PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRINTING) (Hansard, 18 January 1977)

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in the Sixth Report in the last Session of Parliament. The Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in the last Session is substantially a House of Commons matter. The technical content is minimal. We have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who is in charge of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, to deal with technical matters.
When we come to the second of the two reports, which deals with Hansard, on which I imagine there will be some argument, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I were formally to move the motion which appears on the Order Paper and for the Minister to open the debate, leaving me to respond to the thoughts of the House towards the end of the proceedings.
The Services Committee is the servant of the House. As Chairman of the Sub-Committee which has dealt with this and other matters, I should make clear that this is no party matter, and I do not speak in a party capacity. The Committee was asked to inquire into and recommend upon a further suggestion and some complaints, and the Sub-Committee met almost every week during the Session.
Obviously, the House does not have the time to debate all our reports or recommendations, nor would it wish to do so. We thought, however, that these two motions should receive more than the tacit approval of the House. Hence the opportunity for debate, which has been at our request. We are grateful to the Government for making time for it.
I should mention in passing that from time to time we hold sessions in a Committee Room open to all hon. Members 246 to come and put their thoughts to us. I want to make it clear that the next one is to be on Thursday of next week in Room 13 between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., when I shall be there, with the Clerks of the Committee. There will be a reminder on the all-party Whip, and I hope that hon. Members who have matters to raise with us—if they can send them in writing in advance it will be helpful—will come and avail themselves of the opportunity. There will be others.
I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House to take the Sixth Report of the last Session as a separate, minor matter before we enter the debate on Hansard. I should at once state that we believe that, if we have the approval of the House to the Sixth Report, we should save £58,000 in a full year. But, far more important, I believe that we should aim to do something here and now to help relieve the immense burden borne by our overworked printing establishment.
Even today, we have photocopied Amendment Papers and Order Papers because of stoppages at the press. These stoppages are, in the main, due to the immense strains and pressures upon that establishment, which have grown year by year. Before we can make other, better arrangements, about which the Minister will speak in the next debate, I believe that we should make a start now to relieve the pressure on the existing set-up. In the last Session, about 50 per cent. of the Vote bundles of papers arrived here late, and it was to try to avoid that and reduce costs that we were offered three suggestions by the Stationery Office.
One suggestion, which we recommend, was to introduce a cut-off time for the marshalling of amendments to Bills. If the House agrees, there will be a 9 p.m. deadline at the Public Bill Office from Monday to Thursday for amendments to Bills which are to be considered in the two following days. All such amendments tabled before 9 p.m. will be certain of being printed in a marshalled form and delivered next morning. The printers will be able to get on with the job rather than wait, possibly for many more hours, for the House to rise. Further amendments to the same Bills tabled later in the evening will also be published next day, as the House would wish, but not in a marshalled form. The present situation is that all are aimed to be marshalled 247 and to be tabled up to the rising of the House, which has produced the near-chaos that we have experienced on many occasions.
Amendments to Bill not down for discussion during the following two days should also appear next day. If that proves not to be possible, they will be held over for one day only and no more. This is proposed as an experiment until the end of this Session, saving some £13,000 a year in expenditure but also guaranteeing us a much more steady and reliable service.

§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what consultation there has been between the Services Committee and either of the two Procedure Committees—it would have to be the sessional one, I presume—on these matters?

§ Mr. Cooke
My information is that all those who could possibly be involved have been consulted and have assented to this on an experimental basis. If there is dissent from that point of view, it will, no doubt, emerge in the debate.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
What I want to know is not whether others concerned have been consulted in a general way but whether the Services Committee went to the Procedure Committee and asked it specifically what it thought of it, and, if so, what the answer was.

§ Mr. Cooke
The answer is that we did not take formal evidence from another Select Committee of the House. We were informed by all the Officers of the House who we believed could possibly be involved, who are in touch with all sections of activity in the House, that this was a reasonable proposition to put before the House.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
I am not concerned whether it was formal or informal. Did the Services Committee get in touch with the Procedure Committee to see whether it had anything, formally or informally, to say about this matter?

§ Mr. Cooke
Through our Clerk, who is in touch with the Clerks of all the other Committees of the House, we took the view that this was a reasonable proposal to put to the House.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
So the answer is "No "?

§ Mr. Cooke
The hon. Gentleman must interpret my words as he sees fit. I have not sought to hide anything or to fail to give him all the information to hand.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
Is the answer "Yes" or "No"?

§ Mr. Cooke
The answer is that we did not formally consult another Select Committee. I thought I had made that clear.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
Informally?

§ Mr. Cooke
Informally, inasmuch as every Select Committee is in touch with every other Select Committee on a matter such as this, through our officials.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
No?

§ Mr. Cooke
The House must make its own judgment on that point. We may be able to fill in more information as we go along.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
What a way to carry on!

§ Mr. Cooke
The second proposal involves the procedure to be followed when names are added to Early-Day Motions. No change is proposed to the present manner of printing the first appearance of the motion. The Stationery Office wanted us to agree to printing only the title of the motion and its single first sponsor when names were added. The House may visualise what that would mean. It would be a very truncated version of what had first appeared.
We felt that we could not agree to that proposal, because all hon. Members would no doubt think it important to know the breadth and flavour of support for a particular Early-Day Motion. Therefore, we recommend that, after the first appearance, we should have the title of the motion together with, as now, up to six of its sponsors' names in full, a cumulative total of the names in support of the motion and—a new helpful suggestion of our own, we hope—the page reference in the Vote so that Members can easily get from the Vote Office the original full text. That is not always easy to do without recourse to the Table Office or to the Library.
The main change that we propose is that the full text of the motion should 249 not keep appearing unless an amendment is tabled to it. In that event the whole of the motion will have to appear, because the amendment has to refer to the whole text. However, the title will always appear. We suggest that the title could be up to two lines. At present it is usually one line. Under this proposed scheme hon. Members would no doubt be more explicit in writing the titles of motions so that others would know what they were about. Sometimes when tabling a motion a Member tends not to give it a title, so it is written in a hurry by the Table Office and it is not as explicit as it might be.

§ Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)
Did the Committee question the Stationery Office's estimate of a saving of £45,000 a year? Did it examine how that saving was arrived at, and was it satisfied with that figure?

§ Mr. Cooke
We are always careful to examine any figure that is put before us. We were convinced that that was a realistic figure. But we regarded as more important than the sum involved the flow of paper through the presses and convenience to the House as regards delivery on time, for example. The Early-Day Motion proposal could save £45,000 a year and, more importantly, reduce the volume of paper and time to print it and ensure prompt delivery. We recommend this an an experiment for a period lasting up to the end of this Session.
The Stationery Office put forward a third proposal which we rejected. The proposal involved cutting to one name only the supporters of reprinted amendments to a Bill and indicating by a symbol that there were other supporters. I am surprised that that does not produce laughter in the House, but I presume that the lateness of the hour prevents it. The House will know that many subtle permutations can take place—Back Bench with Front Bench support, Back Bench with qualified Front Bench support, Front Bench amendments to which Back Benchers have added no names, and all-party amendments to Bills. It was easy to see that the House would not agree to a proposal of that nature even though it would save money and facilitate printing.
250 We rejected the proposal and do not recommend the House to follow that line.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
The Stationery Office is answerable to a Minister. The hon. Member has told us on several points that the Stationery Office put certain proposals to his Committee. Can he tell us whether it put these proposals with the approval of a Minister? Are we to understand that a Minister suggested that it would be a good idea for that last ridiculous and totally unacceptable proposition to be accepted?

§ Mr. Cooke
The Minister who is present this evening can answer for himself. A Minister would not want to stop officials, who are not as closely attuned to the working of the House as we are, from putting forward various options to facilitate the printing of papers and save money. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) must make his own judgment, but I share his view that that was an unacceptable proposition. However, we examined it, as is our duty.
The Services Committee is the servant of the House and it is not trying to push hon. Members one way or the other. I ask the House to try for an experimental period a cut-off of marshalled amendments to a Bill and a new form for the reprinting of Early-Day Motions. That would result in a better service to the House and nothing would be lost. It would involve a saving of £58,000 in a full year. One hopes that it will not inconvenience the House, but if it proved inconvenient we could, of course, think again. We propose that it should be an experiment until the end of the Session. If the House agrees to it, it will be reasonable to carry on the experiment.
It would not be weak of me to say that if, having agreed to the proposal, we found that hidden snags emerged, it would not be impossible for the Stationery Office to revert to the old form. I recommend that the Sixth Report be approved.

§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I am not sure whether we shall have an opportunity of a second debate tonight, on the First Report. If I speak in the debate 251 on the Sixth Report, do I stand a chance of catching your eye in the debate on the First Report?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
I am happy to say that I shall be leaving the Chair in about 30 seconds. I do not want to bind my successor, who might be within earshot, but I understand that there will be a good opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to obtain the facility he wants with regard to the third motion.

§ Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we were having two separate debates. The first is on the Sixth Report of the last Session. Subsequently we shall debate the First Report of this Session.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Yes, that is absolutely correct.

§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
I wish merely to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). I gather that it is suggested that the new size, when we come to debate it, will be a factor in providing savings. Are there any savings from my hon. Friend's suggestions which can be realised only if the new size is adopted? Can the savings be made if we retain the old size? In other words would the savings to be expected from what is proposed be any greater by reason of adopting the larger size?

§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)
I am not sure whether I should address my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) or to the Minister, and I am not sure whether the Government have already taken a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall address my remarks to my hon. Friend, who gave an extremely clear explanation. It was clear to the extent that it worried me. It is not only we within this cloistered Chamber who use the Order Paper for guidance about our performance. There are people outside who are concerned to know what is going on from day to day and to know how hon. Members are performing.
252 These proposals, which are put forward by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, would produce savings by bringing production into line with current printing practice. I would not be against having the copy in by 9 o'clock at night. That would be a new discipline which would not inhibit us or make our performance less efficient. That proposal would not affect persons outside.
However, people outside will want to see from the Order Paper, the Order Book or the Vote which hon. Members have lent their names to amendments. They might find that difficult unless they had all the previous papers which gave the full titles of Bills. The sign that might be on the subsequent edition might not be enough, and they might therefore need to have references.
Many business men, trade unionists and lawyers might not have well-ordered offices with a regular supply of parliamentary papers which enable them to find out quickly what is happening. Under this proposal, they will see only the title of an Early-Day Motion and the number of Members supporting it. The title is not much help when a constituent writes to ask one to consider signing such a motion. One has to study the whole motion before knowing whether one can support it.
We shall be able to find out all the detail in the Vote Office and perform our duties efficiently, but I am concerned that the Stationery Office, for its convenience and to save £58,000 of taxpayers' money, has made a suggestion which might lead to a lack of clarity creeping in and to inefficiency among those outside who keep an eye on parliamentary papers.
Many people keep an eye on these matters. They often remind me that I have not seen a motion or noticed how many of my hon. Friends have defied the Whips and signed an amendment on a Bill such as the Scotland and Wales Bill. That is where names are important, and that is why I question whether this suggestion is in the best interests of Parliament serving our constituents.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view. Has he considered that after the introduction of radio broadcasting in the not-too-distant future, 253 Order Papers and the Vote of the House may be in greater demand among the public?

§ Mr. Crouch
That may be true. Just as the listing of programmes in the Press has largely made the Radio Times irrelevant, so the function of our parliamentary papers, if they are inefficient, may be taken over by the Press.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)
The cut-off point has been referred to as 9 p.m. The report refers to 9.30 p.m.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No—it is 9 p.m."] I must be looking at the wrong page.
It is claimed that the change in the marshalling of amendments will save £13,000 and that the revised format for the adding of names will save £45,000. Will the major source of this saving be the overtime rates involved in setting or the amounts of paper required?

§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)
I do not know what we are to do with the House of Commons. The way in which it conducts its business is astonishing. We are discussing matters which are primarily the responsibility of the Services Committee, yet the Chairman of that Committee, who is also the Leader of the House, is not present. He ought to be here, even though he has spent the day dealing with devolution.
My right hon. Friend's absence reinforces the point I have made several times before that the Leader of the House ought not to be Chairman of the Services Committee. At the moment he is busy running the agenda of the House and breaking up the United Kingdom. Those two jobs give him more than enough to get on with, without being bothered about whether the deadline for something should be 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or the Adjournment of the House.
I am volunteering for the job as Chairman of the Services Committee, and I can promise hon. Members that the place would never be the same again if the House was good enough to appoint me.

§ Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)
That is why my hon. Friend will never get it.

§ Mr. Cunningham
The House at present has two Procedure Committees. One is engaged in long-term work—it must be very long-term work judging by the progress it has made so far—and the other is more engaged in short-term work.
It is perfectly clear from what was said by the Chairman-depute of the Services Committee that the Committee has not gone to the Sessional Procedure Committee to ask what it thinks. But even if the Services Committee had asked, the Sessional Procedure Committee would have been debarred from making any response. This is because the House unwisely and thoughtlessly approved a Government motion which debars the Sessional Procedure Committee from considering any matters except those referred to it by a motion of the House. This is a fine illustration of what happens when we have such a daft arrangement. Between 1970 and 1974 we had a Procedure Committee to which the House could refer matters but which was not limited to considering matters referred to it by the House. Consequently it could have responded to an inquiry by the Services Committee or anyone else about matters of this kind.
It would, however, have been possible for this matter to have been referred to the sessional Procedure Committee as a result of a motion put on the Order Paper. It would have been the job of the Leader of the House to put that motion on the Order Paper, and since he is also Chairman of the Services Committee there would have been no problem at all. Why has that not happened?
The matters that we are discussing in the Committee's Sixth Report and in the First Report of the present Session are not matters which are exclusively the jurisdiction and concern of the Services Committee. These matters are very procedural in their implications, and if the House of Commons does not ensure that the Services Committee gets the Procedure Committee to look at this point the House of Commons does not know how to run its own business. We all know, of course, that the House of Commons does not know how to run its own business.
I am not prepared to go along with something which gives effect to incompetence of this kind. These are not matters 255 which ought to be decided by the Services Committee. I would not let the Services Committee decide anything as it is constituted at present. It is led by the Government, it is packed by the Front Benches and it is largely concerned with the buildings.

§ Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Services Committee is not deciding the matter? It is simply making a recommendation and leaving it to the House to decide it, which is surely what the hon. Gentleman wants.

§ Mr. Cunningham
I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. No Committee decides anything. but in order to assist the 635 Members in reaching their decision we have the views expressed to us by the Services Committee. But we do not have any views expressed to us by either of the two Committees that the House in its wisdom has set up to consider procedural questions. This is a very procedural matter. Why has not the Services Committee or its Chairman, who is also Leader of the House and, therefore, has the means to do it, had the common sense to have this matter referred to the sessional Procedure Committee? It may have agreed with the Services Committee, but I suggest that it would not be right to allow this motion to pass tonight without receiving first the views of the short-term—that is, the sessional—Procedure Committee upon it.
In case there is any doubt on the point, let me stress again, despite the ambiguity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), that the sessional Procedure Committee has not considered this matter, because it could not consider it under the terms of the order passed by the House. But if a motion were put on the Order Paper to refer these reports, or at any rate the Sixth Report of last Session—I am not so sure that the First Report of this Session falls into the same category in this respect—to the sessional Procedure Committee, it would be free to do so.
The sessional Procedure Committee is engaged on mighty procedural questions. It is about to embark on considering whether it is possible to get rid of the comic-opera top hat. We would not 256 want—at least, I certainly would not—to distract the Committee from directing its attention to that mightly trifle, because I have said before, and I mean it, that if the Procedure Committee does not get rid of that damned hat I shall set fire to it. But it has time to look at the Sixth Report of last Session. There is still time.
The House should never allow little things like this to pass. The House does not run its affairs competently, but to have a procedural-type motion come before us without giving ourselves the benefit of the views of the Procedure Committee that we have set up is just too damned stupid even for the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Marten
Is not the solution that the motion should be withdrawn, that the consultations with the Procedure Committee that the hon. Gentleman has just proposed should take place, and that the motion should then be brought back to the House? If that is agreed, can we not get on with the next debate?

§ Mr. Cunningham
If my hon. Friend the Minister and others were prepared to say that they had been persuaded that that should happen, it would not be necessary for any of us to deploy the arguments to that effect. I thought that it would take me till nearly half-past 12 to deploy the arguments to that effect. Certainly, that is the conclusion that I was hoping to be able to come to.
We have here the Chairman-depute of the Services Committee and the Minister in charge of the Civil Service. I am not sure what the procedure of the House has to do with him, but that is the practice of the place. I would have hoped that enough had been said by now to indicate that it would be regarded as rather impudent for anyone to try to press this matter tonight, and that it would be much better if the motion were withdrawn. Important issues are involved.
I am bothered about one of the points on which I intervened a little earlier. When Whitehall officials give evidence before Select Committees, it is an excellent thing that they should not feel bound by ministerial direction and, indeed, they have no such direction. Not only should they not feel bound, but they are not 257 bound in that if any Committee asks questions as to how money might be saved the civil servants must reply—and God help them if they do not.
When the Civil Service Department or the Stationery Office puts to the Services Committee a proposal that money should be saved by making certain changes, it is odd when those changes are of a nature that would be unacceptable to any Member of Parliament who had any respect for the manner in which this place had to conduct its business.
I hope the Minister in replying to this debate will say what happened in this case. Did the Stationery Office simply respond to an invitation to say how money could be saved, in which case the Minister was not involved at all, or did the Stationery Office make a suggestion that it would be a good idea if the names of the supporters of a Bill did not appear as they do now? If the Stationery Office officials intended to make a proposal of that kind they should have cleared their lines with the Minister, and the Minister should have laughed such a ridiculous notion out of court. The matter should not even have gone to the Services Committee unless the Committee itself took the initiative and asked for proposals.
There are many respects in which we do not organise our Committee affairs very well. The mere fact that we have two Procedure Committees says something about the running of this joint. We also have another Procedure Committee, the Standing Orders Committee, and it should be integrated with one or other of the Procedure Committees. It now seems that we are to have the Services Committee homing in on the matter. It is worth recalling that the Services Committee is not a Committee similar to any of the others. The Services Committee is advisory to Mr. Speaker. Its terms of reference provide that it is to advise Mr. Speaker on the services in the part of the House for which it is responsible, or something of that nature.
I am not sure how the Services Committee gets into this question—and, indeed, whether it is proper for it to have got into this question. If the Services Committee is advisory to Mr. Speaker, the Services Committee can be involved only in those matters that fall within the competence of Mr. Speaker. 258 These matters are not within the competence of Mr. Speaker to decide. We may be allowing these things to happen not by decisions of the House but by gradual habit, erosion and slippage.
I should like to see a long-term Procedure Committee sorting all this out, so that afterwards we shall have proposals to put to the House to tidy up the Committee structure of this place on a rational basis. But we cannot hold out any short-term hope of that happening, and I think the next General Election will occur before the House has anything of that nature from the Procedure Committee.
It follows that the House has to be ultra-careful about motions of this kind which come along without the present untidy structure of the House having been exploited to the full. For those reasons it would be wrong for the House to pass the motion tonight. It would be as if we were saying "We have a Procedure Committee but we do not intend to make use of it on matters that are clearly of a procedural nature."
The Procedure Committee has recently finished a number of studies, and I would have thought that the Committee ought to be able to look at this report pretty quickly. The matter could come back to the House with the advantage of the Committee's advice within 10 days or so. That would be common sense and is the course which ought to have been adopted before the matter was brought before the House in the first place.

§ Mr. Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
I had not intended to speak tonight; I came to listen. But I have been alarmed by the things that I have heard and by what I have read in the Sixth Report since the debate started.
I have sympathy for the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). We ought to ask ourselves why we are in this position and why it has been necessary for the Services Committee to make this recommendation. The key is contained in paragraph 2 of that report, which talks about the volume of work having increased by 66 per cent. between 1964 and 1975. Successive Governments have overloaded the parliamentary machine, 259 none more so than the present Government, and it is no wonder that the machine is breaking down. No Government ever seem to learn. I hope that the Government will take the hint which has been dropped so broadly outside the House.
In addition, we have been serviced fairly badly because of industrial disputes. I do not know the cause of them, but undoubtedly the work load has been a contributory factor. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would support me in thinking that we ought to beware of false economies. There is a suggestion that money could be saved by adapting our procedures. Obviously Parliament must be cost-conscious and should not be lavish with money, but if we are to work ridiculous hours, as we do, and be weighed down with such legislation as we have had in recent years, we must be serviced properly. It is ironic that we should be discussing the matter at this late hour when the vast majority of people are in bed or ought to be.
If we are to be properly serviced, we must not be unwilling as a nation to pay a fair amount, even if it is costly, to provide the services that Parliament needs, such as the production of Hansard, which we shall be discussing in the next debate.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
While we are talking about the House of Commons being cost-conscious, I wonder whether the House is aware that the signboards on the Interview Floor, notifying hon. Members that they cannot go into the part of the floor that is occupied by secretaries, cost £200. Is that being cost-conscious?

§ Mr. Smith
My hon. Friend, the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who has been a Member of the House as long as I, also called attention to a number of points that were not dealt with when the debate started. I do not know the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but it underlines a point that has been noticed by many of us who have been in the House for some time—the way in which some services are slipping. Although services have been improved in some directions, there 260 has been a falling off in others. Over the last decade work has constantly increased, and it is imprudent of Parliament not to ensure that it has the best possible service that money can buy economically.
According to the report, services are beginning to slip. This is the first stage. In a year or so there will be further amendments to cut back services further, although, presumably, the Government machine will go on inexorably.

§ Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)
I do not think that hon. Members are entitled to malign people who have been working in the House for many years. If these expenditures have been going on, why the blazes did not hon. Members themselves put down Questions to Ministers—possibly the unnecessary expenditures could have been eliminated before they got off the ground—instead of coming here and preaching about inefficiency? I am confident that the Leader of the House would give fair answers if the Questions were put to him.

§ Mr. Smith
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for as long as I have, and his interruptions are getting longer. I know that he is a fair man and I am sure he will agree that our business, irrespective of which party has been in Government, has increased enormously since he first came here.
The servicing of parliamentary papers has got much worse in recent years, and if we are to do our jobs we must have the best possible provision of technical facilities. These proposals are a step in the wrong direction and will lead to other steps in the wrong direction. They will put increasing power in the hands of the Executive, and that must be a bad thing.

§ Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)
I did not originally intend to speak in this debate, but I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said about the need for the efficient servicing of hon. Members.
My attention has been drawn to the memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Stationery Office which shows that production at the HMSO printing press rose by 66 per cent. between 1964 and 1975 and that output per operative increased 261 by 81 per cent. That is a good record, and a tribute should be paid to the people working at the press for that result.
I am concerned about the examination of the period from October 1974 to August 1975 which showed that 58 per cent. of amendments for inclusion in marshalled lists and 59 per cent. of other amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m. That means that nearly half the amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m., and if the motion is passed many hon. Members will be seriously inconvenienced. It will be hard for many to accept and frustrating for many others. Hon. Members who may have been out of the House for the early part of an evening could return for a 10 p.m. vote and find that the shop had shut and they could not table amendments. We should be improving the facilities for hon. Members, but these proposals will make things more difficult for us.
There is an estimated saving, but with the weight of legislation that comes before the House we must not complicate our systems by approving the 9.30 p.m. deadline for amendments or the alteration of the typographical format for adding one's name to Early-Day Motions.
It is convenient for hon. Members to be able to see a motion in full and to read the names attached to it. Having to beaver round the House, looking for the number of the motion and checking it, will take time and be inconvenient. Every minute in this place is of vital and useful importance.
Perhaps I do not carry the House with me on that, but I believe that we should consider carefully what problems we may be creating for ourselves in future. For example, the reprinting of only the first name on a motion is more for us and our secretaries to think about. This measure should be taken back and reconsidered so that alternatives can be presented to us.

§ Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)
Having listened carefully to the debate, I must say that we are in danger of getting carried away by the importance of what are in essence relatively unimportant matters in our parliamentary procedure.
When I read the Sixth Report, the acceptance of which was ably moved by 262 my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), I considered the two suggested amendments. I must say straight away that I thought that both amendments were fairly unimportant and quite acceptable. I should be sorry if we did not pass the report tonight because we were concerned that it had been presented to us by the Services Committee rather than by the Procedure Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out. In that respect something has gone slightly wrong in the works that I do not understand. However, I think that we are in danger of making asses of ourselves if we turn down this saving and reject two fairly unimportant amendments because of the essentially procedural point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) pointed out that, according to the appendix to the report, half the amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m., which showed the relative importance of curtailing the time available and making the time limit 9 o'clock rather than 9.30 or 10 o'clock, as at present. Due to the fallibility of us all, we tend to table things as late as possible. If we know, for example, that we have a time limit of 4 o'clock for the tabling of Questions, we all rush into the Table Office at five minutes to 4 o'clock with our pieces of yellow paper. If we knew that we had to table amendments by 9 o'clock, far and away the majority of amendments would be tabled by that time without any great inconvenience.
The report states that if it is possible for amendments to be printed when tabled after 9 o'clock, that should happen. I cannot see that either of the amendments is in itself very important.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
The point I was making was not that it should be the Procedure Committee's name that is on the report rather than that of the Services Committee but that the Procedure Committee may have points of guidance to offer to the House as to the implications of these proposals. There are many important points on the content and format of the Order Paper which the Procedure Committee ought to want to put to the House, and these are some of them. I want to have its advice on the 263 proposals before the House comes to a decision.

§ Mr. Renton
I take the point, which is valid. Surely we all have some knowledge of the relative importance of the suggested minor amendments and are able to consider whether they are of sufficient importance to warrant going back to the Procedure Committee. In my opinion, the answer is that they are not of sufficient importance.
There are two particular matters that I put before the House. First, I think it is a fairly great mistake to print a report in which one of the pieces of evidence adduced—the report includes specimens showing the old and new forms and demonstrates the considerable savings from the latter—has, as the asterisk explains, not been reported and, therefore, has not been attached. That makes nonsense of the argument. It seems that we are being asked to decide something in vacuo without the evidence that is available.
My other point goes back to the stage when my lion. Friend the Member for Bristol, West was queried on the case for the savings in the new printing of Early-Day Motions. It seems that the amendment revolves around leaving out a number of names whenever Early-Day Motions are reprinted. I find it hard to believe that this will lead to a saving of £40,000 to £50,000. That seems to be a great deal of money, amounting to about £3 for every page that will not be printed in future. That seems to be a high figure. I hope that the Minister will deal with the points I have made.

§ Mr. Crouch
I should like to take up my hon. Friend on his suggestion that these are very small matters. That was not what the Committee thought. In paragraph 12, on the subject of the Revised format for Added Names to Early Day Motions", my hon. Friend will notice that the Committee observed: Again Your Committee believe that this proposal should be basically acceptable, at least as a price for securing more timely delivery of papers. It goes on to say: a Member wishing to see the full text of any other of the numerous Early Day Motions has to consult the collected volumes kept in 264 the Table Office and Library or to seek a copy from the Vote Office. The effect of HMSO's proposal would be to extend this to all Motions. Thus, again, the rights of Members to table Motions and amendments thereto, and to add names would not be restricted, although the failure to reprint Motions might cause some inconvenience for some Members. I suggest that that is not a small matter.

§ Mr. Renton
I do not quite see the point that my hon. Friend is making. The Committee has revised the original recommendations and has suggested that the original sponsoring names should be reprinted whenever an Early-Day Motion is reprinted. The Committee has most beneficially altered the original recommendation from the Stationery Office.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
I want to say a few words primarily in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has just said. If I disagree with my hon. Friend at all, it is only in his reference to the possibility of this having any procedural implications.
Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) as well as to the debate, and having reread the report, I think it seems pretty clear that there are no procedural implications arising from these changes.
The Services Committee was right to consider this as properly coming within its ambit. We are faced with two simple propositions. Substantial savings could result from such minor changes. A total saving of £58,000 is quite considerable compared with the small amount of inconvenience that hon. Members will be caused.
Why do I say there are no procedural implications? The first proposition is that amendments wil have to be tabled by 9 o'clock if they are to be printed in marshalled form the following day. There is no change with regard to those amendments being printed the following day. They will still appear just as they would at present. The rights of Back Benchers, or, indeed, the Government, to table amendments to Bills will in no way be affected.
Our rights are in no way reduced. There is no change in procedure. I cannot see how it can be argued that this 265 is a matter that should be referred to the Procedure Committee. If indeed the first recommendation results in a saving of £13,000, I would have thought it was not unreasonable. If it affected our right to get amendments down in good time, I would challenge it wholeheartedly, but I do not think it does.
With regard to Early-Day Motions, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) got the point slightly wrong. It is not that easy at the moment to go to the Vote Office, immediately pick up the Vote and see all the Early-Day Motions printed in full. There is no easy form of reference. The vast majority of Early-Day Motions can be referred to only by number and not by title. It involves a great deal of effort on an hon. Member's part to find out what an Early-Day Motion says in full and to find out who are its signatories. All that is being suggested is that the brief reference should be extended to Early-Day Motions on a more general basis.
If that slight inconvenience to hon. Members—having to look up Early-Day Motions on rather more occasions than at present—will save the taxpayer £45,000, I do not think that the House should brush it aside lightly and say that we ought to go on spending that sort of money.
It is because I think that the Services Committee has put forward a reasonable case, and because I believe that it is right for hon. Members to judge these matters and exercise their judgment, that I think it would be wrong if the motion were withdrawn. Even if the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right and this is a matter of procedure, it is still a good thing that it should come to the House for discussion. We have had a very good debate.
The case has been well presented in the report, and it is a convincing one for making this modest saving at little inconvenience to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Sims
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a modest saving in expense but a small price to pay for the timely delivery of House of Commons papers? The timely delivery of those papers is a service that we require and that we look to the Services Committee to provide.

§ Mr. Moate
if I were concerned about the timely arrival of papers, I would go along wholeheartedly with those who wish to reduce the burden of papers that are produced and the burden of legislation. That is where we could make more attractive reforms, but it is up to the Government Front Bench, which could take up less time by introducing less legislation.

§ Mr. Marten
Would my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest economies of time, money and expenditure could be achieved if we scrapped all the EEC Papers?

§ Mr. Spearing
They are not printed!

§ Mr. Moate
It would help if the Minister would tell us the amount of money which could be saved there.
On this occasion, I think that the Services Committee deserves our support.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
In the few remarks I wish to make, I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I believe that there are some questions relating to procedure within this matter. Certainly the ability of hon. Members to act within a certain timetable is being affected by the recommendations which we are debating. While I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I believe that where the procedure of the House and the interests of hon. Members are concerned he is very assiduous, and hon. Members should listen to him carefully. He has made some valid points.
The revised format for adding names to Early-Day Motions is a matter of some importance. I consider that Early-Day Motions are a particularly important form of communication, and very often we receive letters from our constituents asking us to add our names to various Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper. It is very difficult, if one lives and operates in the Norman Shaw North building, to get one's secretary to go to the Table Office or the main Vote Office to look at the Early-Day Motions.
If an Early-Day Motion is popular, it appears on the Order Paper day after day whenever a new name is added. The popular motions are likely to be on the 267 Order Paper for as much as 10 parliamentary working days. Once one has a copy of an Early-Day Motion, one can send it to one's constituents with the full text of the motion and with one's name added. This is a valuable service which hon. Members offer to their constituents. But it often happens that one must rummage around in the Vote Office or Table Office for the information and can find only the title and the number of the Early-Day Motion. I regard this as highly unsatisfactory.
The convenience of hon. Members is time and again being eroded, and things are being made more difficult. If we can spend £26,000 on a Members' entrance and £200 on a confounded sign or two on the Interview Floor saying that hon. Members can no longer go there unless they have secretaries operating there, even though hon. Members have been going there for many years, it is an extraordinary situation.
The £45,000 that is involved in this change is money that is not well saved. It will take from our constituents a valuable service. For that reason, if any hon. Member will support me in opposing the recommendation I shall be happy to divide the House.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)
I shall be brief because I am aware that late-night sittings are as expensive as printing all the Early-Day Motions. EEC papers are occasionally printed for the House, and the cost of the demand papers for EEC documents is £8,000 a year.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and he convinced me that the Services Committee's proposals are worth supporting. We are asked to get amendments to the Public Bill Office one and a half hours earlier, which seems perfectly reasonable. There is no question of any amendment not being printed. Amendments have to be in within one and a half hours of a Bill being considered for them to have a reasonable chance of being debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
The second proposal has created confusion in the minds of some hon. Members. In essence, it is that a motion should not be repeated in full every time 268 it appears. The title will be printed, and the title, which can be up to two lines containing, presumably, 20 or 30 words, will convey the sense of the motion adequately. Apart from that, there is no change from the present procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that this was a great inconvenience because he would be unable to send a copy of motions to his constituents. I usually try to send constituents a copy of a motion with my name on it. The repetition of a motion, with the name appearing on only one day, is a curious way of demonstrating one's competence—

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
My hon. Friend has misunderstood the proposal. The full text of the motion will not necessarily be published on the day he adds his name. The constituent will be interested in the full details of the motion.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I have developed the practice of keeping the original copy of the motion when I first get the opportunity of considering whether to add my name to it. When my name is added, it is a simple matter to add that to what I send to my constituent.
The report was produced in the first place because of the load on the printers and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. We therefore need to take it seriously. I would go further than the report. If we are concerned with savings as well as with convenience, we can save vast sums of money in many other areas. When we sit late, many members of the staff in associated offices are kept late. That matter should be committed to the Services Committee and both Procedure Committees, and the sooner the better.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
This matter was on the Order Paper yesterday for a short period. If Opposition Members had listened to what I had to say on that occasion instead of trooping out, we might have got rid of this problem yesterday. Most of the others were in their constituencies or somewhere. However, we are here.
I have listened closely to the debate, and I have changed my mind about three times. I now tend to the view of the report that, because it means that there will be a tightening up of the need to get 269 amendments in before 9 p.m., the chances are that those who are a little keener, spend a little more time here and do not come dashing in merely for 10 o'clock are more likely to be on the ball. So I think that that favours me. I shall therefore vote for the motion on those grounds.
But there is one other consideration—the position of my trade union colleagues, the people involved in any cuts in expenditure. I have been having a few words with the people who matter, and I am informed that there are not likely to be any redundancies resulting from this minor reform, so I am satisfied in that regard. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will at all times confer with the people concerned—the unions and those they represent—in the various departments in order to ensure that no redundancies take place because of these two reports.
It is my information that, far from there being the ability to make redundancies and to make substantial savings, the Stationery Office needs a big increase in personnel in order to keep up with the work load—indeed, as much as a 50 per cent. increase in establishment. I want to impress upon my hon. Friend that, whatever steps are taken in this or any other matter, he should keep in close touch with the workpeople to ensure that no redundancies arise. If we get more redundant paper, that will be OK—some hon. Members will have to be more observant and quicker on their feet to be aware of the changes taking place. But we cannot afford to sack anyone.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
Perhaps I might be allowed briefly to reply to some of the points which have been made in the debate. I hope that I shall do nothing to lose the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am grateful to have him on our side on this occasion. He says that he will vote for the motion if there is a vote.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certain that I speak for the trade unions involved when I say that they are desperate for the relief that this modest experiment will bring them at a very difficult time. The presses they are operating came up to full capacity in 1964 and are working fit to bust—and have busted on many occasions. We have 270 had many stoppages—prolonged stoppages—and we have photocopied papers even today.
I am grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He virtually answered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton).

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
No.

§ Mr. Cooke
I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West failed my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. I am not sure that I can do very much better, however. At any rate, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield declared himself as being a Teller in the Division that he intends to call. What should I do about that but to proceed to answer one or two other hon. Members who, I hope, might be persuaded to support our proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not present in the House at this point in our proceedings, but if he should be within earshot he might care to reflect that the report about which I believe he has reservations is not the one that we are debating now.
I should like now to try to establish the credentials of the Select Committee of which I am a member. The Services Committee is the heir and successor to the old Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports—"Pubs and Debs" as it was known for many years. We believe that no matter of procedure is involved. We do not infringe the prerogative of other Select Committees in what we propose tonight. I believe that hon. Members support me in that contention, although I know that I shall not carry at least one hon. Member with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) rightly paid tribute to the increased productivity at the printing works. I have already said that they have just about reached their limit. Indeed, on some occasions they have gone over the top. That must be where they find themselves today. I assure my hon. Friend that paper size is completely irrelevant to this proposal. That is not part of the argument at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had some qualms about the way we propose to set out the 271 added names to Early-Day Motions. I think that much of what he said has been answered by other hon. Members. I endeavoured to make it clear that, although we did not propose to reprint the whole text of a motion each time there were added names, an expanded version of the title should be printed. I think that the title could be more explicit than it is now. The other day I asked my secretary to have my name added to the sperm whale motion. There are two motions relating to sperm whales. If they had had proper, explicit titles, my name would not have appeared on the wrong one.

§ Mr. Crouch
The Committee is proposing that the title should not exceed two lines in length. At the moment titles hardly ever go beyond one line. For example, Early-Day Motion No. 68 has a title of only five words, Social Progress in Hong Kong. But what does that mean? The explanation is complicated and requires 13 lines. Subsequently two amendments have been added. What will happen in future? Shall we have Social Progress in Hong Kong slightly expanded, and then an amendment by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) "Line 3, leave out" so and so? Without the full text, the amendment means nothing.

§ Mr. Cooke
When an amendment is tabled the whole text will be printed in full, so that there will be no confusion. If my hon. Friend examines the report, he will see a reference to amendments. I made the point in my speech, and I believe that the report refers to it with some clarity. It is designed to make the position absolutely clear.

§ Mr. Spearing
The hon. Gentleman may have covered this point about the expanded title in his opening speech and I may have missed it. Who will choose or decide what the expanded title should be? Should it not be the Member who heads the list? Some hon. Members feel that the first proposal is reasonable but that the second is not. As both proposals are in one report, we feel that we may not be able to support the report as a whole.

§ Mr. Cooke
I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the second point. The two proposals are in the report.
On the first point, the hon. Member who tables a motion, together with his principal supporters—there are often six—will decide what title to give to the motion. The point I made in my opening speech—it has been made several times tonight—was that a Member will sometimes write out the text of an Early-Day Motion and not think of a title or will even forget it. When he goes to the Table Office, the Clerk will say "Will this do?" and they may have a bit of fun making up a suitable title. Sometimes it is only two or three words. An hon. Member will sometimes put a somewhat misleading title on a motion. I suppose that the hope is that others will read it if they are intrigued by the title. We are thinking of an expanded version of a couple of lines which will reasonably indicate what a motion is about.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
Extra printing.

§ Mr. Cooke
It is extra printing for the title but considerable savings elsewhere.
I turn to the financial aspects. The saving is £45,000, two-thirds of it on paper and one-third on labour.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
So that we can compare one of the Services Committee's savings with another, can the hon. Member remind the House what has been the cost in the last six months of the fairly elaborate redecorations which have taken place in Room 10 on the Upper Committee Corridor, which is labelled as a House of Commons records room but which appears to be the office of an hon. Member whose name I cannot remember? I know that when I looked in there this evening there were one or two bottles of whisky and some House of Commons records. Along with the cost of re-vamping that room for the benefit of whoever it is, can the hon. Member tell us the cost of moving one of the television rooms along the corridor? It must have amounted to many thousands of pounds. If the Services Committee wants to save money, it would do better to look at that and the laying and relaying of carpets on the Ways and 273 Means Corridor than trying to muck about with things that directly affect the rights of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Cooke
I cannot be drawn into explanations about carpets this evening. The Ways and Means carpet, which was such a disaster, was relaid at the expense of the contractor because it was faulty. The room to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is used for a wide variety of purposes, including meetings of the Select Committee of which I am Chairman, and for meetings at which we examine witnesses and interview officials. It also contains records relating to those matters. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to inspect the room at any time.
I have referred to almost all the points raised by hon. Members, many of whom made the same points. I am sure that the House wants to come to a conclusion on the matter. I have been invited to withdraw the report, but if I did that we should have no experiment, and that would mean no benefit for those overworked people at the printing works. Hon. Members must make a decision on whether to relieve the burden on the printers at some small inconvenience to themselves. If the experiment proves to be inconvenient we can go back, but we should give the experiment a chance.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the motion is not withdrawn and is defeated, it will not be possible at some later stage for anyone to reintroduce it, even if there has been time for consultation in the meantime. If, however, it is withdrawn so that the Procedure Committee can look at the procedural implications, it will be possible for the report to come back in a week or 10 days and perhaps

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I could not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman wants to do. He suggests that he would like the motion to be withdrawn. In that case, it would be possible for another motion relating to the same matter in the same or different terms to be reintroduced during the Session.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
I apologise for not having made myself clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned at what will happen if the motion is not withdrawn but proceeds to a Division and is defeated. Am I right in thinking that it would not then be possible for the same motion to be tabled again, even if in the meantime the Select Committee on Procedure had been consulted and recommended that the House should accept the motion? On the other hand, if the motion were withdrawn tonight, would it not be possible for the same motion to be tabled, after consultation with the Select Committee, in order that the House might then decide to pass it? If we defeat the motion tonight, will that be the irretrievable end of it for this Session? If I am right on that, I suggest to the Front Benches that it might be as well to think again.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If the motion is withdrawn, it can be reintroduced on a subsequent occasion in the same Session. If it is defeated today, I take it that that will be the end of it for this Session.

Division No. 35.]	AYES	[1.12 a.m.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Lawson, Nigel	Sims, Roger
Bottomley, Peter	Loyden, Eddle	Skinner, Dennis
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Cohen, Stanley	McCartney, Hugh	Urwin, T. W.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Mather, Carol	Watkinson, John
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)	Moate, Roger	Weatherill, Bernard
Cryer, Bob	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
English, Michael	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fairgrieve, Russell	Newton, Tony	Woof, Robert
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Noble, Mike	Younger, Hon George
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Parry, Robert
Goodhew, Victor	Penhaligon, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Mr. Peter Snape and
John, Brynmor	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Mr Alf. Bates.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roderick, Caerwyn
NOES
Banks, Robert	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Canavan, Dennis	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Ward, Michael
Carlisle, Mark	Marten, Nell	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Channon, Paul	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Crouch, David	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Emery, Peter	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)	M. George Cunningham and
Evans, John (Newton)	Spearing, Nigel	Mr. Nicholas Winterton.
Glyn, Dr Alan