HC Deb 25 March 1946 vol 421 cc41-4
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)

I have a statement to make to the House as to the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Bill which was recently reported from Standing Committee E. On the last day of the sitting of the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) moved an Amendment to the Bill to leave out sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Schedule. The question was debated for about three-quarters of an hour, and I then moved the Closure. The Committee divided and the Chairman de- clared that the Closure was carried by 17 votes to 11. The Amendment was then put to the vote and declared to be lost by 16 votes to 10. It is, however, provided by Standing Orders that, for a Closure Motion in a Standing Committee to be carried, it is necessary that at least 20 Members should vote in favour of it, and neither the Chairman of the Committee nor any Member noticed at the time that only 17 Members had voted in favour of the Closure on this occasion. It follows that the Closure was improperly declared to be carried, and that the Debate on the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was irregularly brought to a conclusion. I have had an opportunity of consulting you, Mr. Speaker, and I would propose, subject to your views, to move that the Bill be recommitted to the Standing Committee in respect of the Amendment in question. The necessary notice of Motion will appear on the Paper tomorrow. I hope that the House will feel that this course is the correct one.

Mr. Bowles

As I was not Chairman of this Standing Committee, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the Quorum has been reduced from 20 to 15 in the Standing Committee, the consequential rule of that, so far as acceptance by the Chairman of a Standing Committee of a Closure Motion is concerned, will be that the number required has also been reduced to 15?

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that that is not so. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the Quorum was reduced, but I think there was a mistake when the Closure Quorum was overlooked.

Hon. Members

Why?

Mr. Eden

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that I understood your Ruling, as I could not hear what you said. Would you mind telling us again? Did you say there would be a change made now?

Mr. Speaker

I should have thought it was reasonable that the Quorum should be the same as the number required for a Closure Motion, as was always the case in Standing Committees, but this is a matter for the House.

Mr. Eden

May I represent to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is another possible solution which might be more acceptable, and that is, that the Quorum ought to be larger?

Captain Crookshank

As the numbers required for a Quorum and a Closure Motion in the House are not the same, there is no particular reason, surely, why they should not be in the Committee.

Mr. Speaker

This is a matter for the House, when a new Session starts.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

Is not this a clear proof of the farce of the proposal carried out by the Government for dividing the House up into so many small Committees, and is there not, therefore, a case for reconsidering the plan they are now operating?

Mr. Speaker

I did not quite follow the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, at the beginning of this Session, the Government introduced this method of a great many Committees reduced in numbers. This, I suggest, is a direct result of that plan. It would not have happened in the old days, when we had fewer Committees with larger numbers, and I submit that this instance justifies reconsideration of the whole policy.

Mr. Speaker

That is another matter, which can be discussed in the new Session, when we are making the new Sessional Orders.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I take it that you were not speaking ex cathedra in giving that Ruling?

Mr. Speaker

We could not possibly have a new Sessional Order now. I am expressing what was only my own view. I was giving no Ruling.