HC Deb 27 April 1966 vol 727 cc696-7
36. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will state in detail his proposals for altering the procedure of the House to ensure that back-bench Members of the House shall have greater facilities and opportunities for challenging the Executive than they have had hitherto.

Mr. Bowden

Not before the discussions through the usual channels with the two Opposition parties referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday last.

Mr. Hamilton

Can my right hon. Friend give the House any indication when those discussions will begin, and can he say how soon he expects to recruit the staff required for such committees as the Prime Minister suggested? Does he stand by the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Procedure on these matters last May?

Mr. Bowden

The proposals suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister need to be examined in detail first, which will not take very long. The proposals will be put to the other side, as suggested by my right hon. Friend, and we shall ask for the approval of the House.

Mr. Blaker

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is no proposal for a committee on foreign affairs? Would he undertake to look at the practice in Canada, where there is such a committee in the House of Commons and it works, I believe, to the general satisfaction?

Mr. Bowden

I should have thought it advisable to start with one or two Departments first, and see how we go on.

38. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the need to modernise Parliament, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to reduce, on future occasions, the time taken by the procedures in the House of Commons for the election of a Speaker and the swearing of Members.

Mr. Bowden

Not in the immediate future.

Mr. Hamilton

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there was a colossal waste of time in this silly procedure last week? Would not it be much simpler for a Member, immediately on election, to be taken into a private office by the returning officer in his constituency and sworn in and take the Oath of Allegiance in that way and so save at least two days in this House?

Mr. Bowden

There was not a colossal waste of time. We took two days, which is less than we have taken over a very long period. I do not—and I do not think that many hon. Members do, either—regard the taking of the Oath of Allegiance as a silly waste of time.

Sir G. Nabarro

Is it not a fact that the last reply bears not at all on the subject which we are discussing? Is it not the fact that a great deal of time would be saved if hon. Members could take the Oath at prearranged times, but not necessarily in the Chamber, and not necessarily with Mr. Speaker present? Is it not a fact that the whole procedure could have been got through outside Parliamentary time without the loss of those two days?

Mr. Bowden

I have not said that this will not be looked at. I have said that it cannot be looked at in the immediate future. After all, we are not likely to go through this exercise for another five years.