HC Deb 11 March 1954 vol 524 cc2445-9
Mr. Swingler

I rise to seek your guidance on a question of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the confusion that has arisen in the two previous Estimates debates, last week and this week. The point at issue is what it is in order for hon. Members to speak about on the general Estimates debates, in particular, whether Members, when speaking on the general Estimates of the Service Departments, may refer to detailed questions arising on the particular Votes on the agenda for that day.

It has been the experience on the Navy Estimates and the Air Estimates that certain Members have been ruled out of order by the Chair when they have referred to such detailed questions. They have been told that they must defer consideration of those questions to the Committee stage, because they were Committee points. It is also the experience that, once Vote A has been disposed of, the Government move to report Progress. There is therefore no Committee stage on that occasion when Members may raise these questions. Those Votes are then taken under a Guillotine procedure to which the Chairman of Ways and Means refers in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He there said: It is quite clear under Standing Order 16, as it is now—and it was altered in 1948— that we have a general discussion; when Vote A have been reached the rest can be put through on the Guillotine. At the end of that discussion the Chairman of Ways and Means made a statement about the apparent contradiction between Standing Order No. 16 and what appears in page 713 of Erskine May. He said: I think that the trouble is that the second paragraph on page 713 of Erskine May has not been amended to bring it into line with the new Standing Order. There is a certain contradiction in what is stated there. That is my opinion. There is a certain amount of confusion, but I think if the sixth, seventh and eighth lines were taken out it would bring the paragraph into line with the new procedure." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 2201 and 2209.] This is a question of importance since the Committee stages of these Service Estimates are now all likely to be taken under a Guillotine procedure, which undoubtedly prevents many hon. Members from raising these questions. If hon. Members are severely limited on the general Estimates debates and may not talk about the particular Votes, the result of the new procedure introduced in 1948 has been severely to curtail our discussions.

I therefore ask, with respect, if you will give a Ruling—for our guidance on the debate on the Army Estimates today and for the future procedure of the House —whether you will apply the Standing Order to the present debate and whether, in your opinion, some alteration of our rules is required in order to bring the ruling in Erskine May into line with the amended Standing Order No. 16.

Mr. Speaker

I have given some consideration to this matter in the short time before me. It is a fundamental feature of our proceedings that when a matter goes through two stages —first, a discussion on the principle by the House, and then a further examination in Committee—it is right that the Committee stage should not, so to speak, be taken in the House, or the House stage in Committee, because neither House nor Committee should attempt to usurp each other's functions. That fundamental rule runs through our procedure and it is right that I should draw attention to it.

But I am bound to say that the introduction of the new Standing Order No. 16, in 1948, demands further consideration, because it would not be realistic to ignore the fact that it has been the custom of successive Governments since that day, when in Committee on the Estimates, to secure Vote A and leave the rest to the Guillotine. In this new situation, I have to consider the fundamental rights of the individual Member of the House. It appears to me that the way in which the Standing Order has worked has meant that hon. Members who have points of importance but, it may be, of detail to raise are frequently debarred by the operation of the Guillotine from reaching that Vote in the Committee stage, where, under the strict rules of the House, the discussion on those points would be most properly conducted.

I give it as my Ruling and opinion that so long as that Standing Order is in operation the Chair should be relieved from its obligation to prevent discussion on matters of detail on the general Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I hope that is the common sense of the House in the matter, and that we shall follow that principle in our succeeding debates.

Mr. Swingler

I thank you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will be of very great benefit to individual hon. Members today and in future. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House if some consideration can be given to our rules of procedure so that, if any necessary amendment is required in order to incorporate your Ruling in our procedure, it may be considered at an early date?

Mr. Speaker

It will not be necessary to trouble the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I can interpret the Ruling in that sense, because it is merely practice, and this point has not, I think, been ruled upon since the new Standing Order came into force in 1948. I am within my own province in saying what should be the practice of the House in these new circumstances.

In regard to Erskine May, which is a most admirable work of reference to us all, I shall see that the point I have made is noted and that the learned Editors take account of it when the new edition comes out.

Mr. Wigg

Your Ruling will be welcomed by all who want to take part in the Army Estimates today, Mr. Speaker, but it will help us, and it will make the debates much more orderly, if the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary will undertake not to move to report Progress, otherwise we shall get a mixture of Second Reading and Committee stage debates running through our proceedings. Unless the Leader of the House is able to give us that assurance, our proceedings may be unduly protracted.

Mr. Speaker

The Leader of the House cannot be asked at this stage what may or may not happen when that later stage is reached. I hope that what I have said will adapt the rules of the House to our present position and enable good debates to be held.

Mr. Foot

It would be of great convenience to the House if, in addition to the clarification which you have given us, Mr. Speaker, we also had some statement from the Leader of the House. You have stated that one of the difficulties has arisen because it has been the normal practice for Governments to move to report Progress following the discussion on Vote A, and that was the statement of the Leader of the House on the Motion to report Progress following the debates on both the Navy and Air Estimates.

That may be the ground upon which you, Sir, have stated that that is the normal practice, but it is not the normal practice. In the three years from 1949 to 1951, under the previous Government, there was only one occasion, on one Estimates Vote, when the Government moved to report Progress after the discussion on Vote A. On all the other occasions hon. Members had opportunities to raise points on the individual Votes. Although part of the difficulty has arisen because of the conflict between the new arrangement made in 1948 and the statement in Erskine May, another part of the difficulty has arisen because the Government have insisted in both the recent Estimates debates, on moving to report Progress after the discussion on Vote A, claiming that this was the normal practice when, in fact, it is not, but is an innovation which has been practised on only one occasion in the years to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker

It is a matter for the Committee to decide when it should report Progress. I cannot pursue the point further at this stage.