HC Deb 14 March 1961 vol 636 cc1199-227

3.47 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown

On a point of order. This may be the moment to raise a point of which you have had a little notice, Mr. Speaker.

We are now to proceed to read the Orders of the Day. The second Order appears in the names of some of my hon. Friends and is: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 184), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled. There is also on the Order Paper Item No. 32, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, myself and an hon. Friend of mine, which asks That the Proceedings on the Motion to annul the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 95A. The point of order that I want to raise is a little complicated, and perhaps I may explain it as briefly as I can so that you, Sir, and the House are aware of the point I am raising.

The position seems to be this. Item No. 2 is not Government business. It is a Prayer, to table which any hon. Member in the House has the right conferred upon him by the parent Statute under which the relevant Regulation is made. In 1957, Standing Order No. 95A was agreed to, with the result that debates on Prayers became limited to a fixed period at the end of business. Recently, that fixed period has tended to be eaten into and has become, particularly on the last occasion, of which you, Sir, will be aware, notably less. On that occasion, the Minister had no effective time to reply, and hon. Members connected with the Prayer thought that they had no effective time to develop their arguments, because of an intervention from the other side, about which I make no complaint.

Standing Order No. 95A opens by saying that Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order:— (1) No proceedings on a motion … shall be entered upon… There the House clearly implied that the House may otherwise order that the proceedings on such a Prayer may continue. Item No. 32 on the Order Paper invites the House otherwise so to order in respect of the Motion which is down for tonight, and, in parenthesis, I should like to say that, effectively, tonight is the last night on which that Motion can, in fact, be taken.

I am putting this to you, Sir, as the protector of the rights of minorities, all minorities, whether the organised official Opposition or just a group or an individual Member. The Government have claimed the right to organise the order in which the business—the Orders of the Day—is stated such a way that the Motion which is to be taken tonight has become separated from the Motion inviting the House otherwise to order that it might be exempted from the Standing Order.

It appears that it is Standing Order No. 14 which confers—so they claim—this right upon the Government. As this is quite important, I draw your attention, Sir, to the terms of Standing Order No. 14, which says: The orders of the day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the paper; and, but for interference and reorganisation, the time Motion would have followed the other. It goes on: the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers "— and these, I think, are the important words— of arranging government business, whether orders of the day or notices of motions, in such order as they may think fit. I am not disputing that Her Majesty's Ministers have the right clearly conferred upon them under that Order to arrange Government business. What has, in fact, happened here is that Her Majesty's Ministers have claimed the right to arrange the business of the House, to arrange the business of the Opposition, to arrange the business specifically conferred upon us by Standing Order No. 95A and by the parent Statute of these Regulations. They have claimed the right so to rearrange our business that they have, in effect, made a farce of the whole proceedings. There is clearly no point in moving a Motion asking that the proceedings on a Motion to be moved today shall be exempt if consideration of that Motion cannot take place until weeks or months in time after the event. It has to take place today. Neither item is Government business. The Prayer is not Government business, and the invitation to the House to reconsider the question of time is not Government business. Standing Order No. 14 clearly permits them only to arrange Government business, and yet, in fact, the business of the House, the business of this side of the House and the business of individual Members, has been interfered with by putting in between the two Motions Orders of the Day which, I submit, cannot be taken today.

This may be the first occasion on which this point has been raised. Nevertheless, with respect, Sir, we regard it as a very important issue, and I should be very glad if, without going further into it at this stage, although there may be further points to make, you would give your Ruling on the issue of the Government's intervention relating to Standing Order No. 14 in what clearly is not Government business.

Mr. Speaker

I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucidity with which he has put this matter, and for giving me some warning about it. I confess that I feel great difficulty in helping him regarding two matters as binding upon me and the House.

One is the Sessional Order whereby, subject to exceptions in favour of private Members' time, and so forth, the Government have, in effect, taken possession of the time of the House, to put it baldly like that.

With regard to Standing Order No. 14, which has just been cited to me, as a matter of strict rule, under our Standing Orders, the Government were not obliged to find time for either of what we would call Prayers—Item No. 2 on today's Order Paper or Item No. 32—and are under no obligation, so far as order is concerned—I do not talk about other considerations—to find time for either, but they have found, apparently, as Governments always do, time or space for providing time for the Prayer on a day when they have the disposition of ail the time; probably because it would be making a farce of a Prayer if they did not find the time for it within the provision of praying time under the Statute.

I cannot find, within the rules of order, an equivalent obligation for them to find time for what is, although in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members, a Private Member's Motion, an ordinary Motion put forward by an individual Member, as opposed to Government business, on the Order Paper. That is why I do not think that I have any power to help the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, in which I find no procedural impropriety in what has happened.

Mr. G. Brown

May I pursue that with you, Mr. Speaker? If, in effect, that is so, is it not a fact that we should then really have no rights at all, although our Standing Orders, our procedure and the Statutes which we have passed purport to confer those rights upon us? There are two points, and there is also one to which I say, with great respect, you have not given an answer.

On the question of the Government not being bound by the rules of order to find time for this or any other Motion, it would mean that the Government could, in that way, simply block all Prayers for all the 40 days during which the right to pray against them has been conferred upon us by various Acts of Parliament which we have passed. This would make an absolute nonsense of our machinery. It may be that this has grown up over the centuries as a convention rather than as a matter of Standing Orders, but we must now surely accept that it is built into our procedure that when hon. Members wish to pray the Government arrange that the Prayer is taken on a convenient day.

That brings me to the point with which, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you dealt, namely, the question of Standing Order No. 95A. That Standing Order clearly states that it is "the House" which may otherwise order in relation to a restriction of time. It does not put any limitation on the matter. It does not refer to any invitation on the part of the Government. How does the House otherwise order unless it is open to somebody to move that it should do so? After such a Motion the House is free not to so order; it is free to decide to negative the Motion. But somebody must be free to move that the House otherwise orders, and to make any sense of it somebody must be free to move it in time for it to have some relevance to the Motion to which one wishes to attach it; otherwise it, is a nonsense. It therefore seems that the two Motions must be taken together.

I respectfully ask you to give your Ruling on the way we could otherwise order if, in fact, by merely monkeying with the Order Paper the Government can so detach a Motion from another Motion to which it refers as to make it quite irrelevant and out of time, and, therefore, ridiculous.

My last point concerns Standing Order No. 14, which deals only with Government business. There must be a meaning to our phrases when we adopt them. The Standing Order does not reserve to Her Majesty's Ministers the right to arrange all the business on the Order Paper, whether Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion. If it had meant that it would surely have said so. It very strictly and definitely says that it reserves to Her Majesty's Ministers simply the business of arranging Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motion —and ours do not fall into those categories.

As for the Sessional Order, I submit that that must fall to be considered against the other rights—and I gathered by the way you inclined your head, Mr. Speaker, that you saw the point when I argued it. If we have the right to pray we must have the time to pray. It would be ridiculous to say that we had the right without the time. Therefore, I do not think that the point about the Sessional Order puts me out, and with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker—and this is not my field—I do not think from what I have heard so far that either Standing Order No. 14, restricted as it is to Government business, or Standing Order No. 95A, conferring on the House the right otherwise to order, was covered in your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker

I should be happy if I could hope to carry right hon. and hon. Members with me all the time. I have to do the best I can. I do not think that I enabled the right hon. Gentleman to understand my view about the meaning of Standing Order No. 14 in this context. I suppose that there would be no reason, other than what the right hon. Gentleman called the convention which has grown up, to put a Prayer on the Order Paper at all, when one is looking at the terms of Government obligations. They do it obviously because the right to pray should exist.

But it is not a question of arranging somebody else's business or something other than Government business; it is a question of putting into a day when the Government have the right to allocate all the business something which is not Government business, namely, a Prayer. That is how it strikes me, and that is the answer that I was seeking to make to the right hon. Gentleman on that part of his submission.

As to the rest of his argument, it may be that under our Standing Orders there are things which can be done only by, or with the consent of, the Government of the day. It may be a misfortune that that should be so, but I would not feel justified in deducing, as a matter of construction from the fact that the opening words of Standing Order 95A refer to an opportunity for the House otherwise to order, any conferring of a power upon anyone other than the majority of the House otherwise to order. I would not think that that followed from the terms of our procedure.

If we had wished to have that altered in some way to make a different situation plain we should have worded the Standing Order in some other manner, because we pass on from that to the Sessional Order, dealing with the business of the House, which begins: save as provided in…this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session. The result of that is that the Government put in their business today, and the Prayer, which is not their business, and they do not include anything else. They do not include—and in my belief, as a matter of procedure, they do not have to include—the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to remove the Prayer from the provisions of Standing Order No. 95A.

Mr. Mitchison

It would, therefore, follow that the Government were entitled to treat the Prayer itself in the same way and to put before it the 20 or 30 Measures which now appear on the Order Paper. If that is the position, the only thing that prevents them from so doing is the convention that Prayers should receive a hearing. If there is such a convention about Prayers I suggest that it has at any rate some bearing on the question of the time for Prayers. If we consider what was originally a Sessional Order and is now Standing Order No. 95A we have to bear in mind that the Standing Orders do not cover everything in the procedure of the House and that, in particular, practice has always allowed Prayers to be heard.

Therefore, when we consider what the phrase "except as otherwise ordered" means, we tend to reject what would be the practice on your Ruling, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, namely, that only a member of the Government can effectively obtain the extension of time, since if the Government are right in doing what they have sought to do in this case it will prevent anyone but a member of the Government—unless the Government so wish—from obtaining an extension. I suggest that when Standing Orders intend to give that result they say so. The commonest instance occurs in relation to Standing Order No. 1, where an extension of time has to be moved by a member of the Government. The reference is on page 4 of the printed Standing Orders, Standing Order No. In (2). It would have been quite easy to say so if that had been the intention.

The Government are relying on their powers under Standing Order No. 14. I respectfully submit that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that that doubtless gives them the power to put Government business where they choose, but it does not give them the power—unless it must be so implied, and I suggest that it need not be—to interfere with other public business. This is not private Members' business; this is public business, taken on a public day. If the annulment of Ministerial Orders is not public business, I do not know what is. In the nature of the case it usually comes from someone other than a member of the Government, but it is still public business.

What they have done in this case is to take two matters which were put on the Order Paper together and introduce a Government sandwich of about 20 or 30 pieces of legislation which they do not hope or intend to reach during the day. I suggest that that is a misuse of the rules of the House, even if I am wrong on the strict construction, and will have the effect of depriving the Opposition, or other private Members who wish to raise these matters, of the opportunity of extending the time which Standing Order 95A clearly contemplated. As regards the burden being on us to show that we are not covered by the provisions, it is really, on the sense of the matter and by comparison with other Orders and procedure in other matters, for whoever seeks to use Standing Order No. 14 in that way to show that he can do it. I suggest that the Government ought not to be allowed to do it.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate the force of what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I feel great difficulty about this. It may be that we shall have to consider whether we want to alter the terms of Standing Order 95A to show that it means something else, but I have to try to work it as it is.

I think that it is quite clear that the Government of the day are entitled, on a day when they have control of time, to put down what they are prepared to have taken and to put it down, unfortunately, in any order they like. With respect, as a point of order I do not feel that I can assist the hon. and learned Gentleman about this.

The sanction for conduct of this kind, as it would be for failing to put in a Prayer during prayable time, is political and not a matter of order. That is what I feel about it. That is why I feel that I cannot assist.

Mr. Mitchison

If it is a question of how to do it, surely the right way to do it is at the time, before or after the Prayer is taken, and then to allow a vote on what is really a Motion entirely ancillary to the Prayer, that is to say, the Motion about the extension of time.

Mr. Speaker

That is most attractive, but Standing Order 95A does not indicate any such procedure or opportunity for such procedure. It may be that we shall have to amend it to get that right.

Mr. S. Silverman

This is obviously a very difficult point on the interpretation of the Standing Order. I submit, with respect, that if a Standing Order, or more than one, is capable reasonably of more than one interpretation, then that interpretation will be preferred which is consistent with the Statute rather than an interpretation which would defeat the Statute.

The right to pray against a Regulation made under a Statute is itself part of that Statute, and to put my right hon. Friend's point in its simplest form perhaps one could put it in its most extreme form. I am not saying that it is this case, but a Government who were sufficiently ill-willed or malicious could, on this interpretation of the Standing Order, defeat that part of the Statute which allows Prayers against Regulations by adopting this kind of procedure on every occasion. Therefore, it would amount to a possibility, by administrative action of that kind, of repealing a part of a Statute without legislation to repeal it. That would be the effect if this were the only possible interpretation of the Standing Orders and functions to which my right hon. Friend referred.

I agree entirely that if that is the only interpretation we must make the best of it and try to cure it in some other way, but I think what my right hon. Friend was submitting was that it was equally reasonable, or, at any rate, reasonable, to interpret it in the other way so as to be consistent with the Statute rather than hostile to it. If that were so, would it not be right to interpret the Standing Order in the way in which my right hon. Friend desired it to be interpreted?

Mr. Speaker

I can only say that one ought to bear in mind that the position about Prayers and praying is not altered by the introduction of Standing Order 95A. It has always been like that and always, in my belief, was dependent on what I say is virtually a convention that the Government of the day must allow opportunity for the Prayer.

Mr. Paget

The only point which I wanted to question was whether it was allowed only by convention. Surely the Government and the House, and, indeed, everybody within this realm other than the Sovereign herself, is subject to the law. The law in this case provides that an Order made under the Statute may be prayed against within 40 days. If that be frustrated, it is the law which is frustrated and in my submission, therefore, this is not granted by the Government as a matter of convention but because the law so requires.

If the position be that the law requires it, then one has to look at Standing Order 95A in a different light because that becomes the procedure for what the law requires. Therefore, since time is limited only if the House does not otherwise provide, by implication—and I say "implication"—the opportunity to consider whether it shall otherwise provide is a part of the procedure for what is not granted by the Government as a favour, but because the law requires it. That is my first point.

My second point is with regard to the words of Standing Order No. 14, because that Standing Order says that this is Government time. In my submission, that is a loose expression. It is time during which the Government have the right to claim priority for their business That is all that Government time means.

There are two kinds of business. There is ordinary business, and there is exempted business. The Government

have claimed the time for ordinary business, arid when ordinary business is concluded then, in my submission, exempted business comes on. They have the power to arrange—this is the second power; the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Government—Government business, but the preceding words are: The Orders of the Day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand… The order in which they stand is the order in which they were put down. The order in which they were put down was that the Motion for the suspension preceded the Prayer. In my submission, they come down in that order.

When one comes into the exempted category that is Government business for which they claim priority, they have no right to change the order of the exempted business if that happens not to be Government business. They have not claimed priority for any Government business which is exempted, and so the non-Government business, that is, the private Members' business, remains in that order and the first words of Standing Order No. 14 apply when one gets to the exempted part of the business.

Mr. Speaker

It is difficult in the working. The distinction between exempted and not exempted business may be misleading. Listening to the hon. and learned Member, I could not help remembering that the Government can render business which would not otherwise be exempted into exempted business if they chose, whether it be Government or other business, at any time.

Mr. Paget

Only by vote of the House.

Mr. Speaker

The difficulty here is that the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, Item No. 32, the Business of the House Motion, is not exempted business. So, supposing these matters ought to arise after ten o'clock, as, in practice, they would, it would only be the Prayer which I can conceive could be taken then because the right hon. Gentleman's Motion could not be taken then, not being exempted business if opposed. It seems to get into great difficulty in that situation.

I hope that I am right about this. I do not think that the Government have been rearranging other people's business. I think that they have arranged their own business and included in a day in which they could dispose of all the time the Prayer which is exempted business. I am sorry that I have this difficulty. I wish that it were possible in some sensible way to get time to consider this matter, but I cannot because this is the last praying day for this Prayer.

Mr. Gaitskell

What you have just said seems, with respect, Sir, to make awful nonsense of parts of Standing Order No. 95A, because it seems that since a Motion which it is agreed by all that the Opposition are entitled to put down to suspend the rule under 95A is in order, nevertheless, it cannot be taken after ten o'clock. It could, therefore, only be taken before ten o'clock and exactly when it could come I do not know. That is the first point I put. Suppose that were so and all other difficulties were removed, what is the position?

The second point I should like to make is this. I think that the burden of your Ruling as I understand it is this. You concede our right to put down this Motion under No. 95A and you admit, I think, that so far as Standing Order No. 14 is concerned it relates to Government business only, but you say that under the Sessional Order the Government, in effect, have the right to detach the Motion we have put down which, of course, is related to the Prayer, and to sandwich between it and the Prayer a lot of other Government business which they have no intention of taking today, but which has been put down to prevent our Motion being considered.

The point I want to put to you is this, Mr. Speaker. You go on to say that so far as the rules of order are concerned you do not think that you can help us, but I think that you appreciate the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I suggest that there have been occasions in the past when Mr. Speaker has indicated to the Government what his views are on the appropriateness or otherwise of their action in connection with matters of this kind. When Mr. Speaker has indicated his views the Government have taken notice of them.

If I may refer to page 393 of Erskine May, there is an interesting paragraph there which I should like to read to you, because it gives a very good illustration of this particular point. It says: On 25 November 1952 the House was unexpectedly counted out towards the end of the first two days debate on the second reading of the Iron and Steel bill, a major government measure, which thus became a dropped order. After the rising of the House, notice of motion in the name of the leader of the House to revive the order for second reading was permitted be placed on the notice paper for the next sitting, while the dropped order was printed in italics as first order of the day. Next day, in reply to the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker said that this practice was not without precedent after an unexpected interruption of business, by a count or by adjournment for grave disorder or some other cause. This is the special sentence to which I wish to refer. Mr. Speaker went on to indicate, however, that it might be thought inappropriate, in the case of contentious business, to proceed with such a motion. In view of the Speaker's guidance the Government did not move the motion and the House continued with other business on the order paper. I submit that when the Opposition have officially put down a Motion—I believe that this is the first occasion when this has been done—effectively to suspend Standing Order No. 95A it is wrong for the Government to prevent the House from considering such a Motion and that they are misusing the Sessional Order when they deliberately separate a Motion of the kind I have mentioned from a Prayer.

I ask you whether you would not feel that in those circumstances, since this raises a very important matter of the rights of the Opposition and the minority in this House, you should indicate to the Government your view that it is not in accordance with the spirit of the House that there should be this business separating the Prayer from the suspension Motion which obviously goes with it. Of course, if the Government were prepared themselves to change the order of business no doubt that would be equally effective, but if you could reply to that we would all be very grateful.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have liked this to have arisen on an occasion when we could mutually contrive some more time for considering it, but I do not know now any way in which the Government could change the order of today's business so as to attain the result for which the Leader of the Opposition is at this moment asking. I have not got that in mind. I should hope that long before this point arises again we shall all have had an opportunity of considering it further, as I myself would wish to do, but, in view of the fact that this is the last praying day in respect of this Prayer, I think that a pronouncement from me before further consideration condemning or applauding anyone would be quite inappropriate, because I do not think that it would contain any practical result for the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I should like to endorse your Rulings, the correctness of which I think there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker. In so far as you have said that you would have preferred more time to consider this matter, I think we all agree, although I believe that you have been given notice of it.

Two considerations arise which are of great interest. One is the time for Prayers and the second the sundering or separation of the Opposition Motion from Item No. 2 of the Orders of the Day, which relates to the Prayer. On the first point, I think that I can give a categorical assurance that so little is it the desire of the Government to check the time for Prayers that we gave half a day on 13th February when these Prayers could have been taken much earlier. There might not have been time for all the Prayers on that occasion, but so keen are we to preserve the ordinary constitutional rights that we made that exceptional decision. This Prayer was accepted and taken later and now we have reached the last day. So obviously constitutional do we wish to be that we have put the item down so that it can be taken as a Prayer and governed by Standing Order No. 95A.

There is no intention or desire on the part of the Government to prevent the Opposition moving Prayers. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), constitutionally it would not be proper to do so. I think that that answers his point and the doubts which have been raised. If any doubts were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) as to the Government's desire to hear Prayers moved they are absolutely removed.

We now come to the original suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and Item No. 32, that Standing Order No. 95A should be suspended and that we should have extra time for this Prayer. I give a perfectly honest answer to this. The Government considered this and decided that Standing Order No. 95A was come to as an agreement after the Select Committee of 1954, some years ago, and by agreement between the two sides of the House. That is the way in which our Standing Orders are made. We say frankly that the unilateral attempt—if I may use such a controversial phrase—to alter the Standing Order by the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it alters the whole sense of the Standing Order by suspending the time, and the whole object of the Order was to give limited time for consideration of Prayers.

We do not think that is a suitable way of doing it. If the Opposition wish to discuss these matters with us the whole question arises, which you have put from the Chair, Sir, whether the purport of Standing Order No. 95A has to be amended or not.

I claim that it should not be altered —and this is the considered view of the Government—by a Motion put on the Order Paper which seeks to extend the time for it, thereby removing the purpose of Standing Order No. 95A. We are not only governed by Standing Order No. 14, but I claim that we are also governed by Standing Order No. 4 on Government business.

I claim that we are observing the ordinary rules of the House by trying to preserve constitutional methods. If hon. Members want the Standing Orders to be altered, this is the ventilation of an argument which will give us an opportunity of considering this point, and if the Opposition want to pursue it further they may approach us and ask for further discussion.

Mr. G. Brown

This is a most remarkable argument to advance. The argument is now from the Government side and not the one that you, Mr. Speaker, raised or anticipated when answering our earlier points from this side of the House. The Government are now saying that they had sundered the two Motions. They had in fact deliberately rearranged the business of the House, not the business of the Government, and they did it because, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, in their considered judgment they took a deliberate decision to show the Opposition that the Opposition could not do something they wanted to do.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the whole origin of our point of order to you. We submit that it is not for the Government, under Standing Order No. 14, to take a considered deliberate decision to so rearrange the business that we are entitled to put down that we cannot achieve what the Standing Order clearly empowers us to achieve.

It is not, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in accord with the Standing Order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this side of the House is unilaterally seeking to alter the Order. What are we asking to be allowed to do? We are pleading with you, Sir, as the protector of our rights, to enable us to operate an order. The agreed Order clearly starts: Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order. You, Sir, used an interesting phrase earlier in this discussion. You said that you must take that to mean, "unless otherwise stated", as the majority may order. How can we test what is the majority when we cannot put the Motion?

It does not follow that on every issue affecting the rights of the House and of hon. Members that the Home Secretary can simply announce a decision of the Government and be sure of carrying a majority with him. Of course, we take your point, Sir, that "as the House may otherwise order" clearly means as the House, by a majority, may otherwise order. If the House, by majority, may otherwise order the House must have the right to try for a majority.

The Home Secretary seems to be losing patience with us, but with great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is he who is trying the patience of this side of the House very far. We agreed between the two sides of the House in 1957 on this Standing Order. If we had meant to agree, and if the Government had meant to ask us to agree, that only the Government could invite the House to otherwise order, those are the words that would have appeared in that Motion, or—and the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of this than I have—maybe those words were suggested but not accepted and maybe that is why the Order appears in the form in which it does. Therefore, far from our unilaterally seeking to alter the Order, the Government are unilaterally preventing the Order in the form in which they agreed it with us.

I submit that the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman is quite impermissible. It really reinforces all that we said to you, Mr. Speaker—and I have to put it back in your lap, as you are our protector here—that what the right hon. Gentleman has contrived to do, not by accident, not by misunderstanding but, as he was bold enough to tell us, by deliberate, considered action is to take our rights away from us. The proceedings of the House as provided for in the Orders have been made nonsense.

Mr. R. A. Butlerindicated dissent.

Mr. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman indicates that that is not so. It is nonsense, because we cannot do what the House intended us to be able to do, that is, to take a Prayer when we wished to pray and to invite the House to exempt that Prayer from the limitations of time. The Government have deliberately abrogated our rights and we have to ask you, Sir, how we are to obtain those rights.

The difficulty is that this Prayer cannot be postponed until tomorrow or the day after, but the Government have put us in the jam. They have again shown that contempt for Parliament which they have been showing so very often.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker—and when you say that you would like to have had time to consider this, which is what one would expect—to consider deeply how we are to get back our rights if the Government, for some reason of their own, are unwilling to allow us, or enable us, or permit us to move Item No. 32 standing on the Order Paper. It seems to me, Sir, to be too important a situation to be left where it is and we ask for your help in this matter, particularly having regard to your own phrase that Standing Order No. 95A means unless the House, by majority, otherwise order it. All that we are seeking to do is to test the majority on this matter.

Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I try to tidy up the matter, because we must not waste too much time about this, although its importance is great. [HON. MEMBERS: "Waste time?"] I am sorry, I did not mean "waste"; I meant spend time. I do not wish to get involved in observations addressed from one side of the House to the other on this matter.

I hope that I have already made it plain that I should myself welcome time, if it were available, to consider this point further, but it is not in relation to this Prayer. I hope that we can take it before this point arises again. I do not know of any means within my power in the Chair by which I can help the right hon. Gentleman to obtain this day the decision of the House as to whether or not it wishes to exempt the Prayer from Standing Order No. 95A. I do not know of any means by which I can do it.

If the House will consider the position with me for a moment, it will see that I cannot exempt the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no power to do it. All the time is already occupied, by Order indeed, up to the end of the time for opposed business. Even if I had some means whereby to alter the position of the Motion on the Order Paper, to interpose it at some other point, I could not then exempt it.

I do not see by what means in my power I can meet the request of the right hon. Gentleman. That is really why I have great difficulty in knowing what I can do to help at this stage. I have indicated that I should welcome an opportunity to consider what, if anything, should be done in relation to Standing Order No. 95A and providing machinery for it to be put into effect in circumstances like this.

Mr. Ede

I respect what you have just said to us, Mr. Speaker. Out of experience which I had in dealing with Prayers ten years ago, when the Opposition of those days were moved to an excess of piety which was embarrassing to everyone in the House, I wish to make a suggestion which would require the cooperation of the Leader of the House, on the assumption that he would like the Prayer to be taken.

We have already decided that business other than Business of Supply may be taken before ten o'clock. Therefore —this will involve some sacrifice on this side of the House, for a start—I suggest that there should be agreement that we end business of Supply some minutes at least before ten o'clock. Then, presumably, Item No. 2, the Prayer, will be called. It could then be moved that Iten No. 2, the Prayer, be taken after Item No. 32, the Motion to suspend Standing Order No. 95A. This sort of thing has been done.

Of course, in the ordinary way, when we reach the line which is ruled across the Order Paper at the end of what we expect to be the day's business, a junior Whip rises to his feet and makes his customary oration of the day to move, "That this House do now adjourn". He is not compelled to do it. Item No. 3, Ways and Means, Committee, would be called. The junior Whip concerned would say, "Tomorrow". So we could go through all the Orders of the Day, ultimately arriving at Item No. 32, the Motion that the Standing Order be suspended. This was well thought out by the Conservative Party when I was leading the House ten years ago.

Item No. 32 would be called. Assuming that the Leader of the House meant what he said when he spoke just now, he, having shown his power and proved what a giant's power it is, would then be able to show that he knew how to use it wisely. Item No. 32 could be moved formally by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or whomsoever he cared to delegate for that high responsibility, and it could be put and disposed of before 10 o'clock. Then, in accordance with what had been said when Item No. 2, the Prayer, was called, we could go back to Item No. 2. Both sides of the House having learned their lesson, we might then have the conversations between the two sides of the House which have been suggested. We should have our Prayer discussed. The Government would have proved that we do it by their grace and favour—and for once we might even be grateful to them—and we could, I hope, have a proper discussion of the matter between the two sides of the House.

In all the difficulties of 1951, there was never a Prayer missed which the Opposition wished to move. Even on the night when, with assistance previously given to me by the then Clerk of the House, I found a way of disposing of the Prayers put down for that occasion, I gave a pledge that they would all be discussed before the 40 days expired.

On the assumption that the Leader of the House does not wish to prevent the moving of the Prayer and that he does desire that it should be discussed adequately when we have the chance, I make that suggestion. There is no copyright in it but, on the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman does desire that the Prayer shall be discussed, although he has proved to us that he can prevent us from discussing a Prayer if he wishes to, I hope that he will agree that the two sides of the House can accept that this procedure may be adopted.

Mr. Blackburn

I do not follow entirely the idea advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I am more inclined to agree with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that today, at any rate, nothing can be done about this, although I think that it is such an important matter for the House that the discussion has been very valuable.

In my view, the Leader of the House has put forward an entirely new doctrine this afternoon in suggesting that a Standing Order cannot be suspended. We do it every week. Obviously, Standing Order No. 95A can, in certain circumstances, be suspended.

It is important not only that these Prayers should be discussed, but that there should be adequate time for discussing them. In view of what happened the other night, when we had only 55 minutes to discuss a very important Prayer, I looked up the Report of the Select Committee which recommended the alteration. The Select Committee advanced the idea that, while, in the main, for many Prayers one and a half hours would probably be long enough, Mr. Speaker could refuse to put the Question and even refuse on a second occasion. It was in the mind of the Select Committee that there could be not one and a half hours for discussing an important Prayer but, possibly, four and a half hours. On this occasion, this being the last day, that suggestion cannot operate.

I think that the Government have made a great mistake. Far less time would have been wasted—if it has been wasted—if they had allowed Item No. 32, the Motion for suspension, to go on the Order Paper in the right place so that it could have been taken. I hope that something positive can be done, because, in my view, Standing Orders should make it possible for the rights of the minority to be preserved. Of course, the Government would have been worried if the Motion had been put and they did not want the Prayer to be discussed for more than one and a half hours, but the rights of the minority in the House must be protected, and you Mr. Speaker, have to think about protecting the rights of the minority.

I hope that you yourself, Sir, quite apart from any discussions which may take place through the usual channel—they are not always very successful—will consider the matter further. My interpretation of Standing Order No. 95A is not that discussion of a Prayer must every time be limited to one and a half hours. There is discretion in Mr. Speaker. I disagree entirely with the Leader of the House when he suggests that it is not possible to suspend the Standing Order.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), whose knowledge of procedure is very well known, that it is, of course, possible to suspend the Standing Order. Equally, I think that I was perfectly right in saying that this Standing Order was reached after the Select Committee had reported and after there had been agreement as to its constitution. The novelty of this discussion is that the Opposition interpret the opening words Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order as a justification for the Motion which they have put down. This is something which, I think, needs further investigation and study. We have not read that as being entirely justified, at first reading.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain how he understands those words?

Mr. Butler

I understand that by putting this Motion on the Order Paper the Opposition apply the interpretation that it is a legitimate and regular reading of the Standing Order that a Motion of this sort may be put down and that they may expect, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14, that time should be given for it at an early stage of our deliberations. That was not the Government's reading of the Standing Order. As that is the position, the suggestion that I made earlier that we could discuss what is the reading of the Standing Order——

Mr. G. Brown

What my right hon. Friend put to the Leader of the House was the question, to which he did not get an answer, how does the right hon. Gentleman read the words which say: Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not read them to mean that Motion may be put down. How does he read them?

Mr. Butler

In the words of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, there is the opportunity to suspend or alter the Standing Order by the agreement of the House and by Motion. That, I think, is preserved by the opening words, and that is how I read them. I do not read them as a specific opportunity for the Government to give time to the Opposition on this occasion to move a Motion to suspend the whole purpose of Standing Order No. 95A and to give more time to the Prayer tonight. That is how I read them.

Mr. Brown

There may be a possible difference of opinion about the words: Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order no proceedings on a Motion to which this order applies shall be entered upon at or after half-past eleven o'clock. If such a Motion is under consideration at half-past eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question thereupon to the House…". The right hon. Gentleman says that his reading of those words was that they were a general reservation that at sometime we could change the Standing Order. Is that a possible reading if we take the first word with the numbers (1) and (2) that follow? Is it not obviously clear that what the Order is saying is that what is set out in numbers (1), (2) and (3) shall apply except in such cases and being on such individual occasions as the House by a Motion and a majority shall otherwise order? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to muddy the waters. Is that not the only possible reading to be put on those words?

Mr. Butler

The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear with the aid of the legal help of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in quoting the words "in such cases". It is so possible to read the Standing Order, but that is not the reading of it by the Government. Therefore, there has been a difference of opinion in the matter of the Motion on the Order Paper under Standing Order No. 14 as we have arranged it.

In the circumstances, as you have found difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and as we cannot pursue the matter today, I would answer the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) by saying there is no question of a desire on our part to limit the discussion on the Prayer. We have gone so far as to move on the Motion by the Prime Minister that this business could come on before ten o'clock if the business of Supply finished. That is a further indication that we do not wish to limit the discussion of the Prayer. The Prayer will be discussed for the normal time under Standing Order No. 95A and the provisions of that Standing Order will operate including the whole discretion of the Speaker in regard to the time.

In the circumstances, I do not think that we can alter the situation today. The matter has been aired in a perfectly good spirit. I have given the reason for the Government's decision, in an equally good spirit I hope, and I think that we can only now consider the Standing Order as a whole. If hon. Members opposite wish to discuss it, will they come and see us?

The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for South Shields is a very ingenious one, but that on this occasion we could not adopt it. We are perfectly ready to pay attention to the arguments raised in relation to the Standing Order as a whole, but should not be able to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in spite of all his experience. We consider that the time tonight should be taken up in getting the business of Supply which is of the first importance, and which we are entitled to put first under Standing Order No. 14 and Stand- ing Order No. 4. We consider that then the time should be devoted to discussion of the Prayer and then that the discussion and operations of Standing Order No. 95A should operate as laid down in the Standing Order.

Mr. Wigg

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the full consequences of what he has said? He invites the House to curtail its discussion on the Estimates involving the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds.

Mr. Butler

I have not asked the House to do that. I said that we had moved this Motion in case the business of Supply came to an end, thereby giving more time for the Prayer. I think that the best way to encourage the business of Supply to be discussed would be to proceed to it now.

Mr. Wigg

Because I have a nice mind I will not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the effect, of course, is the same. He has told the House that if it wishes it can discuss the Prayer standing in the name of my hon. Friends on the one condition that it curtails discussion on the matter of the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds. With respect——

Mr. Speaker

I must consider my duty in general. It is quite clear that we cannot have a general discussion on business about this.

Mr. Wigg

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should have put my remarks in the form of a question to you.

May I put it to you, Sir, that the Government by their action, which has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Standing Orders at all, have by a political decision imposed a sanction on the Opposition and have thus taken a most serious step? They have abrogated the rights of even the humblest Member of the House to redress a grievance on Supply.

Therefore, I invite the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider, even though I have every sympathy for him in his point of view, that in doing what he has done today he has struck a blow at the rights of private Members who are seeking, in Committee of Supply, to exercise their age-old right, and he has not solved the problem. Indeed, he has created a much bigger problem by trying to settle his differences with the Opposition Front Bench in the way he has done.

Mr. Speaker

I should be glad to hear other hon. Members if they wish to make representations to me on this point, namely, on the view I formed that I am powerless to help the Opposition today in these circumstances. Otherwise, I think that the House might think it wise to get on with other business.

Mr. S. Silverman

If I did not think that there was a possible way in which the House could be assisted in dealing with the matter today I would not persist with the point, Sir. But I understood the Leader of the House to say that my right hon. Friend's suggestion, complicated though it seemed to me when I heard it explained, was not impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman said that it could be done, but that he did not wish to do it. If it is practical, then I suggest with great respect that the case which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted has been made out beyond further controversy by the Leader of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has said two things that bring his position well within the four corners of the instance cited by my right hon. Friend. First, he said, "I know that the Standing Order does enable an exception to be made by Order of the House except in such cases where the House otherwise orders. I therefore rearranged the whole business on the Order Paper, whether it is Government business or the business of the House, in such a way as to prevent the majority opinion of the House of Commons from being ascertained at all." That, he said quite deliberately, was his reason for doing it.

If the Standing Order means that the House can otherwise order in a particular case and if that must mean, as it must, by a majority, then when the right hon. Gentleman said, "I saw to it that that decision would never be taken" he was deliberately doing something which, I submit with great respect to everybody, was wholly inappropriate.

Then the right hon. Gentleman said one other thing which was not, perhaps, quite consistent with what he said before. He said, "We interpret the Standing Order differently from the way in which the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends have interpreted it. We have therefore done this in order to give effect to our interpretation of the Order as against the other interpretation of the Order." That is not the business of the Leader of the House. If the disputed Order requires to be interpreted, then, surely, Mr. Speaker, it ought to be interpreted by you.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. Friend puts to you the true interpretation of the Standing Order, namely, that the House could on any occasion when it saw fit to do so exempt a particular question from the general operation of the Standing Order. The Standing Order can mean only that. I ask you to rule whether that interpretation is the right one or whether the interpretation given by the Leader of the House is correct. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to interpret the Standing Order as is contended for on this side and if the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is practicable, as the Leader of the House admitted that it is, it would be perfectly possible for you to say that you think that that would be an appropriate thing to do in the unusual circumstances as they have been developed in the course of this discussion.

Mr. Speaker

We are in a difficulty. I have already explained to the House why I think I cannot, in the existing state of our rules and orders, help the Opposition to get this decision to exempt from Standing Order No. 95A now. Nothing that I have heard since—I have listened with great care—has caused me to change my mind.

I do not propose to say anything about the interpretation of Standing Order No. 95A now, for this reason. It is clearly desirable that we should all think about this in one form or another when there is more time. If no practicable answer can be found in that consideration now unless the Government are willing to adopt some suggestion on the pattern suggested by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—and they have said that they are not prepared to do that —I am still left in the position when I cannot from the Chair help about this matter further today.

Mr. G. Brown

Before we pass from this subject, Mr. Speaker, may I put this to you, so that we may pass from it in an orderly way, because we began it in an orderly way and have gone through it in the same spirit? We are most disappointed that you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to follow up the suggestion my right hon. Friend made when reading the passage from page 393 of Erskine May. He suggested to the Government that they should help us out of the situation. You were unable to follow up the suggestion, although some of the words you have just used went a little way in that direction.

We feel that the Government's behaviour in this respect is quite deplorable. We are left in a situation which is bad from the point of view of the House and every hon. Member of it. It has been brought about only because of the desire of the Government to try somehow to put sanctions on us for other things they do not like.

I am bound to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. You have said several times that we need to be able to consider this with more time. We always have the very greatest sympathy with that point of view. Is it your intention, Sir, to think about this and make a statement to the House of your views about Standing Order No. 95A? Further, if you come to the conclusion, as my right hon. Friend invited you to, that our reading of the Standing Order is the only possible one, is it your intention to put before the House your views as to the way in which the House can do what it wants to do? If you are able to say that you will make a further statement to us on that subject, it will go some way at any rate to ease our alarms. If, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you feel that there is nothing further you can do, will you consider advising us what we can do? Must we proceed by way of a Motion to deal with the Standing Order, which we are quite willing to do if it is the only way to do it?

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these matters and come back to us with a considered view on them and help the House in that way. I am sorry to land it on your lap, Mr. Speaker; but, in the situation in which the Government think that the right way to conduct public business is to act in the smart way that they thought they were acting today, I have no alternative but to present it to you.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I accept all these burdens. I did so on the day when the House did me the honour of putting me here. I should be assisted on what we are to do about Standing Order No. 95A if conversations were to take place between the two sides of the House. I should then have the advantage of getting skilled draftsmanship on both sides to express what they wanted. If I am not to receive that help, I will undertake to tell the House what conclusions I have reached about it all and invite further help.

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Lipton

On a point of order. In the Orders of the Day——

Mr. Speaker

I cannot take that point of order now, because under the Standing Order I have to leave the Chair.