PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

HC Deb 25 February 1969 vol 778 cc1415-687

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Michael Foot

If anyone wants proof of my disinterest in this matter, it is that I have just voted to stop myself speaking. I see, however, from the Division figures, that the majority of the Committee is opposed to that policy, and the Home Secretary says that we must always accept the majority vote. I am not sure whether everyone was fully aware of the implications of his vote.

I am sorry that the Government still do not yield to our pleadings and pressures to reconsider their attitude to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. By the way, what was the Parliament (No. 1) Bill? Does anyone remember what it is and what happened to it? It might be wise for the Government to look it up. Whatever it may be, we are now to proceed with a Bill which should never have been introduced, because it defies the longstanding views of the Labour Party, a Bill which has many other objections on other grounds to be made against it by others in the Committee, but a Bill which should unite in opposition to it hon. Members on both sides, as it has done, because of the fact that it becomes plainer with every debate that the Government have not been prepared to define in the Bill what they intend to achieve at the end.

As I have suggested before, and as others are bound to suggest as we consider Clause after Clause of the Bill, we cannot do that about, in particular, a Measure which is supposed to shape the Constitution for many years to come. The pleas which some of us make on this matter, therefore, are extremely serious. We have proposed this a number of times since the Bill was introduced. We proposed it in the debate on the White Paper and showed by our votes then how deep was the hostility to the Measure, and the Government then could have accepted the view of hon. Members. It is true that they had a majority for the Measure, but whatever Governments may say and whatever the Home Secretary may have told us today about "payroll votes", the Government, in their own interests, should take into account the views of those who voted on that occasion.

I am not condemning people because they vote according to a payroll vote. They are perfectly entitled to do so. Indeed, it would be a very strange affair—although it did happen in the House many centuries ago—if members of the Government were voting in different Lobbies on Measures of this nature. So I make no criticism of any of those members of the Government who voted for the Government in the White Paper debate, on Second Reading, or on any of these Amendments. All of us know the conventions of the House in this respect and know that it would be extremely difficult to conduct the affairs of the House if these facts were not recognised. In general terms, I accept the Home Secretary's view, stated in his answer to the debate earlier, that, of course, we have to operate a party system here and in the country, since otherwise democracy itself could not survive.

I accept all those doctrines, but the very fact that that is so surely means that the Government must show a greater sensitivity to what occurs in the Committee. If the Government say that they insist on a payroll vote—I use the term with no offensive connotation—and that, in order to sustain party operations and party government, they have to maintain a system whereby they can call on members of the Government to vote for them in the Lobby, all the more is it the Government's obligation to recognise, to listen to and to heed what is said to them by the Committee.

10.15 p.m.

A novel situation has arisen over this Bill, partly because of the strength of the arguments from different sides of the Committee, and partly because the arguments which have been presented have not been answered at all. I am not saying that that is not a novelty in the House of Commons. If I racked my brains, I could recall other occasions when this has occurred. But I do not recall a precedent of a situation where on a substantial Measure of first-class importance there had been an agreement between the Front Benches and where not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench would say whether or not a pay Clause involved a bargain or understanding. We have a right to know, and it is extraordinary that we have not had an answer.

The Home Secretary said earlier in his reply that the question properly has to be put to the Opposition Front Bench. I should like an answer from the Home Secretary. I have been doing my best to get one and I have not succeeded. But hon. Gentlemen opposite must not escape their obligation; they should put questions to their own Front Bench.

It is now proposed that the Bill should be passed through the House of Commons in the situation that the Opposition Front Bench will not tell the Committee its attitude to it, its verdict upon it, or whether or not it thinks it is right for the constitution. Surely we should have answers on these matters. Or are they still having consultations with people in another place? That is another possibility, because the original understanding was not merely an understanding between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberals. It was an understanding in which the leaders of the different parties in the House of Lords also had to give their views.

Because I am jealous of the rights of this House, I say that we have a right to know about this understanding before the Bill goes to another place. Have we to wait for the Bill to go to another place to understand whether or not there was a bargain about pay and whether those who entered into the bargain are satisfied with the new arrangements? We have not even been told that they are. This affects the situation.

It is conceivable that hon. Gentlemen opposite might be in a position to exercise these powers. They might have to operate this Bill. Some of them think that at that time they might be sitting on the Treasury Bench. Yet right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the Committee, who sometimes talk as if they think that such an appalling eventuality might occur, are not prepared to tell the Committee how they would exercise such powers.

The Committee is in an extraordinary situation that neither Front Bench will say how the major Clauses will operate. On every Clause we reach we try to extort from them, wheedle from them by every Parliamentary device, an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Member for Barnet will have been pleased at the innovation which greeted his arrival in the Chamber. Now that we have on the Opposition Front Bench a spirit from the vast deep, I trust that we shall receive some enlightenment. It would be improper for me to repeat the arguments I have been adducing, but a comment from the right hon. Gentleman might help to expedite our proceedings.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, on behalf of the Opposition, if the pay Clause was in the original bargain, whether his colleagues agreed to it being removed, if they are satisfied with the proposals that are now being made and whether these alterations fundamentally differ from the original proposition? Have the Opposition had consultations with the Government about the Measure and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill is sufficient importance for the Conservative leadership to be kind enough to give us their view about it?

It is not satisfactory for the right hon. Gentleman to think that he can laugh this one off. The House of Commons does not regard this as a laughing matter. We have as much right to hear from the Conservative leadership as we have to hear from the Home Secretary. In the Division which occurred a short while ago hon. Members voted that my speech should continue. There is plenty of time for the right hon. Member for Barnet to intervene and, as we have had an unsatisfactory reply from the Home Secretary, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will at least say something.

Mr. Maudling

The simple point is that this is the Government's Bill.

Mr. Foot

Is that all the right hon. Gentleman intends to say? Can he recall any major constitutional Bill proposed by any Government about which Her Majesty's Opposition, and particularly its leadership, has refused to comment? Why are right hon. Gentlemen opposite silent on this occasion? It must be because they support the Measure, Nevertheless, they have speeches from their hon. Friends to answer. Perhaps they do not want to stand up to those speeches, some of which have been extremely formidable. At least they should have the courtesy to listen to them.

The excuse that this is a Government Bill does not mean that the Conservative leadership is excluded from commenting on it. Does the right hon. Gentleman's intervention mean that in future the Patronage Secretary—who, I am glad to say, has played very little part in the operation of these debates—need only say, "This is a Government Bill", and it will go through virtually on the nod without comment from the Opposition?

I indicated on a previous occasion that the right hon. Member for Barnet is in a special position. Unlike some of his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman denies that there was a bargain. However, he says that he is in favour of the Bill, which means, as I pointed out previously, that he supports it on its merits; every incomprehensible Clause and subnormal subsection. He is in favour of the lot and is so enthusiastic that he does not even take the risk of uttering a word in its defence.

If the right hon. Member for Barnet had his way, this important constitutional Measure would go through with hardly a word being spoken about it. Few hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that this is a proper way of dealing with a major Bill. Irrespective of their views there are many hon. Members on this side who are determined to fight the Bill to the end. Fortuunately a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite take the same view. We urge the Government, in their own interest, to reconsider the matter. The Cabinet should have early fresh discussions on the subject, and that would be the wisest course not only for Parliament but for the Government.

I believe that if they proceed with this Measure, it is likely that they will have a hopeless confusion between this place and the other place, because it is possible that there could be a revolt even there. Or, if there is no revolt, it will mean that the other place is to permit the Bill to go through on false pretences.

If the other place agrees to this Measure in the form in which the Government, with at least the connivance of the Opposition Front Bench, propose, they will be saying, at a time when democracy is an issue being debated throughout the land and whether democratic institutions can survive, "What the Government, the House of Commons and Parliament propose is that the constitution shall be rearranged in a manner which we are not prepared to divulge to the nation. We are not prepared to divulge to the nation what its size will be. We will conceal what payment will be made in some later circumstance. We will not tell the country how we propose to carry out the proposals for maintaining a Government majority, because nobody knows how it can be done otherwise."

Therefore, on a major constitutional matter a Measure will have been put through this Chamber and passed by the other place the meaning of which none of us will be able to explain to our constituents.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said at the beginning of the Committee stage. In my judgment, he did a notable service to the House of Commons and to democracy in this country by the way he started these Committee stage debates. He showed that it was possible to exercise the delaying powers of the House of Commons for the purpose for which it is intended. He deserves greatly of the House of Commons for doing it. But, even more, I agree with him, because it applies particularly to the Clause, when he said that the country and Members of the House of Commons must be careful how we remodel our democratic institutions at a time when they are being attacked up and down the country.

The ideas of free speech and free debate and the essentials of democracy in this country, as in most other countries, are under fire. That is all the more reason why we should pass laws that are clear, why we should define every Clause, why we should demand an answer to every argument and why we should insist upon the Measure being absolutely precise and clear in all its intentions and all its Clauses. No Member can honestly say that such a Bill as that is now passing through the Committee.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, once again, in this Committee.

I feel that I can speak with some personal experience on the subject of these Amendments because my job for the last five or six years has been to recruit men to positions of senior responsibility in industry, commerce and the professions, and I am used to negotiations involving remuneration. I therefore have some ideas on this subject based on personal knowledge.

I think that right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have either been abolitionists or retentionists concerning the House of Lords. I am neither. I should like the Bill to go through, but, in the process of going through the Committee, I should like it to be drastically changed. Despite the insults which have been thrown from the Front Bench opposite, I will continue to soldier on.

Despite my great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I am obliged to speak in a sense which is diametrically opposed to the terms of his Amendment. I realise that whatever disadvantages may arise in consequence of paying members of the other House—and they are serious—if we are to have an upper House which will play a part in the government of the country of any value its members must be paid—and paid substantially.

10.30 p.m.

I would quote from the Second Reading debate a sentence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I rather wish that on this issue the Prime Minister had had the courage to say straight to the House that if the new second Chamber has to do a job of work, its Members must be paid the rate for the job and a proper salary. That would have been a much cleaner proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 153.] I would also quote from what the Government themselves said in their White Paper: The Government considers that members without private means should not thereby be prevented from playing a full part, and therefore proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration (subject to tax)"— we must not forget the class war— which would reflect the responsibilities and duties which they would be expected to undertake". There is a well-known phrase in personnel selection circles, and, in spite of its vulgarity, I will repeat it: "If you pay peanuts you only attract monkeys." We have to ask ourselves, in considering these Amendments, what sort of men do we want to attract? Are we to attract into the other place retired Members of the House of Commons? Or men of private means? Or men who have concluded their careers in the professions or in trade and are now simply looking for a hobby? My feeling is that the new House of Lords ought not to be a Valhalla for dead heroes, but ought to be full of active men who are in full command of their faculties.

This is a vital consideration, not only because we need the value of their work, but also because, if the Upper House is to survive in the long run, its Members must be acceptable to the British public. The new House of Lords must have its foundation in public respect, and be based on the authority of its Members as individuals, and not as representatives of any particular party. The survival of the Upper House in the constitution will depend upon the sum of the merits of all the people who are persuaded to work there and not simply because it will have inherited a centuries old tradition. I am sure that events will very soon prove us wrong if we expect to get something for nothing.

I agree that a man may not necessarily be attracted to public work only by money. It may be possible to attract a man to a position of responsibility because he is interested in the exercise of authority, and this is not necessarily a bad motive. It could be patriotism which would make a man wish to serve in the Upper House, or a natural desire for public esteem. But under the Bill as we have it now, the Upper House will have no authority; so people who are interested in taking up a position of authority will not be attracted to serve there. It is impossible to attract men to work in a purely advisory House simply as a public duty, and it would be wrong for us even to try. Therefore I am certain that if the Government's reform is to succeed, and I still hope that it may, the Lords will have to be paid.

The question then arises, on what basis? It is accepted in the Bill that they would at any rate be paid their expenses. By all means let them be compensated for out of pocket expenses, but really that is not enough.

The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie)—I am sorry he is not in his place—suggested that Members of the Upper House should be paid for attendance. This is a suggestion which deserves consideration, but to my way of thinking it is undesirable for two reasons. Firstly we should tend to fill up the Chamber with men who are not experts on the subjects in question, but are simply there to make up their quota of attendances. Second, I dislike his idea because it neglects the time spent in keeping abreast of the issues of the day.

The right principle to adopt is that of the retainer, by which Members of the Upper House must express their readiness to accept the obligations of the office however time consuming they may be. Let us suppose, for example, that the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or of the Royal Institute of British Architects eventually, despite the Government's opposition to the suggestions made in the Committee a few days ago, found their way into the Upper House. One would expect them to speak but rarely. But on the subject on which they are expert, when it arose, their opinion should be well worth having and paying for.

It would be right then to ask how much one should pay. The busy man has an agenda, and in the end will allocate his time according to what his conscience tells him his obligations are.

Mr. Ridley

Has my hon. Friend considered so many pounds per column of HANSARD?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

If my hon. Friend had been able to hear what I said, or had listened to it if he had, he would have realised that that is precisely the basis I have rejected.

The smaller the other House, the higher the figure that should be paid. I want now to be quite specific. If we have a large house of 600 Members, as I recommend, the sum of about £2,000 a year would be appropriate. But if the Government insist on keeping the figure to about 230, the Members will have to be paid at least twice as much if we are to attract men of the right kind who will be able to give enough time.

The word "patronage" has been used again and again in the Committee, and we are still waiting for the Government to give their explanation of the way in which they will avoid the misuse of patronage in the future. But Britain is not Byzantium yet, and public opinion still counts for something. The greater the remuneration that goes with a place in the other House, the greater will be the scandal arising from the abuse of the power of patronage in nominating people to it.

Therefore, I trust that the Government will return to their original view as expressed in the White Paper, and amend the Bill to give some chance for their reforms to work.

Mr. Heffer

I want to say a few words on the Amendments because I think that I may have a slightly different point of view from some of my hon. Friends.

In the debate on the White Paper I said that I had no objections to the payment of Members of the other House, provided they were democratically elected and arrived there on the basis of a constituency in the same way as we arrive here. I think that that is the correct principle. If we are to have an elected, democratically arrived at second Chamber, it is obvious that there must be payment. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the ordinary person without independent means to become a Member of the other House, just as there were great difficulties in this House for the trade unionists and so on who were elected in the early days and did not receive payment to sustain themselves, but counted on the support of their trade unions or collections amongst their friends. Obviously, we have got past that stage.

But, of course, in this Bill we are not discussing an elected second Chamber but one that will be entirely nominated. That is a different matter because it would develop a system unprecedented anywhere else in the world. I know of no second Chamber existing on the basis proposed here. It is, therefore, impossible for the House of Commons to accept a position where there would be payment on this basis for nominated representatives in another place.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) went a little too far in his criticism, in a sense suggesting that we all here are looking to the other place to solve our problems and that there is a long queue. There may well be a queue. If there is, hon. Members who are in it have not told me, although that is not surprising. I can imagine why they will not tell me. But if we contrast what happens in another place with what happens here, we have ground for justifiable concern.

Ordinary people think that, on £3,250 a year, we are in the millionaire class. They do not know that we have to supply our own secretaries and their equipment, such as typewriters, that we have to pay for our telephone calls outside London and buy our own stamps for letters to our constituents. They do not know all the other things which go with being a Member of Parliament, such as having to have a home in London as well as in one's constituency. And I still pay an enormous amount of Income Tax even on the basis of what is left.

But the point involved here is that we have to incur these expenses while the Lords have none of them. They do not and will not have constituencies; they will not get shoals of letters from constituencies demanding what Section 4(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act means. We get them. Sometimes I have never even heard of the Bill I am asked about. The Lords will not have to suffer that sort of problem. They will have no responsibility in the sense that we have a responsibility to our parties, which put us here, to our electors, to our local constituency parties, to all the pressure groups in our constituencies. Indeed, sometimes I find it difficult to know who I am responsible to.

A Member of this House is also responsible to himself because he tries to keep his integrity in face of all these pressures. But the noble Lords will have no responsibility at all except to the individuals who nominate them in the first place. It is true that, once there, they can thumb their noses and say, "We are not interested now. You put us there but we will not bother to go." That would be a traitorous thing to do—some of them would do it. It happens now. Nevertheless, on the basis of the nomination, they would be expected to be the creatures of those who nominated them, and sent them there, those who would be responsible for their remuneration. It is not good enough, and this Committee ought not to allow this situation to develop.

10.45 p.m.

There is a great mystery about this, because the White Paper said quite clearly that there would be remuneration. It was not clear as to what that remuneration was to be—something like £2,000 a year was mentioned. What happened was that there was a great argument, in the Labour Party particularly, about this question of remuneration. Let us be honest, open and frank about it; we should always be open, honest and frank. The facts are that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench believed that they could get this Bill through much more easily if they dropped this question of remuneration. They thought that half the opposition would die away, that it all revolved around this question of remuneration. What did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say? In the Second Reading debate on 3rd February—I will not quote him in full—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—very well, I will. He said: In the light of these considerations, which I think ought to have more thought given to them, the Government have decided not to pursue the White Paper proposal about payment. The existing system of tax-free expenses will, therefore, continue, but there will be no salary, and, equally, there will be no examination, such as we originally suggested, to take place by an independent committee, such as the Lawrence Committee, which investigated House of Commons remuneration."—

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

The hon. Gentleman is going a little too fast for us. Would he slow down a little?

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

What was the Lawrence Committee?

Mr. Heffer

The Lawrence Committee was the committee which decided to look into the salaries and remuneration of the House of Commons. Does my hon. Friend want a full explanation?

Mr. Roebuck

Yes.

Mr. Hefler

The Lawrence Committee was set up by the Tory Party when it was in office. It came along with an elaborate report, and made certain proposals, which both parties, prior to the 1964 election, pledged themselves to put into operation—or at least some of them. This is what happened.

The Prime Minister continued: … and this will, therefore, not take place at this stage. This will enable us to see how the reformed House works in practice, to see what form of remuneration is best fitted to enable voting peers to give the necessary time to the work of the reformed House, and to form a considered view of the broader issues involved, including those which I have just mentioned. This does not mean that we have decided that voting Members should not be paid at some time in the future, or that they should. It simply means that we are preserving an open mind so that the matter can be considered in the light of experience at a more suitable time in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 54–55.]

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to translate that?

Mr. Heffer

What?—into "Scouse"? I am being serious about this because it is a serious matter. The proposal was there in the White Paper, but it is dropped from the Bill. The operative words in that passage I quoted from my right hon. Friend were, at a more suitable time". Obviously, this is not a suitable time, since it will run into immense opposition in the House. But, having got the Bill through, at one o'clock in the morning on some occasion the Government will slip their proposal through the House, and that will be the "more suitable time ".

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I think that my hon. Friend is being less than charitable to the Prime Minister. No doubt, the Prime Minister means to put the detail of it in the next election programme so as to be sure that the electorate is able to vote on it. He has in mind getting the electorate to agree on £2,000 a year for the peers.

Mr. Heffer

I had not thought that that was the idea of a more suitable time. My hon. Friend may be right, but he may be wrong, and I have a feeling that he is more wrong than right. I suspect that what my right hon. Friends have in mind is that, after the Bill has gone through, the question of numbers and pay will come up at a later and more suitable time. The decision will be pushed through the House, and pushed through, in my view, against the best interests of Parliament, the country and democracy. That is the essential point. If the proposal were to have a democratically elected second Chamber, I should not vote against the idea of payment, but in the circumstances of the present Bill I cannot regard it as acceptable.

Let us consider further the payroll vote, as it has been called, and the independence of Members. I feel that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was a little unfair in his approach to this aspect of the question. I know many hon. Members who, like Winston Churchill, would never accept a peerage, who would never go to the other place, because they feel that it would not be right to do so. I have a firm conviction on the question, and I shall never change my mind about it. I have only the money which I earned outside before I came to the House or the money which I receive as remuneration here. I should not care if I was offered £10,000 a year to go to the other place. I would rather go back to the building sites as a joiner than accept that sort of position, going to the other place as a nominee under patronage of whoever it was who made the suggestion.

I say that as a democrat, as someone who believes passionately in the concept of democracy. There are many hon. Members who feel exactly as I do and who will not be any the less independent in their views even if they find themselves in difficulties with their own party because of their independence. If we are not independent, if we are not prepared to fight for what we believe in, we have no right in this place at all. The whole business of democracy, defending not only the party programme on which we are elected but defending the interests of our constituents and standing up for what we think right, is an essential part of our political life. There are many hon. Members who regard it as something of an insult that it should even be suggested that we should be lining up to go into another place because it means a safe berth and a safe pension. In a sense, it is even an insult to the House of Commons.

If my right hon. Friends are serious in what they say about remuneration, why do they not accept the Amendment? The whole debate could have been eliminated. There is no provision in the Bill for remuneration, and the Government could therefore say that they have no idea of bringing in remuneration and that they will accept the Amendment saying that there will be no remuneration. But they are not saying that, and they are not saying that because the Prime Minister gave the game away with his remark that at a more suitable time there would be remuneration. That is the essence and core of the argument.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)

Can the hon. Gentleman suggest why, if he is net to be paid, anyone should submit to the indignity of being appointed to the other place under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Heffer

I must confess that I find it difficult to understand why anybody should want to go to the other place in any case, quite apart from the Bill; that anyone should want to go on the terms of the Bill I find incomprenhensible.

Perhaps. I should not detain the Committee too long, for other hon. Members wish to speak on this subject and later we shall have other interesting debates, particularly about the Scottish peers. I shall be fascinated by that debate.

The whole idea of nomination to a second Chamber is distasteful to me and to all other democrats. If we are to go forward in a democratic sense, we have to expand democracy, not contract it. In an earlier debate, I argued for the complete abolition of the other place, but if we are to have a second Chamber, it must be democratically elected. The proposition in the Bill is neither one nor the other and all it will do is strengthen an undemocratic system.

It will worsen the position from both points of view. While noble Lords arrive in the other place by birth, we cannot determine that a Conservative Lord will necessarily give birth to a Conservative Lord; he might be a Liberal—[HON. MEMBERS: "He would have to be a Lady."]—he might be anything; he might even be on the editorial board of the Black Dwarf—several are. All that will be eliminated, and at the end of each Parliament there will be a change, although we do not even know how that change is to be made.

11.0 p.m.

I find it extremely difficult to know how this is going to happen. It all fits in with the idea of remuneration for the noble Lords in the other place. If we do not know the figure, and one finds that, say, the Labour Party has a majority in the other place, and then, God forbid, the Opposition get into power here, one would have to have more Tories in the other place and so would make more Lords. Does one then make some of the others redundant? If one does make them redundant, what is going to happen to them? Are they going to get—perhaps after five years—a handsome pension, or are they going to go—as some of us may—on social security?

Of course we in this House are self-employed; we do not even get unemployment benefit if we lose our jobs. I think this is a rather important point, and indeed I have looked into this factor.

But what is going to happen to the noble Lords? It is terrible to think of them knocking at some social security office.

Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden)

If the noble Lords get a salary, will they not be able to claim under the Redundancy Payments Act?

Mr. Heffer

No, because we cannot claim under the Redundancy Payments Act either. Of course, there could be an Amendment to the Act, and while the Government were doing it they could bring it in for us as well. It would be very handy. But imagine Lord Bill Brown of Battersea knocking on the social security door and saying, "I have been made redundant—what do I get?" Look at the situation seriously. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

Mr. John Hall

Would not the matter be solved satisfactorily for everybody, including hon. Members of this House, if there was a change in legislation so that we could be regarded as employed persons? Not only would the Government be liable for redundancy payments, but we could sign on at the Labour Exchange, refuse to take a job not suited to our abilities and wait until any membership fell vacant, or, in the other place, one could wait until one could be put back again as a peer. Would not that solve the problem?

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Fascinating though this is, I am afraid it is out of order.

Mr. Heffer

I am sorry that I cannot develop that point, because I find it a very attractive proposition. But seriously, I should like to end with the same plea as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The more we go into this Bill and look at the various Clauses and Amendments we are faced with, the more we try to amend it to make a bad Bill perhaps slightly less bad, the more we find ourselves in an absurd situation. It is particularly absurd because we do not know the view of the Front Bench on the other side.

My hon. Friend used some wonderful language in explaining what he thought they were. I rather thought they were like the invisible man, except that the invisible man, while he could not be seen, could be heard. In this case they could not either be seen or heard until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) came in just now. But I do say this to my hon. Friends. It is obvious that this Bill is going to be fought line by line, all the way through, for very proper reasons.

I once again appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the whole matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) recently brought in the Parliament (No. 3) Bill, which was a very sensible and intelligent Bill. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to drop this absurdity, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and to adopt the sensible Bill of my hon. Friend. Let us get down to the serious business of running the country without the nonsense of this Bill.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

We have had a remarkable debate, and witty and powerful speeches have been delivered. Any attempt to under-estimate the inner feelings of nearly all hon. Members would be to proceed on a most dangerous line.

It is fantastic in a democracy to go forward with the Bill without knowing whether or not the Members of the new assembly are to be paid. No clear statement on this matter has come from the Front Bench opposite. It is an "Alice in Wonderland" situation not to know what is to be the basis of the legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has said that this is a Government Measure and has nothing to do with this side of the Committee, but it is the duty of the Front Bench on this side to discover from the Government whether or not Members will be paid. There is no question of contact between the two sides. It is simply that it is ludicrous for the House of Commons to legislate without knowing the basis of the legislation. I hope before the night is very far advanced that my right hon. Friend will press the Government to say what are their intentions. On this depends the whole nature of the other place.

It is highly unlikely that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and myself will form the next Government. The next Government must come either from the Government Front Bench or from the Opposition Front Bench, and we want to know what are their proposals as to payment should the Bill become law. Their Lordships in another place should also know what are the Government's proposals. They voted on a White Paper in which they were promised remuneration.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is quite correct; it is not a question of a bargain between the Front Benches, it is wordy pressure inside his own party which forced the Prime Minister to produce his extraordinarily ambivalent statement on Second Reading. My first point, which I am sure has the accord of the whole Committee, is that it is ludicrous for us to attempt to pass legislation the financial basis of which is unknown.

I think that we should like to discuss whether Members of another place should or should not be paid. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) enlarged on this at length, and the Government found difficulty about it. This is a problem which should be weighed perhaps for several hours. I could make a long speech about the advantages of paying members of another place. From the constitutional point of view, there are strong arguments for paying them, but we have to balance the constitutional against the democratic and proper sense of the House of Commons as an idealist assembly. This is the great problem facing the Government and the Opposition Front Bench in weighing the pros and cons of this system.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) made an extremely brilliant, pointed and witty speech about the merits of payment. The Prime Minister indulged in this marvellously balanced tight rope argument in favour of payment, which he finally rejected.

One point should be made clear about the advantages of payment in another place—the consciences of those who are paid. It may be that this is so neatly balanced in the constitution proposed that there is a constitutional argument for paying them.

There is also the question of the poorer peers rubbing shoulders with the richer and the problem of the poor working peer and the rich or idle peer who is there as a non-voting member. There are strong arguments in favour of payment. This cannot be completely dismissed. I am sure that other hon. Members can develop these arguments in great depth and at great length.

The Committee must consider the matter not only from the point of view of making this extremely elaborate piece of mechanism work effectively, but the more profound point, if payment is made, of the patronage which will fall into the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposiition. The hon. Member for Walton, when he emerged from beneath the jokes in the witty speech that he made, said, in a very fine passage which is reflected on all sides, that he is not prepared to become a "place man" of any Government or any Opposition. In that the Committee will applaud not merely the hon. Member for Walton, but those many Members on both sides who feel the same way.

The balance of the argument should be against pay, because eventually the most important thing—far more important than an effective constitution—is the question of an honest and honourable constitution. I believe that on balance my right hon. Friend's Amendment should be accepted. This is a personal view. But what we all need is clear guidance from the Government about how they propose to work the scheme.

The Home Secretary ill-judged the feeling of the Committee. He thought that, with the bland approach of general good fellowship, he could get away with it; that it did not matter whether it was in the Bill or not. But it is essential, in my view, that it should be in the Bill. It is essential that there should be clarity in the Bill, before it goes to another place, whether members are to be paid.

That is why I ask first the Government to make this clear——

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order. Mr. Irving, may we have an assurance that there is no question of the Closure being moved.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)

That is not a point of order.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Fraser

Before we get this reply I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Government for a statement so that the formula used by the Prime Minister will be elucidated. This is not a question of a bargain between the two Front Benches. This is a question of the House of Commons functioning properly, and the House finding out what the Government's intentions are.

Mr. Onslow

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally important that we should know what the intentions of future Governments might be, and that this is an additional reason why we should value the opportunity of hearing the powerful speech which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) seems anxious to make?

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asked that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) should make a powerful speech elucidating so many of the gaps in our knowledge about the nature of this compact, this bargain. I would not be so prepared to ask for a powerful speech, but I think that at some stage we are entitled, if not to know the details of the bargain—although I see no valid reason why we should not have the whole of the bargain laid before us—to know in broad detail the limitations set by this bargain, particularly in relation to this question of remuneration.

Mr. Maudling

This is a personal point of view, because we do not have the Whips on. If people are doing a useful job, they should be paid for it.

Mr. Sheldon

That does not cover the point, because there was a compact, a bargain, or, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, an agreement, that decided certain specific matters, and the nature of those matters is unknown to Members of this House. The Home Secretary has given us some information, limited though it is. We have been without information from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maudling

I repeat that my point of view is simple. If people are doing a useful job, they should be paid appropriately for doing that. That is as far as we went in our discussions, and it is as far as I go now.

Mr. Sheldon

We are now making some progress, for which we should be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We now know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench opposite are of the opinion that the appropriate rate for the job should be paid, and in so far as that is their view they are in favour of remuneration.

Now that the Government have retreated from remuneration, that part of the agreement has been broken. What we want to know is how the right hon. Gentleman accepts this breaking of the agreement. If this agreement has been broken, has it been broken with their approval, with their refusal, or with their antagonism? Which is it? That is what we want to know.

Mr. John Hall

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no question of any agreement having been broken? Surely, from the speech of the Home Secretary, it is obvious that all that has happened is that it has been postponed?

Mr. Sheldon

The hon. Member is perfectly right if he assumes that the possibility may exist that the Front Bench opposite have not made the fuss we would have expected them to make if there had been a breach of the agreement. The tacit acceptance of this outward change of mind may be an acceptance which has come only because afterwards the Government are going to bring in legislation for payment as in the White Paper. That may be the reason they are keeping so quiet and do not wish to be seen in evidence in this important debate.

Mr. Roebuck

Would my hon. Friend not accept that that is because the principle of payment has not been abandoned but is merely postponed and that the next question should be how much? If it is not a question of the sum fixed now, it should be what it will be in five years or so.

Mr. Sheldon

There is every reason to believe that the figure was fixed at £2,000 a year. One result of co-operation between the two Front Benches is that it shows some of the appalling errors which could result from a coalition, and we find the planning together of so many important things by the Front Benches being opposed by the unlikely combination of the back benches in this House. That is one lesson to be learnt, that coalition Governments "are not on," the contrary of what Mr. Cecil King has said.

Mr. Ridley

It appears that there is a second bargain in existence to be connived at—the apparent dropping of pay now, for it to be reinstated as soon as the hubbub has died down, and the fuss is over.

Mr. Sheldon

That is the trouble which occurs as soon as one starts secret bargains in anything and as soon as there is a private arrangement between people meeting in private when one knows——

Mr. Maudling

This talk of secret bargains is nonsense. The discussions were laid out clearly in the White Paper which contained the entirety of the things we discussed and agreed.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

Could my right hon. Friend say whether the original figure was the one in the White Paper?

Mr. Maudling

No. It was not discussed.

Mr. Sheldon

We know now that the White Paper represents their views, and that is a step forward. It is relevant to part of the Amendment to know the level of remuneration.

If it was not discussed, what must have been was the Government decision to back down from remuneration, because the right hon. Member for Barnet said earlier that the rate for the job must be paid, whatever it might be. Clearly the Government have backed down from this part of the agreement.

Mr. Maudling indicated assent.

Mr. Sheldon

Was the right hon. Gentleman informed? Does he feel badly about it?

Mr. Maudling

Not more than usual.

Mr. John Hall

Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little unfair to his own Front Bench? A rate for the job must be scientifically assessed and properly considered by an outside body. We know the number of cases now before the Prices and Incomes Board. Is it not probable that it is because they are waiting in the queue to go before Aubrey Jones and his Board that it is not possible at this stage to write the amount into the Bill? It could be more than £2,000, in which case, it could have a beneficial effect on the salaries of hon. Members.

Mr. Sheldon

I take the point, but the important thing is this breach of confidence between the two Front Benches, which should be widened, in the interests of the Committee and Parliament. Since the right hon. Gentleman now accepts that there was a breach, because of the Government backing down, what representations did they make to the Government? Have there been any other breaches, or does the Bill represent the agreement as envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman? Would he care to come in on this?

Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Sheldon

Well, with one appearance on one Amendment, we are making some progress and it might be elaborated later. Before the Bill goes through, if it does, the whole agreement might be laid bare, to the benefit of the Committee.

The question of remuneration has been rightly called the kernel of the debate. The White Paper presumes that there will be payment and that the size of the new House will be 230 peers——

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Sheldon

But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the White Paper represents the agreement, so this is obviously the figure which they had in mind, although they could not put it in the Bill——

Mr. Powell

But is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that the figure of 230 is part of the agreement? Paragraph 46 says that the size is put forward only tentatively and is prefaced by the words: … the Government considers that in the first instance a reasonable size would be between 200 and 250.… Is it right to say that the figure of 230, which is used as a specimen, is part of the agreement?

Mr. Sheldon

But it is more precisely defined later in that same paragraph: The voting House would therefore consist at first of about 230 peers"—

Hon. Members

"At first".

Mr. Sheldon

Clearly, subsequently, there may be further arrangements, discussions and bargains between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Powell

But surely, those later words are all subordinate to the beginning of the paragraph, which makes it clear that the whole thing is put forward tentatively and on the Government's responsibility. The whole thing reads together.

Mr. Sheldon

The paragraph says "between 200 and 250", made more precise at 230. The extent to which the Front Benches agreed to what figures is not too important.

Mr. Iremonger

Is not the explanation of the very imprecise nature of the figure in the White Paper the fact that every time there is a change of Government there will have to be a topping up, and that therefore a firm figure cannot be laid down? The figure will go on increasing. If there is an election every year we shall end up with about 1,000 Members in the other place.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon

That is not exactly how it works. Reliance is placed on selecting people old enough to die off quickly enough to keep down the numbers as required.

Mr. John Hall

If the hon. Member is right in saying that the Government rely upon a certain number of peers dying off in order to prevent the need for excessive topping-up, will it not be a matter of considerable alarm if one is nominated to the other place?

Mr. Sheldon

These are matters which I ought perhaps not to go into.

The importance of the size of the other House depends very much on whether its Members are paid or unpaid. This question was dealt with in an earlier Amendment. If 230 is the number which the Government consider to be right if Members are paid the reasonable rate for the job, clearly it would not be the right number required if they are not paid. There must be a difference. Since the agreement assumed that with the appropriate rate being paid 230 would be about the right figure, if there were to be no payment the figure would have to be increased.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put the matter correctly when, in an earlier debate, he said that if they are not to be paid some of them will need to spend more of their working time earning a living. Fewer people will be attracted to spending the whole day in the other place, when they could be earning money elsewhere, and many more would find interests outside and come to the Lords only occasionally. The offer of £2,000 a year makes a very big difference, even to moderately wealthy people, in terms of the amount of time they would be prepared to spend in the House of Lords dealing with legislation.

If the White Paper has led people to understand that Members of the other place would be paid about £2,000 a year, the fact that the Government have now withdrawn that offer must mean that the number of Members for the other place cannot remain at 230; it must rise. It makes nonsense of the White Paper to keep to the same figure.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

Does not the hon. Member consider that the withdrawal of the offer of payment is in direct conflict with the purposes of the Preamble? The Preamble insists upon the inclusion of voting peers from the various countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Hitherto the hon. Member has spoken as though everybody were London-based. Surely Members of the other place must be paid if they come from 200 or 300 miles away—because they cannot live otherwise.

Mr. Sheldon

The hon. and learned Member has made a valid point, which I had intended to use if I were lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Irving, on the next Amendment, when we shall be discussing the question of the number coming from Scotland and the very problems to which the hon. and learned Member has referred.

Mr. Roebuck

My hon. Friend shares with me a great interest in national economy and the need to keep prices down. Does not he think that in view of what has been said about the necessity to appoint older people so as not to have excessive topping-up, instead of giving the Members of the other place a salary it would be better to arrange to pay them an annuity? Would not that be much cheaper?

Mr. Sheldon

When one considers the question of constitution making one finds one has an infinite number of constitutions to consider.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Is not my hon. Friend aware that the next Amendment deals with people residing in Scotland, and not coming from Scotland? We shall be left with a liability.

Mr. Sheldon

My hon. Friend has a point there, which no doubt we can discuss later on.

I come now to the question of why the salary of £2,000 was mooted and why nobody I have spoken to ever seems to recall who mentioned the figure of £2,000. My own explanation about the figure of £2,000 is that it is based on a rather surprising coincidence.

If one takes the £3,250 a year paid to Members of Parliament and deducts the expenses of £1,250 which we are allowed, one finds oneself with £2,000 representing the average income after expenses. If one also takes into account the figure arrived at as a result of the recent conference held in this House only last week, where the range of expenses of hon. Members was between £1,000 and £1,500, one again comes to a figure of about £2,000 a year. It would be rather unlikely if this figure were a coincidence.

What appears to be in the mind of the Government, and possibly in the mind of the Opposition, is to have the same figure, after deducting expenses, for the House of Commons and for the House of Lords. Some serious consequences flow from such a situation. The House of Lords would be rated every bit as high as the House of Commons, for four days a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three days."] Very well, for three days a week, for far less work and with far less responsibility than that borne by the House of Commons.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members

No.

The Chairman

Order. I must put the Question.

Question put, That the Question be now put: —

Mr. Sheldon (seated and covered)

On a point of order. I had not sat down. I had not concluded my speech, which was not intended to be a long one. I had given way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

The Chairman

The Motion that was addressed to me was a point of order, which was quite in order during an hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Roebuck (seated and covered)

Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that a clear misunderstanding has arisen inasmuch as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) rose under the misapprehension that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had sat clown, and that ordinarily we all know that he is a person who well knows the customs of the House—he would not have done this had he not thought my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had sat down—would you not think it appropriate to reconsider the matter and at least to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham to explain himself to the House?

The Chairman

I can only consider whether what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) did was in order, and I must say that it was.

Mr. John Hal (seated and covered)

On a point of order. Is it not without precedent in the House of Commons that the Closure should be moved in the midst of an hon. Member's speech? Can any hon. Member recall such a thing happening?

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order. I must proceed with the Division.

Sir J. Rodgers (seated and covered)

On a point of order——

The Chairman

Order. I can listen to further points of order after I have taken the tellers.

Hon. Members

No.

Sir J. Rodgers (seated and covered)

On a point of order. Can you recall a previous occasion, Mr. Irving, when an hon. Member has been cut off in the middle of a speech for the Closure to be moved, without the Government having replied to the debate? I have never known this to happen in the whole of my time in this place and I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision that a Division be called.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

The Chairman

Order. I have already indicated that what the hon. Member for Rotherham did was perfectly in order. I have accepted it and I must proceed with the Division.

Sir D. Glover (seated and covered)

On a point of order. I wish formally to give notice that I shall take the only step open to a back bencher to draw the attention of the House of Commons to our reflection on the Ruling of the Chair.

The Chairman

I cannot allow the decision of the Chair to be questioned.

Sir Harmar Nicholls(seated and covered) (Peterborough)

On a point of order. Before it is too late, Mr. Irving, may I urge you to reconsider your decision before the Division is reported? Are you aware that you will be setting a precedent in accepting a Closure Motion moved in the middle of an hon. Member's speech? One can accept that the Chair might consider that sufficient time had been spent on an Amendment, but are you aware that by accepting the Closure moved in this way, we are setting a precedent which will be bad for Parliament? Will you therefore reconsider your decision?

The Chairman

I am sorry, no. I must reiterate what I have already told the Committee—that what has happened is perfectly in order.

Mr. Roebuck (seated and covered)

On a point of order. Have you received any explanation, Mr. Irving, for the extraordinary behaviour of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), in seeking to move the Closure when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was on his feet? Has any explanation whatever been offered for this quite unprecedented and extraordinary conduct which will clearly set a precedent?

The Chairman

The Chair can only consider whether what the hon. Member for Rotherham did was in order. It was in order and I cannot add further to what I have said.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme(seated and covered) (Salford, West)

On a point of order. Can you tell the Committee, Mr. Irving, what right of redress we have for this action of the Government and your own action in accepting the Closure at this time?

The Chairman

Order. The conduct of the Government is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. Orme (seated and covered)

Can you explain, Mr. Irving, why the Chair accepted the Closure in these circumstances?

The Chairman

Order. I cannot enter into discussion about the exercise of discretion by the Chair.

Mr. John Hall (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I hope you can hear me against the background of noise.

The Chairman

Is the hon. Member making a submission on a point of order with which I have already dealt?

Mr. Hall (seated and covered)

I do not know because I could not hear what you were dealing with, Mr. Irving. Accepting the fact that you accepted the Motion for the Closure although unprecedented in this Committee—and I cannot remember a Closure being moved in the midst of somebody's speech and before there was an answer at all—but accepting all that, can we, for the future guidance of the Committee, learn from you whether it is in order for the Chief Whip or any Whip on the Government side to move the Closure in the circumstances already described, at any time during debate, and whether or not there has been a reply from either Front Bench, in the middle of a speech, with the hon. Member on his feet? Can we learn whether this is permissible or not, for the guidance of our future conduct?

The Chairman

The question of a reply is for the Government. The question whether what was done was in order is a matter for the Chair. I have already and several times said that in my opinion it was in order.

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 89.

Division No. 89.]	AYES	[11.40 p.m.
Alldritt, Walter	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Crawshaw, Richard
Anderson, Donald	Brooks, Edwin	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Archer, Peter	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Brown, Bob (N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Dalyell, Tam
Beaney, Alan	Buchan, Norman	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Binns, John	Carmichael, Neil	Dell, Edmund
Bishop, E. S.	Coe, Denis	Dempsey, James
Blackburn, F.	Coleman, Donald	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Boyden, James	Conlan, Bernard	Doig, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Jackson, Colin (B'house & Spenb'gh)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Ellis, John	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Pentland, Norman
English, Michael	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Ensor, David	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Probert, Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Loughlin, Charles	Rees, Merlyn
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Luard, Evan	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Fernyhough, E.	Lubbock, Eric	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. p'c'as)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McBride, Neil	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Foley, Maurice	MacColl, James	Rowlands, E.
Forrester, John	Macdonald, A. H.	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Fowler, Gerry	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Freeson, Reginald	Mackie, John	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Galpern, Sir Myer	McNamara, J. Kevin	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Manuel, Archie	Silverman, Julius
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Marks, Kenneth	Skeffington, Arthur
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Small, William
Gregory, Arnold	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Taverne, Dick
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Millan, Bruce	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hannan, William	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Tinn, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Urwin, T. W.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Hazell, Bert	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hilton, W. S.	Moyle, Roland	Watkins, David (Consett)
Hooley, Frank	Murray, Albert	White, Mrs. [...]
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oakes, Gordon	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Howie, W.	O'Malley, Brian	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Hoy, James	Oram, Albert E.	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Huckfield, Leslie	Orbach, Maurice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oswald, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
	Palmer, Arthur	Mr. J. D. Concannon
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Onslow, Cranley
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Orme, Stanley
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Glover, Sir Douglas	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Gresham Cooke, R.	Paget, R. T.
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Pardoe, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Percival, Ian
Biffen, John	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biggs-Davison, John	Hay, John	Pym, Francis
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Heffer, Eric S.	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Booth, Albert	Hooson, Emiyn	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Iremonger, T. L.	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Roebuck, Roy
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Jopling, Michael	Russell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Walter	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Sheldon, Robert
Corfield, F. V.	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Crouch, David	Kitson, Timothy	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Crowder, F. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lewie, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Tapsell, Peter
Dance, James	MacArthur, Ian	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)	Waddington, David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Eden, Sir John	Maude, Angus	Ward Dame Irene
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eyre, Reginald	Monro, Hector	Wright, Esmond
Farr, John	More, Jasper	Wylie, N. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Younger, Hn. George
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Murton, Oscar	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Foster, Sir John	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Mr. Airey Neave and
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Norwood, Christopher	Mr. Peter Kirk

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order.

The Chairman

Order. I am required by the Standing Orders now to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 77, Noes 129.

Division No. 90.]	AYES	[11.49 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Bossom, Sir Clive
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Biffen, John	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Biggs-Davison, John	Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Clegg, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Booth, Albert	Corfield, F. V.
Crouch, David	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crowder, F. P.	Jopling, Michael	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dance, James	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Roebuck, Roy
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Kitson, Timothy	Russell, Sir Ronald
Eden, Sir John	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Sheldon, Robert
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Farr, John	MacArthur, Ian	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Tapsell, Peter
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Marquand, David	Waddington, David
Foster, Sir John	Monro, Hector	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Murton, Oscar	Wright, Esmond
Clover, Sir Douglas	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Wylie, N. R.
Gresham Cooke, R.	Norwood, Christopher	Younger, Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Onslow, Cranley
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Orme, Stanley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hay, John	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Mr. Airey Neave and
Heffer, Eric S.	Paget, R. T.	Mr. Peter Kirk.
Hooson, Emlyn	Pardoe, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Percival, Ian
Iremonger, T. L.	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
NOES
Alldritt, Walter	Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Anderson, Donald	Galpern, Sir Myer	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Archer, Peter	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Moyle, Roland
Bagier, Gordon, A. T.	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Murray, Albert
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Ogden, Eric
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Gregory, Arnold	O'Malley, Brian
Binns, John	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Oram, Albert E.
Bishop, E. S.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Orbach, Maurice
Blackburn, F.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Oswald, Thomas
Boyden, James	Hannan, William	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Palmer, Arthur
Brooks, Edwin	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hazell, Bert	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, Bob (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hilton, W. S.	Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman	Hooley, Frank	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Probert, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Howie, W.	Rees, Merlyn
Carmichael, Neil	Hoy, James	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Coe, Denis	Huckfield, Leslie	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Conlan, Bernard	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Rowlands, E.
Crawshaw, Richard	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
		Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dalyell, Tam	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Silverman, Julius
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Loughlin, Charles	Small, William
Dell, Edmund	Luard, Evan	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dempsey, James	Lubbock, Eric	Taverne, Dick
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	McBride, Neil	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Doig, Peter	MacColl, James	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Macdonald, A. H.	Tinn, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Urwin, T. W.
Ellis, John	Mackie, John	Varley, Eric G.
English, Michael	McNamara. J. Kevin	Wainwright, Edward (Dearne Valley)
Ensor, David	Manuel, Archie	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Marks, Kenneth	Watkins, David (Consett)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	White, Mrs. Eirene
Fernyhough, E.	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice	Millan, Bruce
Ford, Ben	Miller, Dr. M. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Forrester, John	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Fowler, Gerry	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Irving. It is clear to everyone who saw what happened before the Division on the Motion for the Closure was called that most unfortunate circumstances had arisen and that we should try to overcome them in a manner which does not do any injury to the Committee. Perhaps I can briefly outline, for the benefit of those who were not here, what happened.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was in the midst of his speech. He then gave way to one of my hon. Friends, as he had given way on a number of occasions. Then my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), moved the Closure, supposing, I think, that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston-under-Lyne had resumed his seat at the end of his speech when, in fact, all he had done was give way to another hon. Member for an intervention.

When that occurred, many of us urged that it would be possible for the Motion to be withdrawn because none of us believed that it was the desire of the Whips to move the Closure in the midst of my hon. Friend's speech. You then accepted the Motion and certainly my assumption was that you, too, believed that my hon. Friend had resumed his seat at the end of his speech, for otherwise I do not believe that it would have been right in such circumstances for the Chair—and I say this with respect—to have accepted the Motion, although we know that it is completely within its discretion to do so.

I think that I have described fairly what occurred and what led to circumstances which no one in the Committee would desire. Certainly it would be unfortunate if, as a result of these circumstances, there were to be a clash between hon. Members and the Chair.

12 midnight

That might occur if we were to proceed on this basis. It is quite evident that there has been a misunderstanding. Therefore, partly for that reason—it would be better, it would be a way in which the Front Bench could make a statement about it, and put the matter in order—I consider that this would be a proper moment, and this is my main point of order, for me to propose That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. On that Motion, if it were accepted, I could make a few remarks, the Government spokesman could do likewise, and we might even have a word from the Opposition Front Bench.

I seriously suggest that in the interests of the Committee it would be better to deal with this question on the Motion I am now seeking leave to move, rather than by points of order, which might or might not be genuine. In any case, at this hour, this would be the best way to serve the Committee.

The Chairman

Order. I ought to say first of all that the Chair takes, and did take, into account all the circumstances in accepting the Question that was put to it. I really cannot add anything to that. To discuss it on the Motion that the hon. Gentleman proposes would be out of order anyway, because that would be questioning the discretion of the Chair in the exercise of its responsibility under Standing Orders. I am afraid that at this point I cannot accept the hon. Member's submission.

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order, Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

On a point of order. I am sure that you have the sympathy of the entire Committee in the very difficult position in which you have been placed by the extraordinary conduct of the Whips.

Hon. Members

Disgraceful.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

What I want to ask, for my clarification, because there may be other hon. Members fully aware of the point of order underlying the decision which you made, is whether it is normal and traditional for the Closure to be moved when a speaker is still in the course of his speech, when the Committee stage of a Bill is on the Floor of the House. I gather that it is in order in Standing Committee upstairs—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Friend telling me that it is not in order. This is exactly what I want to know. What is in order and what is normal? What is traditional and decent, according to the customs of this House in Committee, whether upstairs or on the Floor of the House?

The Chairman

Order. I have already dealt with this point of order. I cannot comment on the action of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). I can only say that it was in order, and that the Closure is a point of order and therefore takes precedence against and over an hon. Member who has the floor. I cannot——

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order. I really have dealt with this point of order. I cannot hear further points on matters with which I have dealt.

Mr. Orme

On a point of order. Can you help the Committee by suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who showed a little too much zeal in moving the Closure, that he might correct this error by making a statement to the Committee to the effect that he was not being discourteous to my hon. Friend? This is an important point.

There are many of us on the back benches who want jealously to guard against criticism of the Chair, but we want to be absolutely sure that these matters are being conducted in a completely fair manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In the light of that, Mr. Irving—I am not making the criticism but I should like you to assure me on the point—I hope that you can allay the fears which some of us have, since not only have we just had this incident but you have refused to accept the Motion to report Progress proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Perhaps you might explain to us, as back-benchers, how our rights can be safeguarded. This is vital for us in a democratic Chamber, and we feel that those rights have been usurped by the Front Bench——

The Chairman

Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with care. I am grateful for his forbearance in not wishing to criticise the decision of the Chair. I cannot give a direction to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I can accept his proposal. This I did. It was perfectly in order. I hope that the Committee can now make some progress.

Hon. Members

On a point of order——

The Chairman

Order. I cannot hear further on a point of order with which I have dealt.

Mr. Powell

On a further and different point of order, Mr. Irving. I understood you to say, in dealing with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that you had taken into account the circumstances which he described. May I respectfully put to you that, in deciding in its discretion whether to accept a Motion for the Closure, the Chair would be in a difficult position, which might create a difficult precedent for the Chair in future, if it were required to decide, among other things, whether the Motion had been moved in error by the hon. Member who rose to move it. Therefore, would it not be appropriate, if an error has occurred, that the Government and the Leader of the House should relieve you of the difficulty to which I have sought to draw attention by themselves acting in such a way as to remedy what has happened?

The Chairman

In making a decision from the Chair I cannot take into account the motives or intention of an hon. Member who makes the submission. I can only take into account the factors which are presented to the Chair for its decision. What the Government do is not for the Chair.

Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I put it to you, with great respect, that the Committee is in a state of utter confusion as a result of what has happened. Could you do something to clarify it? As in the British constitution, there are some things which are written down and there are some which come to be regarded as conventions and which in themselves become almost rules. It occurs to many of us that what has happened tonight has been a complete breach of what has come to be regarded as a convention. Is there some way by which the matter can be immediately clarified, for the good of the House as a whole, so that we may understand the position in future?

In this connection, may I draw your attention to the fact that, after my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) had moved the Closure, I raised a point of order to the effect that he may well have been under a misapprehension and to ask, in that case, whether it would be appropriate for him to draw your attention to it and seek leave to withdraw the words which he had uttered. I never had an answer on that precise point. I wonder whether you could now deal with it, Mr. Irving——

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating the point which I dealt with previously. I cannot say more than I have said already, save to add that the question of the interruption of an hon. Member's speech arises about once a week in the House at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Roebuck

I had not finished my point of order.

The Chairman

Order. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I had already dealt with the substance of his point of order. Mr. Hugh Fraser.

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order. I had not finished my point of order.

The Chairman

I interrupted the hon. Member, but I cannot hear him now if he is reiterating a point of order with which I have already dealt.

Mr. Roebuck

If you would listen to me, Mr. Irving, you would hear that I am not reiterating anything. Far from reiterating, I am not even iterating. As a number of the procedures and customs of the House have been altered, inasmuch as, apparently, the Whips are no longer mute like swans, would it be out of order if my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) went to the Box and explained himself?

The Chairman

I cannot allow that.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

On a point of Order. I am sure that the whole Committee has great sympathy with you, Mr. Irving, in the difficult conduct of our affairs at this juncture. I hope that we shall be able to proceed, as that is obviously the wish of the Committee. There was clearly an act of inadvertence by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). Would not the simplest solution be for the hon. Member to explain that it was an act of inadvertence and that he did not wish to interrupt the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

The Chairman

The right hon. Member has just repeated what has already been said. I think that I ought to call the next Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. May I respectfully return to the reply which you gave to my point of order earlier, Mr. Irving? When I asked whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I understood you to reply, as I had mentioned the Ruling by the Chair, that on that: Motion it would be improper to discuss the decision of the Chair. Of course I immediately acknowledge that it would be absolutely out of order. However, I submit that what would be in order on such a Motion, and these devices are arranged partly for these purposes, would be to discuss the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).

Moreover, I submit that if you enabled me to move such a Motion, which I would have thought in any case would be reasonable at this hour of the night, it would be possible for the matter to be cleared up and it would be possible for the Leader of the House, or the Home Secretary, who has been in charge of the Bill, to make a submission on behalf of the Government dealing with the question. I am sure that the Government would wish to say that it was not their desire that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) should be interrupted. If we were to deal with it in that way, we should avoid the problem of whether a Closure Motion should be accepted at such a time. I seriously suggest that it would be in accordance with previous practice for a Motion to report Progress to be moved, and it would assist the Committee to avoid what might otherwise be a much more serious crisis of procedure.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is now arguing about the decision of the Chair. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I could not accept his submission at this stage.

Mr. Hooson

As your Ruling creates a very important precedent, Mr. Irving, one of the points which is troubling the Committee is the Ruling which you gave to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on his first point of order when you said that in accepting the Motion for the Closure you took account of the circumstances. Do we understand from that that you appreciated that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has just given way and had not completed his speech? That was the circumstance which disturbed the Committee, and it is very important that this point should be cleared up.

12.15 a.m.

The Chairman

Order. I was not referring to the particular circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I was referring to all the circumstances that must be taken into account by the Chair in deciding whether to accept a Closure.

Hon. Members

On a point of order.

The Chairman

Mr. John Hall.

Mr. John Hall

There are two points which I wish to draw to your attention. The first is in reference to the proposal advanced to you by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the Committee do report Progress.

May I suggest another reason for your consideration? There is no doubt at all that the Committee feels considerably, and I think rightly, aggrieved by the events of the last 20 minutes or so. There is, I think, doubt and suspicion in the minds of both sides of the Committee about the future possible action of the Government Front Bench, and it is probably true to say that the probability of getting business through at a reasonable pace during the rest of this night is now very remote because of the atmosphere generated by the very ill-advised action of the Whip.

In view of all these circumstances, and because both sides of the Committee want to make progress under the right conditions—conditions in which they are able to give reasoned consideration to the very important Amendments yet to come before us—I would suggest that it would be wise to accept the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and for the Committee to report Progress.

My second point of order is this. I do not know whether it has been brought to your notice, but during the last Division the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), almost got through the Aye Lobby. I think he got as far as having his name ticked off, although he did not get through the door. May I ask that in these circumstances at least half the vote be given to the Ayes?

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that I cannot make a comment on the hon. Gentleman's last statement. As far as the first is concerned, he is really only arguing a decision of the Chair. We must make some progress, and then I will be able to consider whether at another stage I can accept the Motion which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale wished to move.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Maude

On a point of order, Mr. Irving. In reply to a point of order from an hon. Member opposite, I understood you to say that no precedent had been created on this occasion because it was quite common for this to happen at 10 o'clock. I would respectfully submit that the circumstances are in no way similar, and that this cannot be relevant.

If you were referring to the suspension of the Rule, of course the debate then continues and the hon. Member who has the floor continues to speak. If you were referring to an occasion when an hon. Member would otherwise talk the debate out, and the debate would automatically lapse at 10 o'clock, this again has no relevance to the present situation because the debate would not have lapsed at 10 o'clock if the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had been allowed to complete his speech.

The Chairman

Order. I was not arguing in support of my decision, and I do not propose to do that. I was merely giving an instance of when an hon. Member's speech can be interrupted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I would not persist in raising this point of order, Mr. Irving, but I feel a deep sense of guilt because I believe that my action in attempting to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was the cause of all the disturbance. May I explain that I rose only because the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was arguing about the £2,000 a year for peers, and I was attempting to intervene to show that the Scottish peers whom I represent would never be content with £2,000 a year.

When I rose, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne courteously sat down, and I believe that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had come to his peroration and, under this misapprehension, he moved a Closure. I do not question your Ruling. Mr. Irving, I do not want to go into past history, but this may be a precedent, and where an hon. Member courteously gives way to an intervention, he should not be penalised by having his peroration punctured.

The Chairman

I should like to relieve the hon. Gentleman of a sense of guilt. It made no difference that the hon. Member gave way. It would have been perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Rotherham to intervene while the hon. Member had the Floor. The Chair can only consider whether a matter that is before it is in order in accordance with Standing Orders. I think that we ought now to make progress.

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order. Mr. Younger, Amendment No. 156.

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order. I have dealt at great length with a point of order. I cannot hear anything that is a reiteration of what has already been said. If the Committee wants to make progress in order to allow the acceptance of a Motion similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I suggest it allows——

Several hon. Members rose——

The Chairman

Order. I suggest that it allows a debate on Amendment No. 156.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. This is a completely new one. It may or may not be true, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) to say that this is nothing but a Reichstag?

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

On a point of order.

The Chairman

Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Roebuck

Further to that point of order——

The Chairman

The Chair did not hear that. I do not know if the hon. Member needs to follow it up.

Mr. Jopling

On a point of order. I think that the Committee has been put in considerable difficulty in view of this Ruling. You have been asked a question, Mr. Irving, which, with great respect, the Committee must understand——

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member has asked a question in a form of words which makes it clear that it is one which I have already been asked. He cannot proceed on that point of order.

Mr. Roebuck

Could I perhaps say that I did not say——

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member prefaced his remark with a phrase which indicated that he was about to put the same matter to me. He cannot do that.

Mr. Jopling

On a point of order. If the Committee is to proceed, it is essential to know how the Chair will react to Closures which may be put. You have already stated, Mr. Irving, that it is within the rules of order for a Closure Motion——

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is reflecting on the exercise by the Chair of the discretion in the Standing Order. He cannot do that.

Mr. Jopling

On a point of order.

The Chairman

Not even on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order. I think perhaps that I should seek to correct what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I did not say, "This is nothing but a Reichstag", and I was not engaging in any reflection on the Committee. It was merely a historical reflection referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) appeared to be sitting for the constituency of East Berlin.

Sir J. Rodgers

On a point of order. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Irving, by clarifying a certain point. I am sure that we are all disturbed at what happened about half an hour ago when the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was speaking and the Closure was moved when he had just sat down to allow an intervention. I ask for guidance. Would it be in order for hon. Members on either side to move the Closure when the Front Bench spokesman has started to reply to any points in the debate?

The Chairman

It would be perfectly in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order and to seek to move the Closure. As in all requests for the Closure, it is for the Chair to decide whether it should be accepted.

Mr. Howie

On a point of order. Some of us have shown consistent interest in the Bill. I have noticed that some of the points of order have been raised by Members who are no more than squatters. In the interests of all those Members who are concerned about the progress of this very important constitutional Measure, I think that we should hear those parts of the Bill which are of peculiar interest to Scotland——

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Howie

—in which I and some of my constituents have an interest. I think that the Committee should now permit the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to move his Amendment.

The Chairman

I hope that the Committee will accept the hon. Member's advice and allow the hon. Member for Ayr to proceed.

Mr. Onslow

On a point of order. Is it not of some importance to the Committee to establish what happened—whether the Closure was moved by accident or on purpose—and how it might have been avoided? The Committee will accept that, once it has been moved, you, Mr. Irving, may well have no choice but to accept it. If the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) had simply made a stupid mistake it was open to him, when the Question was put again from the Chair, not to challenge it and to let the Division drop. But it is clear that he acted quite deliberately.

The Chairman

Procedurally the hon. Member is correct.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-North-wood)

On a point of order. I wonder whether I might seek the guidance of the Chair about future arrangements. I understood you to say that the moving of the Closure per se is as such a point of order. Suppose an hon. Member has the Floor, and another hon. Member wishes to move the Closure. Does not he have to precede it with the words "On a point of order"? He cannot merely get up and move the Closure, and thereby establish a point of order in law. To get the hon. Member who has the Floor off his feet he must use the words, which were not used in this instance, "On a point of order".

12.30 a.m.

The Chairman

The practice of the House is not always to preface the application for the Closure with the words "On a point of order", but it loses none of its validity for that. I hope that hon. Members will now allow us to make progress.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Mr. Irving, there is a vital principle involved here. As you have established that it was in order for the Closure to be moved, it means that we come very near to having to comment on the conduct of the Chair, and we are left with no alternative. We recognise to the full your skill and leadership in the Chair in the past, and we do not want in this instance to bring you into this, but I see no alternative in view of the Ruling you have given. Is it possible to ask for the Mace to be placed on the Table and for Mr. Speaker to be summoned so that we might get a Ruling from the Chair on a matter which might otherwise completely pervert the normal usages of Parliament?

The Chairman

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his appreciation of my difficulties. Mr. Speaker has no control over what happens in a Committee of the whole House. I think that we must proceed.

Mr. Ridley

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking at 10 o'clock, and his speech was interrupted. The Government led the Committee into the Lobby to enable him to continue his speech so that we could hear it to the end. Later they moved the Closure in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and voted him down. It seems illogical that the Government should vote to continue the speech of one of their hon. Friends, and then vote to stop hearing another of their hon. Friends.

The Chairman

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member is not raising a point of order that is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ridley

Further to that point of order. We have been deprived of hearing the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.

The Chairman

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Clegg

On a point of order, Mr. Irving, you have indicated that it is possible for a Front Bencher to stop the speech of a back bencher. How can a back bencher stop the speech of a Front Bencher?

The Chairman

It is open to back benchers to use the provisions of the Standing Order in the same way as Front Benchers do. I cannot rule on a hypothetical situation.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Hamilton)

On a point of order. Is it not in keeping with the best traditions of the House that in a procedural impasse which seems to have the features of a precedent, if the Leader of the House is present it is fitting that he should make a statement?

The Chairman

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. I am sure it is correct that the decision to accept or reject a Motion to report Progress is entirely within the discretion of the Chair. I asked leave at about five minutes to twelve to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again", because I had a suspicion that there might be serious difficulties which would prevent further discussion of the Bill. At that time it was only a suspicion.

The suspicion has now turned to a fact and I therefore suggest that it would be perfectly open to you to accept my submission now and I would add in support of my submission that on occasions when I recall that there have been disturbed feelings, this has been one way of dealing with it and it is precisely why the device exists. I am not questioning the proceedings of the Chair. Such matters should be conducted according to the rules of order and therefore I respectfully ask, in the interests of the House, that I might now have leave.

The Chairman

I have already refused the hon. Member's submission. I cannot as yet accept a submission I have so recently refused. I can only advise him that the best way he can get his Motion accepted; n one way or another is to help the Committee to make some progress.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

You have been placed in extreme difficulty, Mr. Irving. Is it not right that we should press the Leader of the House to make a statement that the Government moved the Motion under a misapprehension and do not regard it as a matter of precedent?

The Chairman

I have ruled on that. The action of the Government is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

I am deeply troubled by what has happened in the Committee this evening. [Interruption.] Yes, because I know that there is a precedent in another place where one can move that a noble Lord be no longer heard. But I have never heard a Closure moved in this House in the middle of an hon. Member's speech. I ask if it would be in order now to ask Mr. Speaker to tell us tomorrow what the precedents are and what Erskine May has to say about this, because it destroys one of the liberties and priviliges of Members of this House.

The Chairman

I have already ruled on that point of order. Mr. Crouch.

Sir Charles Taylor

I asked if Mr. Speaker could rule tomorrow.

Hon. Members

Today.

Sir Charles Taylor

I beg pardon. Today—later today—and give us precedents for a similar situation to this and also say what Erskine May says about this.

The Chairman

I understand what the hon. Member says, but I cannot help him further.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

You have asked the Committee to make Progress, Mr. Irvine, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has asked us to report Progress. That is a much more sensible suggestion. We have heard absolutely nothing from the Government Front Bench who stand accused of stopping this debate in the middle of a most important suggestion from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

The Chairman

I have already been addressed on that point of order and what I said to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was that if he wished to have the Motion accepted, the Chair would require some progress. That is a matter of fact. I cannot hear the hon. Member further, because he is, on the one hand, criticising the Chair and, on the other, dealing with a point of order which I have already disposed of.

Mr. Crouch

Further to that point of order. I did not wish to criticise the Chair——

The Chairman

Order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr) rose——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order——

The Chairman

Order. I have already heard the hon. Member on a point of order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger rose——

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order——

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order. You have told the Committee, Mr. Irving, and it will accept your assurance, naturally, with gratitude, that, in ruling on points of order, you take into account all the circumstances in the interests of the Committee and of Parliament. One of the circumstances which you would be bound to take into account is that the Committee is in the course of considering a Bill of major constitutional importance——

The Chairman

Order. I said that I took into account all the circumstances. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to reopen this matter.

Mr. Iremonger rose——

The Chairman

Order. Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger rose——

Mr. Iremonger

My point of order——

The Chairman

Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to proceed.

Mr. Iremonger

My point of order——

The Chairman

Order. I have disposed of the hon. Member's point of order.

Mr. Iremonger

I had not reached it, Mr. Irving.

The Chairman

That may be so, but nothing that the hon. Member has said in addressing me suggested to me that he was doing anything else but raising a point of order which I had already disposed of.

Mr. Iremonger

On a different point of order. My point of order was about to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—Do I take it, Mr. Irving, that I have not the right to raise a point of order?—[HON. MEMBERS: Of course you have.]——

The Chairman

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Iremonger

My point of order is that it is now apparent, as it must be apparent to you, Mr. Irving, that, without a Motion for the Guillotine being officially moved, the Committee is operating under a Guillotine at the arbitrary discretion of the Government Whips. As the Leader of the House is now here, would it be in order to ask him to move a Motion——

The Chairman

Order. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is commenting on the Bill, which he cannot do on a point of order, and, on the other, he is directing a submission to the Leader of the House, which is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I want to raise a point of order which involves an injustice to Scotland. I distinctly heard you, Mr. Irving, call upon the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to move the next Amendment, which vitally affects my constituents, very important peers, who are very anxious that I should put their case. They want the Committee to consider dispassionately the rights of Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords. As this grave matter, affecting my constituents and the whole future of the peerage in Scotland, should not be taken when the Committee is in its present state of emotion, would you now listen to the respectful and statesmanlike suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)?

The Chairman

I understand the importance of the hon. Member's submission but I cannot help him.

[Sir BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move Amendment No. 156, in page 3, line 13, at end add: (5) At the beginning of each Session of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall compile a roll of the voting peers, specifying particularly those voting peers who are ordinarily resident in Scotland, and shall lay this register on the Table of the House of Lords; and if it shall appear from the said register that fewer than one-tenth of the voting peers are ordinarily resident in Scotland, the House shall by resolution pray Her Majesty to create sufficient voting peers who are ordinarily resident in Scotland, so that the total number thereof shall comprise not less than one-tenth of the total number of peers possessing full voting rights. A more sensitive soul than I might think that the Committee had entered into a conspiracy to prevent my addressing it this evening. I must start by telling the Government Front Bench that I very much resent the circumstances in which I am now compelled to move the Amendment. From the way in which the Bill is being treated one would think that it was a minor Measure, being forced through quickly by the Government in the course of their normal electoral programme. In fact, it is the most important Bill that has come before the House in the time, that I have been in it. It effects a sweeping change in our constitution—a greater change than has taken place for much more than a hundred years, putting it fairly low. I am now compelled to introduce the Amendment at a quarter to one o'clock in the morning, when all sorts of people, certainly in Scotland and probably in other parts of the country, want to know that it has been properly discussed and will greatly resent the fact that we are compelled to discuss it in the middle of the night.

My task is made the more difficult by the fact that I have a serious speech to make. It has taken me a lot of research to prepare and it contains a lot of important points. I want an assurance from the Government Front Bench that I shall be allowed to continue my speech to the end.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner)

Order. The hon. Member might be good enough to come to the subject matter of his Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On a point of order. Surely, Sir Barnett, there are many precedents for your predecessors in the Chair allowing a reasonable degree of comment by an hon. Member—moving what he regards as an important Amendment—objecting to the fact that under the arrangement made by the Government it is taken at a time of day when consideration is more difficult than it is at other times. I submit that my hon. Friend is in order in pointing that out.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the House and its procedure, will know that the hon. Member was referring to the question of the Closure, which is not relevant before the Question has been proposed and cannot be moved unless the Question has been proposed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I respectfully invite your attention, Sir Barnett, to the point that I understood my hon. Friend to be making, namely, that in the atmosphere created by the unhappy events of the last three-quarters of an hour it was particularly difficult to secure the proper discussion of an Amendment of the greatest importance to Scotland. Surely my hon. Friend is in order in defending the interests of Scotland in this way.

The Temporary Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I did not stop the hon. Member when he was on that point. I stopped him when he was dealing with the question of the Closure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I respectfully suggest that you have been rather impetuous, Sir Barnett, in rebuking the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I entirely agreed with every statement that he made in what I thought was the preamble to what will turn out to be a very interesting speech. Without challenging your Ruling, Sir Barnett, I fail to see anything that justified your telling him to come to the point, when he was dealing with a point that affects the right of all Scottish Members to have their grievances discussed at length. I suggest that, quite unwittingly and without understanding the temperament of the Scottish people, you have been rather hasty and impetuous in telling the hon. Member to come to order.

The Temporary Chairman

I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not want to criticise the Chair. I think that I was in order and right to point out, when the hon. Member was dealing with the question of Closure, that he could not deal with that particular point in consequence of the fact that Closure does not come into the question of discussion at all unless and until the Question has been proposed. I hope that we can get on.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

On a point of order. With great respect, may I put this difficulty before you? Your predecessor in the Chair recently indicated that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) were to move to report Progress, the circumstances at the time would be considered by the Chair. In the unfortunate upset a while ago, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was cut off in the middle of his speech before any reply had been given from the Government Front Bench. This Amendment is of important constitutional significance to Scotland. I hope that we can be given some guidance by you, Sir Barnett, that if the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale were to leap to his feet and to move the Closure in midstream, before any reply had been given by the Front Bench, that Motion would not then be accepted by the Chair.

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Younger

I know that it is difficult when the Committee is in this sort of mood, but I am in deadly earnest when I say that I deeply resent this. This is the most inopportune time of day to have to present the Amendment.

Having made that protest, I will now endeavour to put the argument to which I hope the Committee will listen with as much patience as it can command at this hour.

Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that paragraph 50 of the White Paper supports him? It says that the Government attach the greatest importance to the presence of Scottish peers so that he is amply reinforced by the Government's own thinking. Therefore, it would be right to ask the Leader of the House to be present and to be helpful to us. I suggest that a better time of day could be found for this legislation.

Mr. Younger

I thank my hon. Friends for their support. I hope to have some indication from the Government Front Bench that I shall receive a full reply on this serious and complicated matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I know that I am only an English Member, but the Act of Union is of importance to England as well as to Scotland. This is a most intricate constitutional question. Does my hon. Friend think it proper that this discussion should proceed any further, in the absence of any Law Officer on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend has come to the next point I was about to make. I hope that hon. Members will not regard this discussion as affecting only Scotland. It greatly affects the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roebuck

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that he should continue uninterrupted when the Government Whip interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in the middle of his speech? Is this Amendment superior to the previous one?

Mr. Younger

I agree that I have a feeling of deep guilt. While I regard this Amendment as important, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had every right to regard the matter about which he was speaking as important, too.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is already privileged. He has been interrupted several times without the Government Whip attempting to put the Question.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

On a point of order. Are not our difficulties sufficient without racialism being introduced?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I implore you, Sir Barnett, to protect the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) from frivolous interruptions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and others. In the interests of Scotland, the hon. Member for Ayr should be allowed to state his case uninterrupted.

The Temporary Chairman

I am not sure that that is not a reflection on the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may feel certain that the Chair will give every protection to every hon. Member who is keeping within the rules of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I wish to make a personal statement. The last thing I would do is to make a reflection on you, Sir Barnett, realising that you have been such a competent Chairman for many years.

The Temporary Chairman

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. Were not the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) a reflection on me, if not or. the Chair, in referring to my having nade a frivolous interruption?

The Temporary Chairman

We must get on. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Younger

It is difficult to get a serious discussion going in these circumstances. Assuming for the moment that the Bill will finally be passed, we must consider the form of representation which will take place as a result of it.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there has been an omission which I wish to put right. Subject to the approval of the Committee, it is proposed to discuss, with this Amendment, the following: Amendment No. 186 in page 3, line 8, at end insert: Provided that a peer who is not a voting peer may vote on any question in a committee to which he is appointed and to which is referred any Bill, measure or motion relating exclusively to Scotland, or any instrument or draft instrument relating exclusively to Scotland to which section 14 or section 15 of this Act applies.

Amendment No. 187 in line 13. at end add: (5) At the beginning of each Session of Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall compile a roll of the voting peers, specifying particularly those voting peers who are ordinarily resident in each of the standard regions of England and Wales and shall lay this register on the table: of the House of Lords; and if it shall appear from the said register that fewer than five voting peers are ordinarily resident in each of the standard regions of England and Wales, the House shall by resolution pray Her Majesty to create sufficient voting peers so that the total number thereof shall comprise not less than five voting peers from each of the standard regions of England and Wales.

cc1472-687
1. NEW CLAUSE NO. 21—SCOTTISH VOTING PEERS 62,086 words, 5 divisions
1. Clause 3
cc1637-87
1. VOTING DECLARATIONS 19,012 words, 1 division