STANDING ORDERS (REVISION) (Hansard, 5 July 1948)

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
May I ask the Leader of the House a question which I asked him last Thursday? Will it be competent for this Committee to consider the question of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
No, Sir. The matter that will go before this Select Committee is really one of editing and considering the order and the sequence of existing Standing Orders. The Committee will not be charged with the duty of considering changes in the Standing Orders and I am afraid that the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would involve a material change.

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Motion to adjourn the House was moved before 10 o'clock? Is that in Order, Sir? Hon. Members, in their anxiety to continue the Debate—

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not quite understand what the hon. Member is talking about. We have not moved to adjourn. On the previous Business we have agreed to the Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned," and now we have gone on to the next business.

§ Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)
May I ask the Leader of the House a question regarding the Select Committee? I understood him to say that we are only to meet and edit the existing Standing Orders. I do not know exactly what that means; whether we can cut out or amend some of them. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this Committee cannot take into consideration the question of the Scottish Grand Committee and its place of meeting?

§ Mr. Morrison
The Standing Orders have now existed for over no years and the only point we are suggesting here is that it is desirable for a 168 Committee to consider the editing, the sequence and the order of the existing Standing Orders. It is not proposed to introduce any amendments or new principles into them. It is merely a matter of codification, of editing and revision on the basis of the existing Standing Orders. Therefore, any question of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh—which would, of course, make a material change in the Standing Orders—will be outside the scope of the Select Committee. Therefore, I am afraid that the answer to my hon. Friends from Scotland is that it would not be competent for the Select Committee to deal with those matters and that, if they wish to raise them, they should be raised in some other way.

§ Mr. Scollan
In the event of the suggestion that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Scotland, or of a change in Standing Orders, being out of Order, may I remind the Leader of the House that he led us to believe that we were to be given six days for discussion whereas we are getting only six 2½-hour meetings.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)
May I ask the Leader of the House whether it would be within the competence of this Select Committee to consider Standing Orders as affecting other Select Committees, such as that on Estimates?

§ Mr. Morrison
It can be taken by the House that the Committee will not change the substance of the Standing Orders in any particular. I am not saying that that should never be done, but that is not the purpose of this Committee. No question can arise on this Motion for the Select Committee, of recommending any change in the substance of the Standing Orders. It is merely a matter of editing or sub-editing, whichever hon. Members prefer to say, and re-arranging the order and the sequence of them and that sort of thing. There is no question of changing the substance of the Standing Orders. Therefore, none of these things arise. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Members from Scotland, I doubt whether I should be in Order if I proceeded to deal with it.

§ Mr. Cooper
May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Select Committee will hear evidence on proposals affecting the Standing Orders?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Motion only says "Re-arrangement and re-drafting." That is not "hearing evidence"; it is mainly technical procedure.

§ Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to justify the setting-up of this Committee? It does not seem that a case is made out for a Select Committee if its function is merely to edit or sub-edit and re-draft. Does that mean that the Standing Orders are incomprehensible, very long or unreadable? Is the purpose of editing merely to make them readable by laymen instead of by lawyers? Is any shortening of procedure proposed? If nothing is proposed in the way of altering the wording, what is the purpose of the Committee? Alternatively, is the right hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me for saying so, slipping through some alteration in our procedure? Is he seeking to cut short our procedure for some purpose? I do not feel he has justified the setting up of the Committee if it is as innocent as he makes it out to be.

§ Mr. Morrison
I can assure the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that I have nothing up my sleeve. It is a perfectly straightforward job. What has happened is that the Standing Orders have existed in many forms for more than 100 years. They have been amended from time to time and changed in various respects, and there comes a period when revision and editing are necessary. The hon. Member was once a member of London County Council, as I was. I forget whether he was a member of the General Purposes Committee, but if he was he will remember that about once a quarter the Clerk of the Council put forward amendments to codify and make intelligible the ad hoc amendments. I do not compare Parliament with London County Council, although I have just been there, but it is the same sort of problem. The hon. Member will remember that from time to time the committee recommended the council to revise the standing orders and that did not raise controversy.
It is that kind of thing we are doing, except that these are House of Commons Standing Orders and not local authority standing orders. It is a matter of tidying up and making things more orderly and logical in presentation but without a 170 change in substance. Just as I have had to resist my hon. Friends who wanted to bring in matters which involved questions of substance, so I can assure the hon. Member for Lonsdale that no change in substance is required and he can be assured I am not trying to "pull a fast one" over the House. Indeed, he has known me long enough to know that I would not attempt that.