HC Deb 17 June 1948 vol 452 cc663-6
Colonel Ropner

May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which arises from the current practice followed by all occupants of the Chair except, I think, yourself, Sir, of disregarding—perhaps even contravening—the provisions of Standing Order No. 28? I do not think that I shall alter the meaning of the Standing Order, but rather that it will help me to make my point clear, if I read only the following extract: … in committee of the Whole House or on report, Mr. Speaker, or in committee the chairman of ways and means and the deputy chairman, shall have power to select the new clauses or amendments to be proposed … I would ask you to note that neither Mr. Speaker nor the Chairman of Ways and Means is empowered by the Standing Order to delegate the power of selecting Amendments. There is surely no doubt that the correct or, at any rate, the strict interpretation of this Order, is that, for example, on the Report stage of a Bill, only Mr. Speaker himself or, on the Committee stage, only the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy-Chairman, has the power to select Amendments.

Speaking only for myself, but as a temporary Chairman who has been called upon from time to time to take the Chair when the House is in Committee, I have always been prepared, had I been challenged when exercising the function of selecting Amendments, to assert that the selection had been made previously by the Chairman of Ways and Means and that I was in fact acting on his instructions. That, in truth, is the procedure which is followed. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, if any hon. Member had ever felt inclined to challenge the Chairman of Ways and Means when selecting Amendments on the Report stage of a Bill, I imagine that the Chairman would have claimed that he was acting in accordance with your wishes. But, as I have already said, the Standing Order in fact gives no power to delegate this authority.

I am not suggesting that there should be any change in the current practice but rather that a Ruling from you should regularise it or, if that is beyond your power, that the Standing Order should be amended by the authority of the House.

Finally, I would say that this is no academic matter. It was described to me only this morning rather graphically as a skeleton which has lain in the cupboard of the Table for a number of years. May I, therefore, request the Chair to help the Table to open the cupboard to get rid of the skeleton?

Mr. Speaker

I have—and I hope the House will forgive me—a statement here which I think gives an answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps it is as well to lay it down quite firmly, and then the matter can be considered. I would say that this practice to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers is one which, as far as I know—and my experience goes back for some time—has always been the practice of the House. But I would say that by long-standing practice the Speaker has always decided in advance which Amendments he would call and which he would not select. That is a practice which ensures that, through the selection of the most important Amendments, the time at the disposal of the House shall be occupied in the most profitable manner possible. When the Deputy-Speaker is in the Chair he carries out the decisions of the Speaker and passes over the Amendments which the former has not selected. In Committee of the Whole House, similarly, a Temporary-Chairman in the absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman, carries out the decisions previously arrived at by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

The Standing Order does not expressly lay down this practice, but it certainly permits it. It does not say "no." Indeed, the practice which I have outlined is the only method of working the Standing Order satisfactorily. If the power of selection had to be exercised in relation to each particular Amendment as it was reached, either I should have to return to the Chair whenever an Amendment was reached which it was proposed to pass over, or every Amendment, however trivial and however covered by previous discussion, would have to be called. The whole balance of Debate would be upset and, really, a ridiculous position might be reached. I hope that that puts the matter quite clearly.