can rely upon the House and the Committee itself to be reasonable in their demands upon the time required from the Law Officers. It is not a question of any unwillingness on the part of the Law Officers, but they cannot physically be in two places at once, and, of course, they have their other duties.

It may be that in some cases where comparatively straightforward points arise Standing Committees will have to be content with the presence of the Minister in charge of the Bill. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for this and after all, the Minister has the benefit of the advice of the Law Officers, and of his own legal advisers.

We hope, therefore, that the Committees will be considerate and helpful in the matter. But I repeat that, as for my hon. and learned Friends themselves, they are most anxious to be of the maximum service to the House and to its Committees upstairs, and I only ask that the House on its part will do its best not to impose unnecessary burdens upon the Law Officers of the Crown.

The Committee referred to a number of other practical difficulties which are a matter primarily for the authorities of the House itself, at any rate, in the first instance—difficulties of accommodation and the provision of clerks and reporters. Each of these is obviously of great importance. Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, lost no time in getting down to these difficulties and these important matters, and I have assured him of the full support of the Government in tackling them as far as we can give it. It may perhaps help the House if, with your permission, Sir, I deal briefly with each of these problems. The problem of accommodation, of course, involves more than the provision of rooms for the meetings of the Standing Committees. Extra accommodation has to be provided for the reporters and additional messengers and so on, but in the last resort, it is a question of squeezing the available accommodation still further, and though some inconvenience may be unavoidable, I do not think that the accommodation difficulties are insuperable, as far as we can see. The authorities of the House have the matter in hand with the Minister of Works, and there is no reason to doubt that a solution will be found.

The problem of getting such extra clerks as will be necessary is more difficult, but here again I do not think that this difficulty will be found insuperable. The authorities of the House have had it in hand, and the Minister of Labour will do all he can to help. A complicating factor but one which may assist rather than hinder is that, while some increase in the permanent establishment may be called for, the demand will not continue throughout the year, and what is mainly needed is additional part time assistance at the peak periods.

Lastly, and most difficult of all, there is the question of reporters. Here we seem to be up against an acute and general shortage of speed shorthand writers with the special qualifications required by the Hansard staff. This matter too is being pursued by the authorities of the House, with the Minister of Labour and the Treasury, and I am hopeful that the results will be satisfactory. But I should not like the House to under-estimate the difficulties, and while, obviously, the shortage of reporters of the accustomed standard cannot be allowed to hold up the despatch of essential Parliamentary business, I do not exclude the possibility that we may have to be prepared for some temporary dilution of the exceptionally high standard of reporting to which we are used, and of which we are proud.

The draft Orders which are on the Paper will give effect to the proposals of the Select Committee. As contemplated in the Government's scheme and in accordance with the Committee's Report, they are in the form of Sessional and not of Standing Orders. I think that it will be agreed that this is right at the present stage at any rate for the time being, until we get experience. For one thing the Select Committee's inquiry is not yet wholly completed. Apart from this there may be advantages in not being too rigid for the time being. The Resolutions provide a workmanlike scheme which should result in a material overall saving of Parliamentary time. But we shall, on a number of points, be breaking new ground, especially as regards the application of the Guillotine procedure to standing committees, and we shall have to learn how to work the new machinery. It would be surprising if snags and difficulties which have not been foreseen did not arise, and we must be ready to make improvements if necessary as we go along.

The Select Committee now go on to the second and more general stage of their inquiry. I will not anticipate the further evidence which the Committee will, no doubt, wish to receive from the Govern- ment, but I am sure that all sections of the House will join with me in wishing them well in their work. Their task is as difficult as it is responsible and important. Briefly, it may be said that it is to review the procedure of the House in the light of the legislative and other demands of a changing society, in which economic problems will necessarily take up more and more of the time of Parliament and Government alike. As I have said before, one of the great merits of our Parliamentary system, is, however, the flexibility of its procedure, and its capacity to adapt itself to changing circumstances. I am, therefore, confident that a satisfactory solution can be found for the problem of reconciling the need for effective Parliamentary control with the efficient discharge of the nation's business.

I wish the Select Committee well in their labours. I am sure that in approaching them, they will combine all the reverence which is due to the great traditions of the House with a bold and imaginative determination to adapt its procedure to present day needs. Once more, I thank the Select Committee for the speed and ability of their labours and I trust that the Motions on the Order Paper will be generally acceptable to the House.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

In all parts of the House we would wish to associate ourselves with the Leader of the House in what he has said in respect of the work done by the Select Committee, so far, in their terms of reference. I wish to deal with two aspects of this question; first certain points of importance on detail in relation to a report which has come to us, and secondly, observations I would wish to make on the results which may flow from the acceptance of this Committee's report. For my part, I cannot take exception to the principle that a greater measure of work and responsibility should be given to Standing Committees of the House and that there should be more Standing Committees, but I would add this proviso—if we have Standing Committees of 50 or less dealing with major Measures sent, after Second Reading, from this House, those Committees cannot be fully representative of the House politically, geographically or industrially. However well we arrange matters it is impossible to contrive that. I think the right hon. Gen- tleman would agree that it flows from that that there will have to be more discussion on Report stage of major Measures than there have been hitherto. I am not saying that in any obstructive sense, but because we have always attached, and must attach great importance to minority views being expressed in this House. You cannot get, on a Standing Committee, full representation of minority views and at the Report stage they must have their chance.

Let me take an example of how differently matters may turn out on a National Insurance Bill for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland affecting everyone in the House and a housing Measure, applicable to England and Wales, requiring only a much smaller representation on the Committee. It would be a good practice that these Standing Committees could have a high number limit, and the higher the number limit, the less time you would have to devote on Report stage probably, to the Measure when it came back to the House. I notice that the phrase used about the only Bills which are to be retained on the Floor of the House is "Measures of first-class constitutional importance. "I do think that is a very difficult definition to apply. The Government and their supporters have often reminded us in the past, and I think rightly reminded us—and the Foreign Secretary used the same argument only the other day—that in the modern world economic affairs are interwoven with and of equal importance to political affairs. I am not sure but that a Bill which affects the whole economic life of the country is not just as important as a Bill which raises even a grave constitutional issue. I do not know, it may be so. What I suggest to the Government is that in interpreting this phrase "first-class constitutional issue" the inter-relation of economics and politics that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary reminded us of a little time ago should be borne in mind.

I want to make a further reference to this question of small minorities. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is not here this afternoon, because I have often heard him eloquent on this subject. It seems to me, and older hon. Members will, I think, agree, that one of the great values of our discussions has always been that we have given full weight and opportunity to minority opinion in this House. The present Speaker and his predecessors in the Chair, have always been extremely careful in this matter. Indeed, it is the richness of our Parliamentary life that minority opinion has its chance. It was said of a certain lady—glamorous in a different connection from the Mother of Parliaments—that Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety. One likes to think that that is true of Parliament and that infinite variety applies to our discussions. That is one of the things which troubles me in the Committee system, because you cannot hope to get in the Committee discussions that infinite variety which you get when the whole House is meeting. I am seeking to warn the House of one or two dangers which I see latent in the system.

The Leader of the House spoke about the problem of accommodation. I have no doubt whatever that the Select Committee are ready, difficult although I know it will be to fulfil it, to see that Standing Committees are held in the precincts of Westminster. Hon. Members may be members of more than one Committee—certainly the Law Officers will be busy moving from one to another, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his restraint in not seizing the opportunity to appoint another Law Officer. I think he is quite right; if Ministers circulate statements instead of making them, they will all have a little more time. But I think it is quite essential that we should all work in this building, which is the only place in which we can work, and there are questions of principle which would arise if we had to meet elsewhere—

Mr. Gallacher (West Fife)

All except one—the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Eden

The hon. Member has that Scottish bee in his bonnet.

I would like to say one word about the timetable in connection with these Standing Committees. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this was a complete innovation in connection with the work of our Standing Committees and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House feel the gravest doubts as to the need for this arrangement. May I draw the attention of the House to page 6 of the report of the Committee, to the passage which describes the extra time which is now to be available for discussion of Bills in Committee? This is the position that arises: …if seven Standing Committees were appointed and sat regularly from Christmas to the Summer Recess, they would be able to accomplish about three and a half times as much work as has been done in Standing Committees on an average in the past, or about two and one-third times the amount in the heaviest recorded Session. It would thus appear that, on the existing basis of two Sittings a week, increased by the proposed additional half hour, there would be time to deal with any volume and Bills which could be put through their other stages on the Floor of the House. What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter, to which we attach most importance in this discussion, is that we shall be glad if he can give us a reassurance. I think it is desirable since we are making this innovation, and it is, indeed, of the first importance, that we should give it a fair trial, in entrusting the Committees with more important Bills than they have had before. We should not start from the assumption that there is going to be, to call it bluntly, obstruction, in the Committees. My request, therefore, is that Standing Committees shall be given a chance to work their way through these Bills, and that there shall not be a time-table imposed until discussion has revealed that there is a case for such a timetable.

An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but I would say with respect that I have sat on these Standing Committees and that I believe the Government will get on more quickly if they do not start in each case with a fixed time-table in advance. If you place before a Standing Committee this time-table you may find that it is a habit of the Standing Committee to use all the time-table. On the other hand, in many cases, even in the last week or two in point of fact, Bills have gone through Standing Committee with great rapidity, greater rapidity perhaps than if there had been a time-table to work to.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

One Bill went through the Committee in two hours.

Mr. Eden

That emphasises the point I am making. While I think that is of merit and significance in this House, if we are to agree that these major Bills should go to a Standing Committee, I would only ask the Government to give it a fair chance of being tried out. If they find that the Bills are not making progress and if, as is possible—though so far I gather that it has not been the case—the Opposition take up more time than the Government, the Government can come and explain to the House. I hope that the Government will give us a real assurance on this point.

Now I would say one word about the Chairmen. It is desirable not to mix up the position of Chairman with decisions about the work and the programme of the Standing Committee. I know that some Members, like the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew), who have had a long experience on the Chairman's panel, are reluctant to be drawn into a discussion on how the time of the Committee should be parcelled out. I suggest that that is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government might give a little more consideration.

There does not seem to be provision here to deal with the absence of a quorum on a given day, should that absence entail the loss of a Sitting. The House will understand that it is a different position in Standing Committee from when we are discussing a Measure in Committee of the Whole House. In the first place, the difficulty of a quorum in the Whole House is nothing like so great as in the Standing Committee, and if we have the Guillotine Procedure on the Floor of the House it is for so many allotted days. In the Standing Committee you would be working to a given date, and if there is not a Quorum and a day is lost, it is clear that the date should be put back accordingly. That is a point which I should like to see dealt with. My hon. Friends have an Amendment on the Paper to deal with it.

To sum up, I want to say, in general, about these proposals, that how they work out in practice will much depend upon how the Government apply them. I read last night to refresh my memory a speech which seemed to me to put very well the anxieties which some of us feel about these changes. Perhaps I may quote from a speech, which was made in 1937: This House has never been a mere Assembly for registration. It has never been a mere debating society. It has never been merely the House which the Government use as an instrument of registration. It has never been a House to which the Government say: 'Here is our suggestion. You may take it and say Aye or No.' This House has always taken an active share in legislation. Members have shaped legislation, Members have all shaped legislative proposals. A Bill is brought in. It is discussed in principle, it is taken to the Committee and goes through Report. By the time it has been through those various stages, although it is the Government's Bill it has been framed by the cooperation of Members of the House. Where certain Members oppose a Bill in principle they take an active part in trying to make it workable. Therefore, every Bill that goes through the House becomes in that way the work of the whole House. The importance of that Procedure is that the experience and ideas of Members of the House are brought into the common pool. There is the traditional British method. The democratic method. There is another method which obtains in other countries. In some countries the dictator frames the legislation and submits it to a Grand Council but the Grand Council has no right to say anything but Aye and No and it always says No. There is a danger that this House may be turned into the equivalent of the Fascist Grand Council. Those are very wise words, uttered by the present Prime Minister. I commend them to the Lord President of the Council. I ask nothing more than that the Government, in their interpretation of these new powers, they will observe the spirit and the letter of that statement.

I have one other caution to give the House which I hope I may do without impertinence, and based upon my experience when leading the House. A great deal is being asked of Members by this proposal. They are going to begin to work at half past ten and are going on looking at each other in different places until half past ten at night. That will be a very severe strain to put upon them. I do not know what the consequences will will be, but up to date the only Members of the House who have that kind of experience are those who are called "the usual channels. "They contrive to do that with a smooth efficiency at which we all marvel, but it would be sad if the rest of us became a sort of desiccated usual channel. I think the Government should watch the matter from the point of view of the future personnel of Parliament. I believe the right hon. Member agrees with me that we should lose if it were impossible for those who work outside to attend our deliberations. If we saw nobody but each other we should suffer very much. I am equally sure that others would suffer quite a bit and the value of this House would suffer. How many times have hon. Members experienced it; whatever subject there is under discussion there always seems to be somebody in the House who has had first-hand experience of it. That is something we do not want to lose, but if we all have to work from 10.30 a.m. till 10.30 in the evening we shall lose it, because hon. Members will not be able both to do their work and come to this House. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give all the consideration he can to that point of view.

Finally, a great deal depends upon the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House. He has the great trust and responsibility that he, more than anybody else, is the custodian of the reputation of this House. He will remember the lines which run: He that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed. It is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to a large extent how this experiment will work. It is an experiment for the period of the Session as a Sessional arrangement. If we apply the experiment in the spirit of the quotation which I read to the House, we shall show once more how Parliament can adapt itself; but I ask him in all sincerity that the Government should do it in a manner which takes account of the fact that all parties in the House have a contribution to make, and that unless they are given a chance to make that contribution the machine will not work well, and the nation will suffer.