HC Deb 27 November 1951 vol 494 cc1120-2
Mr. Richard Adams

May I with your permission, Mr. Speaker, raise a matter on business with the Leader of the House, a matter on business affecting all back benchers in the House? Today we have the Committee stage of the Home Guard Bill, while the Report stage and Third Reading are set down for tomorrow, Wednesday. This means that, should our deliberations end at about 10 o'clock, back benchers will have only half an hour in which to put down their reasoned Amendments for the Report stage. But matters may be even worse than that: should our deliberations continue until midnight, or a little later, and the hon. Member who has the Adjournment decide to forgo that privilege—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro

No, certainly not.

Mr. Adams

—out of consideration for the convenience of the House—it would mean that we would have only 30 seconds in which to put down Amendments for the Report stage. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is jealous of the privileges of back bench Members of Parliament, so I ask him to consider deferring the Report stage, perhaps to next week, in order that we may have an opportunity of putting down those Amendments. May I assure him that, if he so wishes, we on this side of the House will be willing to sit a few days later towards Christmas in order to give proper consideration to the matter?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

I am rather surprised at this question because I announced the programme last Thursday, after it had been discussed through the usual channels. The discussions took place on the basis that we wished to help the Opposition in their requirement, as they put it, to have a debate on Christmas food supplies on Thursday and, as a result of that these arrangements inevitably had to be proposed for this week.

I recognise that it might be a little awkward, but it is not at all unusual that this should be done. I remember many occasions during the last Parliament when there was not even a day's interval between the Committee stage and Report stage but the remaining stages were taken on the same day. We must be guided by circumstances and on this occasion I have found time, for which the Opposition asked, and I had hoped that they would support us in trying to get the Bill through.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that on the occasions in question, to which he has referred, when we have taken the Report stage, and Third Reading even, on the same day as the Committee stage, they have been occasions when the House, by general consent, has agreed that there was some urgency involved, whereas here there is no immediate urgency to get this Bill on the Statute Book within a few days.

If there were any urgency the extra time has been offered and, in those circumstances, is there any reason why the House and Mr. Speaker, who has certain duties in connection with the matter, should be put to the inconvenience of having no time at all available between Committee and Report stage in which, first, to put down Amendments and then for Mr. Speaker to have the opportunity of saying which, if any of them, he will call on the Report stage?

Mr. Crookshank

I do not think I could agree with the hon. Member that there is no urgency in this Bill. The Government did consider it urgent and the Opposition were good enough to help us in getting it through this week on this programme.

Mr. Adams

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in drawing on the past for precedents he should only draw on good precedents and not on bad ones and that this precedent of not having any reasonable interval between Committee stage and Report stage is a bad one? May I ask him once again to defer the Report stage on an important constitutional Bill, in order to give everybody an opportunity of putting down Amendments on the Report stage?

Mr. Crookshank

I cannot hold out any hope about that, but I will note what the hon. Member said about precedents, although I must say that it is only from the past that I can draw them.