Sitting of 4 November 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the County of Kent (Gravesend Division), in the room of Garry Allighan, Esquire, expelled this House.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Records Office Clerks (Pay)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason for the non-payment of the special incremental rate in regard to war service to the clerks of the R.A. Records Office, Footscray, Sidcup.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The first payments under this award were issued to the clerks at the Footscray Record Office on 3rd October. The application of the award has, however, been extended by agreement with the Civil Service Alliance, and the instructions for implementing the extended arrangements were issued on 22nd October. The further payments due will be made as soon as the paying authorities are able to verify claims and make the necessary calculations.

    Personal Case
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War for what reason Company Sergeant-Major Edwards was ordered to return to Burma in the troopship "Lancashire"; how long he remained in Burma; what duties he performed whilst there; and whether he is satisfied that this warrant officer's journey was necessary.
    Mr. Shinwell: This warrant officer's return to Burma immediately before he was due for reversion to the home establishment was due to an unfortunate oversight, for which I should like to express regret. After his return to Burma, Company Sergeant-Major Edwards did not perform any specific duties and he re-embarked for the United Kingdom to be released from the Service about four days after his arrival in Burma.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this type of thing is constantly occurring not only in his Department but in the other Service Departments, and has he taken any specific action to give some laxity of interpretation of the rules in order that officers and others in charge may perform their duties in a logical way rather than entirely in accordance with the laws and regulations laid down by him?
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as my own Department is concerned, I hope that the Question and answer will serve to effect a remedy.

    Baragwanath Hospital, Johannesburg
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War if the Baragwanath Hospital at Johannesburg has been handed back to the South African Government; and whether suitable accommodation has been found for all of those tubercular patients who have returned or are returning to this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: This hospital closed on 15th May, 1947, and has since been made available to the authorities in South Africa. The patients who were evacuated from this hospital back to England by hospital ship in May, and who needed further hospital treatment, were sent to suitable hospitals and sanatoria in this country. Of the two patients who were not fit for the journey in May, one will be given suitable accommodation when she eventually returns to this country; the other has already returned.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the accommodation which is being found in this country for those who have been returned is of the correct type and is not merely temporary accommodation provided by the Army until such time as space is available in civil sanatoria?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot enter into details of hospital accommodation at this stage, but I am naturally anxious to find the most suitable accommodation.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as long ago as last April, his predecessor gave an assurance that the Army would accommodate these patients until such time as the Minister of Health could deal with them in civil sanatoria? Has he followed that up and made sure that the patients are being sent to the most suitable hospitals as soon as possible?
    Mr. Shinwell: Now that the hon. and gallant Member has reminded me about that assurance given by my predecessor, I will follow it up.

    East Africa (Postings)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers or men due for discharge in December have recently been posted to East Africa.
    Mr. Shinwell: The normal rule for drafting overseas is that officers and men should not be sent to the Middle East, which includes East Africa, unless they have six months' useful service left to do in that theatre. There are always some exceptions and the recent acceleration in the release programme will reduce the period which certain men will have left to serve, who, at the time they were sent abroad, were expected to have six months left. As reinforcements are in most cases sent to M.E.L.F. and not specifically to East Africa, the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member is not available in this country.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in mid-August the War Office made a statement to the effect that men in group 68 were to be sent out to East Africa, which would mean that they would have approximately six weeks only to serve in that country before they were due for repatriation for eventual release? Can he give some indication of the number of men in that group or in the neighbourhood of that group who have been sent to the Middle East or to East Africa?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I said in my original answer, it is not possible to provide the information so far as it relates to this
    1508
    country, but the hon. and gallant Member has reminded me of what happened, I am grateful for the reminder, and I will certainly take note of it.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would it not help if, on the man's documents at his station, the date of his demobilisation were entered, so that headquarters staff would know when posting him that he was due for demobilisation in six months' time?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say whether that is a practical suggestion, but we will look at it.

    Overseas Deaths (Burials)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now arrange that when so desired by the relatives, arrangements be made to bring back to this country the bodies of military personnel killed or dying overseas on service.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor on 29th April to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), to which I have at present nothing to add.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present rule was based on the totally different conditions of war time, and in view of the small number of these cases, and of the fact that certain relatives attach great importance to this matter, could it not be reconsidered?
    Mr. Shinwell: The general policy as regards the care of these graves is under consideration, but a date has not yet been fixed for determining how soon it will be possible for relatives to visit those graves.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have misapprehended the Question. The point which I desired to put to him was the case of men dying at present overseas whose relatives wish their bodies to be brought now to this country, and not the case of previous war graves. Can that rule be reconsidered?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely one of the matters now under consideration. It may not be possible to allow the return of the bodies of those who have died in

    1509
    the past and are interred overseas, but the question of allowing the return of the bodies of Service men who die overseas after a date to be fixed, is now being considered.

    Married Quarters, Colchester
    Mr. Charles Smithasked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters of prewar construction in the Colchester Garrison have been repaired and rendered available for occupation by entitled families since 1st January, 1947; how many of these have actually become occupied; and how far the expectation held out by his predecessor on 20th May, 1947, that all those quarters then awaiting repair would be ready for occupation by the end of October, 1947, has been fulfilled.
    Mr. Shinwell: One hundred and fifty prewar married quarters at Colchester have been repaired since January and put into occupation. The expectation refered to in the last part of the Question has been completely fulfilled.

    Ex-Indian Army Officers
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many British officers of the old Indian Army have already been absorbed into the British Army on a permanent basis in the same branch of the Service in which they served in the Indian Army and how many in different branches of the Service; how many more such officers it is proposed to absorb into the British Army; and on what conditions.
    Mr. Shinwell: Fifty-five Regular British officers of the late Indian Army have been accepted into the arm of the British Service parallel to that in which they served in the Indian Army, and 74 have been accepted into different arms. In addition the absorption of a further 303 officers is in hand. There are also some 27 applications still under consideration on which a decision will be reached shortly. Officers transferred have been accepted in the substantive rank, and have retained war substantive rank held in the Indian Army; former service in the Indian Army reckons towards promotion and retired pay as if it had been spent in British service. They are accepted into the British Service in the arm of their choice in so far as there are vacancies for officers
    1510
    of their age and rank; and they receive from the Indian Army authorities one quarter of the cash compensation terms to which they would have been entitled if they had elected retirement from the Indian Army.

    Requisitioned Land, Newton Ferrers
    Mr. Medlandasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in 1941 his Department requisitioned 18¼ acres of the best arable and grazing land on Mettom Farm, Newton Ferrers, S. Devon, the property of the Plymouth Co-operative Society; that this site has been untenanted for over 18 months and is now a forest of weeds causing pollution of surrounding agricultural land; and will he order immediately the derequisitioning of this land.
    Mr. Shinwell: There is a permanent requirement for land in this area which is to be investigated locally in conjunction with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the local authorities. Until this investigation has been completed it will not be possible to derequisition any part of this land. I am looking further into the matter of weeds and hope it will be possible to get rid of the nuisance.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Arising out of that, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will not deal unduly hardly with the Co-operative society in this matter?
    Mr. Medland: Will the right hon. Gentleman please understand that the inquiry and investigation he talks about have been going on for nearly 18 months? It is nearly time that it was concluded. Will he please give this land back to the Cooperative society so that they can get on with their farming?
    Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware that the inquiry had been going on for so long, but the Department has already offered to let the owners of the land use it, without cost, for grazing purposes.

    Mental Patients (Treatment)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will hold inquiries into the treatment of Service patients suffering from mental illness at the two military hospitals at each of which alleged violence against a patient has been brought to his notice and particulars of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Shinwell: Inquiries are being made into these allegations, and I will write to the hon. Member when these inquiries are complete.

    Night Firing, Weybourne
    Mr. Goochasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue fresh regulations regarding night firing at Weybourne Camp, Norfolk, where the firing of heavy calibre guns continues long after midnight.
    Mr. Shinwell: Night firing must take place at intervals if the operational efficiency of our defences is to be maintained. Instructions are in force that the night firing of anti-aircraft guns will not be carried out after midnight from Weybourne Camp and no firing of guns has in fact occurred after that time. On the night of 23rd October an exercise involving the exploding of land mines continued until 1.15 a.m. Instructions have been issued that no further exercises of this kind will be held after midnight at Weybourne.
    Mr. Gooch: Is the Minister aware that I had an assurance from his Department that the firing of heavy calibre guns would not take place after midnight and that, on a recent occasion, it continued until the early hours of the morning? Will he further take into consideration that the detonating of heavy bombs causes terrific damage in the neighbourhood to property and is harmful to agricultural interests, and will he ensure that this ceases?
    Mr. Shinwell: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that it is most unlikely that there will be any more of this during the winter.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that calibre is a measure of size and not weight, and that "heavy calibre" means nothing?

    Petrol Economy
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for War what regulations have been issued to save petrol in camps occupied by Poles; and how it is still possible for large lorries from Polish camps in the Newmarket area to come into that town almost daily either to buy newspapers, or bring Polish wives in to shop.
    Mr. Shinwell: The petrol used by the Army in Home Commands is now rationed. This rationing system applies to units of the Polish Resettlement Corps in the same way as to ordinary units. I have no evidence that petrol is being wasted in the way referred to in the last part of the Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister say why the camps referred to should need lorries for these purposes, when there are N.A.A.F.I. shops already in the camps?
    Mr. Shinwell: I really could not say why they require lorries, but I will find out.

    Current Affairs Pamphlet
    Mr. Scollanasked the Secretary of State for War why the booklet Current Affairs, No. 34, of 9th August, was withdrawn from circulation amongst the Forces.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds a pamphlet on Scottish Affairs, written by Mr. George Blake and recently published by the Bureau of Current Affairs, was considered by the War Office to be unsuitable for discussion in the Army; and on whose authority the decision was made.
    Mr. Shinwell: The pamphlet "Scottish Affairs" was considered unsuitable for use in compulsory discussions in the Army because it contained passages which might well have led to a discussion of party politics, which is forbidden in such discussions.
    Mr. Scollan: Has the Minister seen the offending pamphlet, which deals exclusively with the case for Scottish Home Rule?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have in fact seen the alleged offending passage, and, if I may say so, it is highly controversial.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that almost every issue throughout the war, and since, of the Bureau of Current Affairs has been highly controversial, and very political?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would not care to accept that statement.

    Venereal Disease
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give the figures for the incidence of venereal disease among Army personnel in the United Kingdom and the various theatres overseas for each of the first three quarters of 1947.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Segal: Without in any way anticipating the OFFICIAL REPORT, could my right hon. Friend let us have the figures for Central Europe?
    Mr. Shinwell: If by Central Europe my hon. Friend means Germany, the figures in the first quarter of the present year were 36.4, and, for the second quarter, 34.8. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what? "] It is the incidence.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is it 36.4 per cent. of the personnel, or per thousand?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is per thousand.
    Following is the answer:

    INCIDENCE OF VENEREAL DISEASE AMONG BRITISH ARMY TROOPS IN MAJOR THEATRES JANUARY—JUNE, 1947.

    Quarterly Rates per 1,000 Strength.

    —

    1st Quarter.

    2nd Quarter.

    United Kingdom

    5·2

    5·5

    Germany

    36·4

    34·8

    Italy

    23·7

    34·1

    Austria

    36·8

    34·7

    Middle East

    6·7

    4·7

    Far East

    32·6

    27·7

    Japan

    61·2

    46·8

    Notes:
    1. Figures for third quarter are not yet available.
    2. As a result of administrative changes, Middle East, includes Malta and East Africa as from 1st April, 1947. The sharp fall in the second quarter is at least partly attributable to a reduction in the number of troops in Greece, where the rate of venereal disease was high.
    3. The number of troops in Japan is small and sharp fluctations are therefore to be expected.

    Depots (Civilians)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reduce by at least 50 per cent. the number of civilians employed in ordnance depots who
    1514
    on 1st July numbered 46,091; whether he is aware that prewar there were six central ordnance depots whilst on 1st July there were 12; and that prewar there were 10 command ordnance depots, whereas now there are 12; whether he will reduce the 3,309 military and 46,000 civilians employed at the 13 ammunition sub-depots; and whether, in view of the general reduction of the Army and the withdrawal of stores from overseas, he will indicate the consequential economies especially in civilian manpower employed at these various depots.
    Mr. Shinwell: The authorised strength of civilians at ammunition sub-depots on 1st July was 460, not 46,000. The authorised strength on that date covering all types of ordnance depots was 44,042, as previously given to the hon. Member, but the actual strength was 38,528. I regret that a reduction such as that suggested in the first part of the Question is impossible. I am aware of the facts referred to in the second and third parts, but I would point out that the number of items now handled by ordnance is four times the number handled prewar. The number of ammunition sub-depots is now nine, at which there are employed 2,302 soldiers and 334 civilians. The general reduction of the Army, and the withdrawal of stores from overseas, results at, present in an increased load upon ordnance depots in the United Kingdom since they have to receive and condition all stores returned by disbanding units, and by overseas depots which are closing down, and arrange disposal of surpluses.
    Sir R. Glyn: In view of the shortage of manpower, could the right hon. Gentleman consider conducting an independent inquiry into the present methods of working, and the possible application of mechanical means?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are conducting that inquiry at present.
    Mr. Anthony Nutting: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there are two ordnance factories which are the greatest possible drain of labour from the essential industries of agriculture and iron and steel?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I say, we are inquiring into the matter of the use of manpower in these depots.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that where reductions are taking place development and semi-development areas like Congleton are last on the list to be affected?
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 27,137 civilians employed at the central ordnance depots, the 11,693 employed on civilian clothing depots and the 9,797 employed at command ordnance depots, are persons over 60 years of age; how many are men and how many women; and whether he can ascertain the normal occupations of all these employees prior to being taken on the strength of the War Department, such as miners, agricultural workers, etc.
    Mr. Shinwell: The figures for central and command ordnance depots quoted by the hon. Member were the authorised strengths for 1st July, 1947; the actual strengths on that date were for central ordnance depots 23,163 and for command ordnance depots 8,690. The number of civilians employed at 30th September in central ordnance depots was 22,920, of whom 5,669 were women, in civilian clothing depots 76, all men (not 11,693 as stated in the Question) and in command ordnance depots 8,186, of whom 1,848 were women. Information as to how many were over 60 years is not readily available. Nor is it possible, without undue labour, to ascertain the previous occupations of these employees.
    Sir R. Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, ascertain how many skilled people are doing unskilled work in these depots?
    Mr. Shinwell: If it does not involve too much labour, I will do so.

    Bren and Sten Guns
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for War how many new and unused Bren guns and Sten guns have been deliberately destroyed or turned into scrap within the last 12 months; and how many new ones were produced over the same period.
    Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the first part of the Question is, none. As regards the second, it is not in accordance with present practice to disclose figures of production of warlike stores.

    Ammunition Containers
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for War how many steel boxes
    1516
    have been used within the last 12 months as containers for ammunition dumped into the sea; and what is the average cost per steel box.
    Mr. Shinwell: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. I can, however, assure the hon. and gallant Member that no containers of any material have been used for this purpose, except when essential in the interests of safety. The original cost of a steel ammunition box of average size, without any fittings, was from 5s. to 7s. 6d.

    Stanford Battle Training Area
    Mr. Dyeasked the Secretary of State for War how much land he proposes to acquire or use for training purposes in Norfolk and Suffolk in the neighbourhood of the present Stanford Battle Training Area.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am unable to give final figures for these two counties until the total acreage required by my Department for training purposes in the United Kingdom has been settled.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: In regard to the Suffolk area, will the Minister say what is exactly the area he has in mind, because from what has been said in the county council it is about twice what the Department had during the war, and yet in his letter to me the Minister said he would require a great deal less than during the war?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

    Nursing Officers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War the present rate of release of Q.A.I.M.N.S. nursing officers; and how many of these are still serving in India.
    Mr. Shinwell: Slightly more than 100 nursing officers are due for release this month, and a similar number next month. One hundred and fifty three nursing officers in the British Army are at present serving in India.

    Gravel Excavation, Hounslow
    Captain John Crowderasked the Secretary of State for War why he gave

    1517
    a contract for excavating gravel on Hounslow Heath without inviting competitive tenders.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am looking further into this matter and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

    Camp, Cambuslang (Squatters)
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he will review his decision not to allow the squatters at the Old Dechmont Camp, Cambuslang, Lanarkshire, to arrange with the Clyde Valley Electric Supply Co., Ltd., to renew the supply of electricity, as the Scottish Office assured the hon. Member for Rutherglen that if the War Office required the camp, Scottish Command would consult with the Department of Health about alternative accommodation as the squatters, in seeking to have the supply reconnected, were following the advice of the Minister of Fuel and Power in his letter to the hon. Member for Rutherglen, dated 15th July, 1947, and as conditions of living will be intolerable for them in the winter, especially for the many women, young children and infants, unless some means of heating the camp is available.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend will have received a letter dated 27th October, 1947, which fully covers the points he has raised in his Question.
    Mr. McAllister: While not thanking the Secretary of State for his answer, may I ask him if he is aware that many of the inhabitants of this camp are miners, and will he consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power to see what the effect of living in cold freezing huts in the winter will be on the miners' output?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have done my best in this matter. I really cannot do any more.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Repatriation
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many prisoners of war were repatriated from this country and the Middle East, respectively, for each of the months August, September and October.
    Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the numbers repatriated from the Middle East are up to form? Are they up to 5,000 a month?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say offhand, but we are gradually repatriating these prisoners.
    Following are the figures:
    The following numbers of prisoners of war were repatriated from the United Kingdom and Middle East during the months of August, September and October.

    United Kingdom

    Middle East

    August

    16,057

    5,412

    September

    15,581

    4,064

    October

    15,537

    12

    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many prisoners of war transferred from camps in the United States of America are still under detention in this country; and whether, under the Moscow Agreement, all prisoners of war captured by the Americans and still detained in France will be sent home.
    Mr. Shinwell: The information required in the first part of the Question is not available. His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the prisoners of war referred to in the second part of the Question, but under the Moscow agreement the French Government in conjunction with the Governments of the United Kingdom, U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. are committed to the return of all German prisoners of war held by them by the end of 1948.

    Agricultural Work (Pay)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War the amount paid in cash and credit to a German prisoner of war working as an agricultural labourer for whom the farmer pays £4 10s. per week into Army funds.
    Mr. Shinwell: On the assumption that the prisoner works 48 hours a week and is qualified for the full bonuses given to good workmen, he receives 9s. in token money and 6s. bonus credit.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend really think that is adequate or that a great many people in this country would put up with those conditions?
    Mr. Shinwell: We can hardly apply trade union regulations to a matter of this sort, and I would remind my hon. Friend that the cost to the Army for these purposes includes housing, feeding, clothing, medical and hospital treatment, guards and administrative staff, and that means that we have very little margin to play with.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this really amounts to semi-slave labour?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should not think that the employment of prisoners of war amounted to slave labour. It is quite in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed account of the difference between the amount paid by the farmer to the War Office, and the amount paid by the War Office to the prisoners of war, and will he show who makes the profit?
    Mr. Shinwell: These figures have in fact been disclosed.
    Mr. Gooch: Is it not a fact that there has never been any complaint about the general treatment of prisoners of war and that a good British farmworker is worth four Germans on the farms of Britain?

    Travel Facilities
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continuing redistribution of prisoners of war personnel between one camp and another, he will now grant to prisoners the facility of travelling more than five miles from their holding base so as to enable them to maintain, where possible, 'the civilian contacts they have already established.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir; this would not be practicable. The movement of prisoners of war are due to the varying needs of the labour situation and sometimes a prisoner of war has to be moved to a place remote from where he was before. There must be one rule applying to all working prisoners of war and under existing circumstances it would be unreasonable to give facilities for long distance travel to prisoners of war.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that some of these camps are situated
    1520
    much more than five miles from a fair-sized town, and that therefore prisoners of war in those camps are at a disadvantage compared with those who are adjacent to some city?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not know of any such camps. I will look into that.

    Pay (British Currency)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether, until such time as there may be currency reform in Germany, he will arrange for prisoners of war to receive a larger proportion of their pay in English money than is now available to them, it being a case of hardship on repatriation for men to find the official rate of exchange into marks leaving them with virtually no worth while savings resulting from their work in this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: The arrangements announced by my predecessor on 24th June last included provision for prisoners to draw a larger proportion of their earnings in English (including token) money provided they were good workmen and worked at least 40 hours a week. I do not consider that any change in these arrangements is called for.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of my right hon. Friend's reference just now to the fulfilment of the terms of the Geneva Convention, will he recollect that those terms laid down that prisoners of war shall receive the same conditions of treatment as our garrison troops, and as our garrison troops in Germany get an exchange of 40 marks to the pound, will he please arrange for prisoners of war to get the same rate of exchange?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not sure that that is accurate.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind in this connection that these prisoners of war, like British working men, will not give their best work without proper incentive?
    Mr. Shinwell: In fact, they are doing very well.
    Mr. David Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with all the hardships which these prisoners of war are having to endure, an ex-prisoner now in the mines in the Ruhr appealed, in a broadcast last Sunday, to all prisoners of war already in this country to stay here as long as they can?

    Christmas Leave Arrangements
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the concession to prisoners of war, at least at Christmas time, of being able to apply for late passes and overnight leave.
    Mr. Randallasked the Secretary of State for War if favourable consideration will be given to special leave for prisoners of war who receive invitations from civilians to spend Christmas in their homes.
    Mr. Shinwell: This matter is at present under consideration.

  WAR GRAVES (RELATIVES' VISITS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to permit visits by relatives to war graves located in Germany.
  Mr. Shinwell: I regret that, owing to accommodation and transport difficulties, it is not yet possible to arrange visits to graves in Germany.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor was pressed for 18 months to make some arrangements, and can he now give at any rate some indication as to when these visits will be permitted?
  Mr. Shinwell: I should like to do so, but transport difficulties have become rather more acute and an early decision is not likely. I will keep the matter under review and do what I can to assist.
  Mr. Carson: Could not the right hon. Gentleman mitigate this hardship to some extent by speeding up the sending of photographs of these graves to the relatives concerned, as many of them have not got photographs, and urgently want them?
  Mr. Shinwell: That is another question, but I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY

    Nationalised Industries' Employees
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information concerning the encouragement
    1522
    or otherwise which is being given to the employees in nationalised industries, such as the mining industry, to join the Territorial Army; and, in particular, whether such employees will be granted extra holidays with pay during part or the whole of the period of annual training.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have at the moment nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29th October.
    Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting for the Territorial Army throughout the country is most disappointing? Is he further aware that one of the chief reasons why recruiting is disappointing in many mining areas is that the National Coal Board have given no intimation as to what will be their attitude towards employees joining the Territorial Army? Will he make representations to the Minister of Fuel and Power that the attitude of the National Coal Board should be made perfectly clear at the first possible opportunity?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am glad to be able to give the hon. and gallant Member and the House this information from the National Coal Board, that they are considering this matter.
    Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time they made up their minds?

    Travel Allowances
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the travelling allowances payable to members of the Territorial Army in respect of the use of private cars in connection with their duties are adequate.
    Mr. Shinwell: Members of the Territorial Army who use their cars for War Department duties for which a War Department car would otherwise have had to be provided receive the same allowance as members of the Regular Army in the same circumstances and I am satisfied that these rates are adequate. The rate of 1½d. a mile for those who use their cars for attendance at drills when public transport facilities are not available has recently been reviewed and an increase to 3d. a mile with effect from 25th September has now been authorised. An additional ½d. a mile will be allowed for each

    1523
    member of the Territorial Army carried as passenger who otherwise qualifies for refund of travelling expenses.
    Mr. York: Is the Secretary of State aware that the present restrictions on the use of a car make it much more expensive per mile, and will he not take that into consideration?
    Mr. Shinwell: That does not seem like a question for me.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    New Towns
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what new towns have so far been designated; how far development has proceeded; and whether additional designations are under consideration.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): My right hon. Friend has made designation orders for five new towns—Stevenage, Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Harlow and Aycliffe. He has prepared a draft designation order for an area in the rural district of Easington, Co. Durham, and the statutory notice will be published in the "London Gazette" at an early date. Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield are being considered, and he is consulting local authorities concerned tomorrow. The possibility of designating other areas as the site of new towns continues to be kept under review, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply relating to Stevenage given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 28th October; no constructional work has yet been done at the other new towns.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say to what extent the Government's recent decision to restrict capital expenditure upon building construction is likely to affect the future development of the new towns?
    Mr. King: Yes, Sir; some engineering construction on the new towns goes forward. The restriction is upon housing.

    Greater London Plan
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps have so far been taken to implement the main principles of the Greater London Plan for the decentralisation of industry and population.
    Mr. King: I would refer my hon. Friend to the memorandum which my right hon. Friend issued in May last on the report of the Advisory Committee for London Regional Planning. In carrying out or permitting such development as is proceeding, local authorities are in general conforming to the plan as modified by the memorandum. The position in regard to new towns, which are of course a main feature of the plan, is the subject of a separate question by my hon. Friend.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will now introduce legislation so as to provide a widow's pension to all pre-1925 Act widows who have reached the age of 50 but have not yet attained the age of 55.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): No, Sir. We propose, however, to continue under the new scheme the concession whereby such widows will preserve their right to a 10s. pension on reaching the age of 55.
    Mr. Turton: Now that some childless widows of 50 do get a widow's pension, is it not time that that was extended to those who have been discriminated against ever since the 1925 Act?
    Mr. Griffiths: This concession was made to widows by the Labour Government of 1929. The provision of widow's benefit under the new Insurance Act is of an entirely different character, and we cannot undertake any new legislation on the matter now.

    Old Age Pensioners (Employment)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will take steps to prevent old age pensioners being employed for more than 12 hours per week for less than £1; and whether, until such

    1525
    steps can be taken, he will issue a regulation granting full pension to those who can give proof that their earnings are under £1 for more than 12 hours per week.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: No, Sir. My Department has no authority to regulate rates of wages, and the second of the hon. Member's suggestions would be a direct encouragement of low wages.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that advantage is being taken of some of these old age pensioners, and could not something be done to put a stop to it?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is because of the fact that advantage has been taken in the past that we have adopted those methods which are in operation.

  INVISIBLE EXPORTS (COMPANIES' STAFFS)
  Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Minister of Labour what priority for obtaining staff will be given to those firms and companies engaged in invisible export, and if this form of hard-currency earning activity without drawing on the manual labour pool will again be encouraged.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. George Isaacs): The activities to which the hon. Member refers are regarded as essential work to be encouraged and vacancies arising on it will have priority over nonessential vacancies in submitting workers covered by the Control of Engagement Order.
  Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister give greater weight to those satisfactory remarks by re-opening the Liverpool Cotton and the London Metal Exchanges?
  Mr. Isaacs: That is not my responsibility.

  ECONOMIC POLICY (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Prime Minister which Ministers have been having conversations with the Trades Union Congress on wages, subsidies, profits and matters related to the relief of inflationary tendencies, and the prevention of further rises in the cost of living; how many meetings have taken place; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of these negotiations.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers meet representatives of both sides of industry, including the Trades Union Congress, and the matters mentioned by the hon. Member have of course come up in the course of such meetings. These consultations are not in the nature of negotiations, but take place in order that there may be an exchange of views upon current affairs.
  Mr. Osborne: The Leader of the House has suggested in his reply that no specific negotiations took place last week. In "The Times" it was stated definitely. If it is true that specific negotiations have been taking place with the T.U.C. alone and that agreements have been reached, can the Leader of the House assure us that they will be carried out and not sabotaged by irresponsible elements in the trade unions themselves?
  Mr. Morrison: In the existing economic situation, I do not think that a Member of the Opposition ought to talk too much about sabotage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that no definite negotiations had taken place; I meant it. Therefore, the hon. Member's further supplementary question does not arise.
  Mr. Eden: Are we to understand that the Leader of the House is charging this side of the House with sabotaging the efforts of the country?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Morrison: I was giving the hon. Member some advice. I think that the advice is perfectly appropriate and right.
  An Hon. Member: Now we know where we are.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the large amount of newspaper propaganda which is taking place with regard to subsidies on food, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the trade unions did not proceed with wage negotiations during the war because of the subsidies that were placed on food?
  Mr. Morrison: That is perhaps a little outside of the scope of the Question and answer. Certainly we keep all these matters in mind.
  Major Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that those who voted against Socialism in the recent municipal

  1527
  elections were, deliberately, by the exercise of their vote, trying to sabotage His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Jennings: If negotiations or discussions have been taking place on these matters, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time the Government made up their minds on their policy?
  Mr. Morrison: I have answered the Question. The answer is perfectly on the point.

  SERVICES' LAND REQUIREMENTS (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister when the White Paper on the demands of the Service Departments of land for training and defence purposes, which he promised on 25th February, 1947, will be issued.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The issue of this White Paper has been held up to enable the requirements of the Service Departments to be reviewed in the light of the recent decisions affecting the size of the Armed Forces. Considerable progress has been made on this review and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes the publication of the White Paper will not be much further delayed.
  Mr. Turton: Is the Lord President aware that the delay of five and a half months is holding up and hampering agricultural production, and would he take steps to prevent squabbles between different Government Departments from delaying the publication of this White Paper?
  Mr. Morrison: This is a matter upon which, from its very nature, there is bound to be argument between Government Departments. We are doing our best to reconcile them and to arrive at a wise decision. We hope that there will not be any undue delay.

  DEFENCE MEDAL AND 1939–45 STAR
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Prime Minister why barrack wardens are not eligible for the Defence Medal and the 1939–45 Star; and whether, in view
  1528
  of their responsible duties and distinguished service in accounting for and safeguarding military property during the war, he will issue these awards in appropriate cases to members of this uniformed service.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Defence Medal is granted to civilians primarily for Civil Defence service, and any barrack wardens who were registered members of a Departmental or a local authority Civil Defence organisation would be eligible for the medal for service therein, subject to the usual conditions. If barrack wardens as such were to be included, it would be difficult to exclude numerous other categories of civilian Government employees, and it is hard to see where any line could be drawn. It is not proposed, therefore, to vary the present arrangement. The 1939–45 Star is not awarded for service in non-operational areas.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these barrack wardens in peacetime would require to be of exemplary character, to have had 21 years' service and a first-class certificate of education; and whilst that does not apply in wartime, yet they had to have very high qualifications, they rendered valuable services to the Armed Forces, and should not that make them eligible at least for the Defence Medal?
  Mr. Morrison: The matter has been examined not unsympathetically. I appreciate the considerations which the hon. Member has put forward. The real trouble is that we must draw the line somewhere; otherwise, I am afraid that, while it would be pleasant, nevertheless it would be unreal and wrong, and I think we should be in danger of covering the whole population.

  RAW MATERIALS AND FOOD
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister for Economic Affairs whether he will issue instructions that the wartime practice of not disclosing the actual tonnage of raw materials allocated, such as steel, to the agricultural industry, and the price of food purchased by the Ministry of Food from overseas, be now discontinued, since the giving of increased or decreased percentages without disclosing the actual quantity or price is misleading.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): I have been asked to reply. The question of making public raw material allocations is at present under consideration. With regard to food, it is not proposed to give information about present or future prices in respect of specific purchases from overseas as this would not be in best interests of the country.
  Mr. De la Bère: Why not? Is it not time that we gave up dealing in x and y and got down to hard facts and figures? How are we going to recover if we are going to indulge in this absolute nonsense? May I have an answer? There is no answer.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will not all these facts about prices paid for food from overseas come up before the Public Accounts Committee?
  Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, certainly. The Public Accounts Committee no doubt will review the operations of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in his purchases. That is quite a different matter from publishing now prices which might give a key to other persons with whom we are making bargains at the present time.
  Mr. De la Bère: When it is too late.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the majority of these prices are perfectly well known in the countries in which the purchases are made, and can be obtained by anybody who takes the trouble to ask in the appropriate quarters? Does not the Minister realise that this is sheer camouflage and serves no object except to mystify the public?
  Mr. Marquand: If the prices are well known, I do not see how the Question arises.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is it a fact that the Government dare not publish the figures?

  MINISTERS' EMOLUMENTS
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the emoluments that each Minister and junior Minister receives, in the shape of free lodging, motorcar service and the like, in addition to his Ministerial salary; and the cost of these extra items to the taxpayer.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that I thought he would wriggle out by giving an answer like that? In view of the fact that Ministers are asking the whole country to make sacrifices, would it not be a good example to set to stop feathering their own nests?
  Mr. Speaker: I think a general charge that Ministers are feathering their own nests is hardly in accordance with Parliamentary practice.
  Sir W. Smithers: I withdraw, but I ask, is this policy of perquisites a policy of soaking the rich?
  Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member, not for the first time, is seeking to make a party point out of these matters. Therefore, I take this opportunity of telling him that all the matters in which he is showing interest are matters in which we have continued the practice of our predecessors, as he will learn if he takes the trouble to read the very instructive report which I am circulating.
  Following is the statement:
  As the hon. Member was informed on 25th March last, five Ministers are provided with rent-free residential accommodation—namely, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Lord Chancellor (as Speaker of the House of Lords) and the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the case of the Foreign Secretary, the practice was introduced in 1946, though his predecessor had occupied a rent-free flat in the Foreign Office. In the other cases the arrangement is of long standing, dating back to the eighteenth, or to the early nineteenth century. In all five cases the accommodation at present consists of a flat or suite of rooms in a building, the rest of which is used for official and other State purposes, and the cost to the taxpayer can, therefore, be only approximately assessed by way of apportionments. On this basis, the annual cost to the taxpayer is at present about £1,100 in respect of contribution in lieu of rates on these five residences and about £5,000 in respect of maintenance, heating and lighting and garage accommodation. The building

  1531
  which contains the Foreign Secretary's flat is held on lease from the Commissioners of Crown Lands (the proportion of the rent attributable to the residential portion being about £1,000): in the other cases the accommodation is in Crown buildings and no rent is payable from public funds.
  The above figures do not include Chequers, which is the property of Trustees. The bulk of the annual expenditure is met from the income of the Trust, as constituted under the Chequers Estate Act, 1917: but for the last 20 years certain charges in respect of maintenance and repairs have been borne on the Votes of the Ministry of Works. These at present amount, excluding non-recurrent expenditure, to about £1,850 per annum.
  No other Ministers receive any other emoluments in addition to their salaries. The provision of official cars to enable Ministers to discharge their duties is an essential part of normal administrative expenditure and it not an emolument of Ministers. Since this arrangement was introduced in 1939, official cars and drivers have been available to senior Ministers. The annual cost is about £1,000 a head. No cars are allocated to junior Ministers, who, however, are entitled to draw on a car pool for official purposes. The cost of such facilities is about 1s. 4d. a mile.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Overseas Investments
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of our overseas investments as at 1938 and the value as at 1st June, 1947, together with the amounts of interest received in 1938 and 1946.
    Mr. Dalton: The nominal value was about £3,600 million in 1938. I have no reliable estimate of the value as at 1st June, 1947. Interest received was £205 million in 1938 and £150 million in 1946.
    Mr. Shepherd: How does the Chancellor reconcile that answer with the fact that the detailed estimate of the present holdings was given in the Washington discussions, and why does he refuse information to the public?

    Income Tax (Letter)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what form of letter was sent by the Income Tax authorities to Miss Margaret Skivington Logie, Green Road, Edinburgh; and whether he is aware that the recipient was four months old at the time of receipt of the letter.
    Mr. Dalton: This was a routine letter of inquiry, issued to the name and address shown in an employer's return of his employees.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Chancellor say whether the lady mentioned in this Question is any relation to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge)?
    Mr. Dalton: The employers who furnished this list were the Greyhound Racing Association, Limited, who allege they were employing, among other persons, a Miss Skivington. We are now inquiring whether Mrs. Skivington, who gave the information to the Press on which I think the hon. Member based his Question, is in fact an employee and liable to pay Income Tax.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I have no connection with this lady, and I do not wish to be associated with any form of greyhound racing.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: As the lady is connected with greyhound racing, should not the name be "Spivington"?

    Private Correspondence (Examination)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the detailed instructions issued by his Department to the Post Office in regard, to the examination of private correspondence despatched by British subjects to recipients outside Great Britain.
    Mr. Dalton: The examination of overseas mails is carried out by the Customs staff. I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport) last Tuesday.
    Sir T. Moore: Has the Chancellor made any discrimination in the choice of individuals for carrying out this singularly unpleasant snooping duty?
    Mr. Dalton: There is no discrimination. All public servants are always prepared to do their duty.
    Mr. Butcher: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate if this has delayed the mails at any time?
    Mr. Dalton: No, not so far as we know.

    Food Subsidies
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction in Income Tax it is estimated could be effected by cancelling the existing subsidies on rationed foods, and what would be the increased cost per head of the population annually for such foods should the subsidy be withdrawn.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what addition to the weekly household budget of a family consisting of wife, husband and two children would follow the abolition of the subsidies on food.
    Mr. Dalton: The subsidies on rationed foods amount to about £8 a year per head of the civilian population. This is the same total as the yield of about 3s. 3d. in the standard rate of Income Tax. The abolition of the food subsidies would add about 12s. 6d. a week to the household budget of a family of four.
    Sir T. Moore: Could the Chancellor devise some scheme whereby these subsidies might be substantially reduced without harming the permanently lower-grade wage earners, as was envisaged in a leading article in "The Times" a few weeks ago?
    Mr. Dalton: I should not be surprised if an opportunity for debating this matter arose in the fairly early future.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the abolition of these subsidies, either in whole or in part, would cause great hardship to very many people and would have very serious consequences, and will he, therefore, leave well alone in this matter?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if a reduction of these subsidies is to take place, it will be looked upon by the industrial population as equivalent to a reduction in wages?
    Mr. Dalton: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I note the intention behind the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Sir T. Moore: The intention was that the lower grade income groups should not be interfered with.

    American Films
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what saving in dollars does he anticipate will be effected by his action in regard to the import of American films.
    Mr. Dalton: Dollar remittances for films have been running at about £17 million a year. The Duty aims at cutting this by 75 per cent., but the full saving will not accrue at once.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that internal revenues equal to £83,000,000 annually are received in Britain from the showing of American films, if he will give an estimate of the effect on revenue if the American film industry sends no more films to Britain.
    Mr. Dalton: I do not know how the hon. Member arrives at the figure of £83 million, and I cannot forecast the effect of the cut in American films on attendance at British cinemas.

    Capital Issues
    Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the number of, and aggregate sum involved in, offers for sale to the public effected within the scope of Stock Exchange Regulations since 27th March, 1947; and if he will give particular totals of the numbers and sums involved in respect of those covering the capital goods industries, consumer goods industries and services, excluding the entertainment industry, and the entertainment industry, respectively;
    (2) the number and aggregate sum from 1st March, 1947, to date of capital issues approved under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946, and capital issues since 1st March, 1947, for which no such approval was required; and the particular totals in respect of each of the above categories for issues in respect of capital goods industries, consumer goods industries and services, excluding the entertainment industry, and the entertainment industry, respectively;
    Mr. Dalton: As both these answers contain a number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, on the figures to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, his measures of control over investments still remain adequate in the circumstances?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, I think so.
    Following are the answers:

    PUBLIC OFFERS FOR SALE OF EXISTING SECURITIES.

    Treasury Consents given from 27th March, 1947–30 th September, 1947.

    —

    No. of Cases.

    Aggregate sum involved.

    £

    Capital goods industries

    6

    2,300,782

    Consumer goods industries and services (excluding entertainment industry)

    13

    4,681,083

    Entertainment industry

    5

    1,282,562

    Miscellaneous

    8

    3,776,125

    Total

    32

    £12,040,552

    CAPITAL ISSUES CONSENTED TO BY THE TREASURY DURING THE PERIOD 1ST MARCH, 1947–30TH SEPTEMBER, 1947, INCLUSIVE.

    No. of Cases.

    Approximate Totals.

    £

    Capital goods industries

    92

    81,000,000

    Consumer goods and services (excluding entertainment industry)

    52

    19,500,000

    Entertainment industry

    16

    2,500,000

    Miscellaneous

    142

    25,000,000

    Total

    302

    £128,000,000

    1. Figures are, so far as possible, for issues involving new money.
    2. The above figures are for domestic issues only, and also exclude issues by local authorities.
    3. No figures are available for issues made under the £50,000 limit and other exemptions

    Sterling Area (Egypt)
    Dr. Segalasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether discussions have yet taken place for the readmission of Egypt into the sterling area; and when these are likely to be resumed.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

    Capital Transfers (South Africa and Eire)
    Mr. Leverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of capital transferred by U.K. residents to South Africa and Eire, in the last 12 months; whether current trade balances between these countries and the U.K. are favourable or adversely; and whether he will order the registration of U.K. residents' assets in these countries and suspend further transfers of capital to them.
    Mr. Dalton: About £35 millions and £10 millions respectively in the 12 months ending 30th June, 1947. The current trade balance with both countries is favourable to the United Kingdom. The action suggested by my hon. Friend could not be taken against other members of the sterling area.
    Mr. Lever: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we should finance the favourable balances of these countries—in other words, provide them with more exports than we get imports in return—by allowing people to take their capital from this country? Will he take steps to prevent any addition to the amount of unrequited exports?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the sterling area may be defined as an area within which exchange control does not operate. That is what it means. So long as any country is within the sterling area, it follows from the conditions created that capital movements are free in both directions. On the other hand, my hon. Friend will also recall that the South African Government have lately been exceedingly helpful to us in many respects, and, when I speak of favourable trade balances, according to the way in which these figures are customarily rendered, movements of gold are not included. With regard to Eire, discussions are going on with the Eire Government in order to increase, to the mutual benefit, trade between us.
    Mr. Lever: But is it not a fact that there are in force restrictions between different parts of the sterling area—restrictions on transfers of gold—for example, as between Australia and this country?
    Mr. Dalton: No. My hon. Friend has got it wrong. Between any two members of the sterling area, there is, by the definition of the words, no control of

    1537
    capital. The exchange control operates between this country and the rest of the world outside the sterling area. This matter was abundantly explained in a long Debate in this House, and it was made clear that our exchange control operations do not operate, and were not intended to operate, within the sterling area itself.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the Chancellor's answer mean that a person going from this country to South Africa may take whatever money or jewellery he or she likes?
    Mr. Dalton: Jewellery is a Customs matter. It means exactly what I say. There is no control of capital movements between this country and South Africa in either direction.

    Dollar Securities and Assets
    Mr. Leverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the value of quoted dollar securities held by U.K. residents; and whether he will now requisition these securities and commence their orderly sale before selling further quantities of gold from the reserve;
    (2) what is the estimated value of dollar assets, other than quoted securities, in the United States and Canada owned by U.K. residents; and whether he will now requisition these assets and commence the orderly sale of those which it is not imperative to retain, before drawing further upon the gold reserve.
    Mr. Dalton: Dollar securities total about 58 million dollars, including many not readily marketable. Other dollar assets are of great variety and would be difficult to value or to sell except at unreasonably low prices. I do not think that the action suggested by my hon. Friend would be advantageous in present circumstances.
    Mr. Lever: Would it not be more advantageous to sell dollar securities quoted on the Stock Exchange in New York and in Canada before parting with any more of our gold, and is it not inadvisable, in present circumstances, for the Chancellor to allow free dealings in New York which will result in the waste of these securities by speculative transactions which cost dollars in brokerage at the present time?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I cannot add to what I have said. I do not think that,
    1538
    in present circumstances, taking everything into account, the operation suggested would be advantageous to this country.

    National Savings Movement (Broadcasts)
    Mr. Irvingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the B.B.C. allot more time for the National Savings Movement.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to allow the B.B.C. independence in the compilation of broadcast programmes. I am, however, glad to note that the Corporation are giving reasonable facilities for National Savings broadcasts and I am confident that they can be relied upon to continue to do so in the national interest.

  GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS (WORKERS)
  Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make any statement on the question of the establishment of workpeople in Government establishments, which question, on 3rd April last, was under discussion between the official and trade union sides of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government industrial establishments.
  Mr. Dalton: I hope that these discussions between representatives of the employing Departments and of the workers concerned will soon reach a final stage.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Export Trade Research
    Mr. Errollasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the policy of the British Export Trade Research Organisation must receive his prior approval.
    The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The British Export Trade Research Organisation is an independent organisation. The Board of Trade is, however, consulted on its activities through regular meetings between officials.
    Mr. Errollasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he takes to ensure that work being carried out by the British Export Trade Research Organisation is not duplicated by the Export Promotion Department.
    Mr. Bottomley: Regular meetings take place between officials of the Export Promotion Department and the British Export Trade Research Organisation to secure the maximum co-operation and avoid duplication of work.
    Mr. Erroll: But do these meetings secure the object they have in view?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

    Carbon Black
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that lack of carbon black is creating a tyre shortage which in turn affects industrial and other transportation, he will consider making a full statement on the situation.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am glad to say that the production of tyres is not at present being affected by lack of carbon black. A mission which went to the United States in May succeeded in securing increased shipments and, as a result, consumption of rubber by United Kingdom manufacturers during September was the highest yet recorded. This is reflected in a record production of giant tyres during that month. Stocks of carbon black have been increasing. Estimated deliveries for the immediate future are not so good as in recent months but our representatives in the United States are taking active steps to improve the position.
    Mr. Fletcher: While I agree that the situation has cleared up, would the Minister say what steps he is taking to get carbon black outside the dollar area?
    Mr. Belcher: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press me on that. I believe he is aware of the steps that are being taken, and, in view of the fact that we are at present negotiating with the United States, it would be wrong for him to ask, or for me to reply in detail, about the steps that are being taken. I hope he will accept my assurance that we are taking all the steps possible.
    Mr. Scollan: As I have already asked on a previous occasion, are the Government aware that some people in America are very anxious to know whether we are going to enter into competition with then-monopoly in carbon black, and that many people are asking questions about it in order to pass on the information?

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. De la Bère: May I respectfully ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting Questions which were on the Order Paper in my name on Thursday, 30th October? In accordance with my usual practice, I had a limited number of Questions down for that day, but owing to the congestion on the Order Paper, those Questions, which were to be answered by the Minister of Fuel and Power, were not reached. Anticipating that they would not be reached, I went to the Table, where I received, as always, the utmost courtesy, and the Questions were postponed. I then found that one Question—I think it was No. 84–was included together with a large number of others for Written Reply, and it was answered by referring me to the statement made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the evening of Wednesday, 29th October. I would ask you, Sir, to uphold the right of hon. Members to postpone their Questions during that period. It is a right, I think, which they have enjoyed for many years, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not appeal to you in vain in this matter.
  There is a further point which I will not raise, because you, Sir, have asked me not to do so. I say that with great respect, but, on this particular point, I would ask for your Ruling that hon. Members have a right, in view of the great difficulty of getting anything down on the Order Paper, and in view of the congestion, to postpone their Questions should they not be reached before the appropriate time. I would, therefore, request you to be so good as to ask the Minister of Fuel and Power to give an assurance that he will answer my Questions which were thus postponed
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it is quite impossible for me to do anything about it. If during Question Time an hon. Member comes up to the Table and says, "Please postpone my Question"—he

  1541
  cannot telephone the Minister, or do anything of that sort because the time is too late—and if by chance that Question has been answered with another, I think the remedy is in the hon. Member's own hands. Of course, if the Question has not been completely answered, he has the right to put it down again, but if it has been completely answered, then I am afraid I cannot see that there is any very great grievance. It would be most inconvenient for the House if for, say, four Questions referring to the same subject, the Minister got up four times and made the same answer to each. The House world not stand for that for very long. Therefore, I think it is for the convenience of the House that Ministers, when the Questions are similar, should just give one answer which covers all four, all three or all two. I think the
  1542
  real answer to the hon. Member is that if his Question has not been fully answered, he is then entitled to put it down again.
  Mr. De la Bère: Further to your Rulin Mr. Speaker, which I accept in the spirit in which I always accept your Rulings, may I ask that, in this case, as the Minister apparently, had been unable to answer on the evening of 29th October the Question concerned, I have permission to ask him to answer these specific Questions, which dealt with the abolition of the basic petrol ration which, affects hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion, and not one on which I should be asked now to give a Ruling.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 101.

Division No. 11.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McKinlay, A. S.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Alpass, J. H.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Attewell, H. C.

Fairhurst, F.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Austin, H. Lewis

Farthing, W J

Mann, Mrs. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Fernyhough, E

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Ayles, W. H.

Foot, M. M.

Marquand, H. A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Medland, H. M.

Bacon, Miss A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Balfour, A.

Gallacher, W.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Barton, C.

Ganley, Mrs. C S

Mitchison, G. R.

Battley, J. R.

Gibbins, J.

Monslow, W.

Bechervaise, A. E

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morley, R.

Belcher, J. W.

Gooch, E. G.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Benson, G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Beswick, F.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Grey, C. F.

Murray, J. D.

Binns, J.

Grierson, E.

Nally, W.

Blyton, W. R

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Naylor, T. E.

Boardman, H.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Bottomley, A. G.

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Gunter, R. J.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Bowen, R.

Guy, W. H.

O'Brien, T.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Oldfield, W. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Bramall, E. A.

Hardy, E. A.

Parker, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Haworth, J.

Parkin, B. T

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Herbison, Miss M

Pearson, A

Brown, George (Belper)

Hicks, G.

Perrins, W.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hobson, C. R.

Piratin, P.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Buchanan, G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Byers, Frank

Hoy, J.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Callaghan, James

Hubbard, T.

Proctor, W. T.

Carmichael, James

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pryde, D. J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Chamberlain, R. A

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Ranger, J.

Chater, D.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Rankin, J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Cluse, W. S.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Cocks, F. S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Coldrick, W

Janner, B.

Rogers, G. H R

Collick, P.

Jay, D. P. T.

Royle, C.

Collindridge, F.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Scollan, T.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Segal, Dr. S.

Cook, T. F

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Sharp, Granville

Corlett, Dr. J.

Keenan, W.

Shurmer, P.

Corvedale, Viscount

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Crawley, A.

Key, C. W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Crossman, R H. S

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Daggar, G.

Kinley, J.

Skinnard, F. W.

Daines, P.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Snow, J. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Leonard, W.

Solley, L. J.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Lever, N. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Levy, B. W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lewis A. W. J. (Upton)

Sparks, J. A.

Deer, G.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Stamford, W.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lipson, D. L

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Dobbie, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Stokes, R. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Logan, D. G

Stross, Dr. B.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Longden, F.

Stubbs, A. E.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lyne, A. W.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Dye, S.

McAdam, W.

Swingler, S.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

McEntee, V La T

Sylvester, G O.

Edelman, M.

McGhee, H. G.

Symonds, A. L.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mack, J. D.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Walker, G. H

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Williams, D J (Neath)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Watkins, T. E.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Watson, W. M.

Wise, Major F. J

Thurtle, Ernest

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Woodburn, A

Tiffany, S.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Woods, G S

Timmons, J.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Wyatt, W

Titterington, M. F.

West, D. G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Tolley, L.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Younger, Hon Kenneth

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Wigg, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Viant, S. P.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P G

Grimston, R. V.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Astor, Hon. M

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Pickthorn, K.

Barlow, Sir J.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Raikes, H. V.

Beechman, N. A

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)

Jarvis, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)

Boothby, R.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ropner, Col. L.

Bower, N.

Jennings, R.

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Snadden, W. M.

Butcher, H. W.

Langford-Holt, J.

Spence, H. R.

Carson, E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Low, A. R. W.

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Thornton-Kemsley, C N

Crowder, Capt. John E

Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F

Cuthbert, W N.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, G. C.

De la, Bère, R.

MacLeod, J.

Turton, R. H.

Digby, S. W.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Vane, W M. F

Donner, P. W.

Marlowe, A A H

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Drewe, C.

Mellor, Sir J

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Erroll, F. J

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

York, C.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Nutting, Anthony

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Osborne, C.

Mr. Studholme and

Glyn, Sir R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Maior Conant.

PROCEDURE (STANDING ORDERS)
Ordered:
"That the Third Report [31st October, 1946] from the Select Committee on Procedure be now. considered."—[Mr. H. Morrison]
Report considered accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
"That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 17th March, 1947, arising out of the recommendations of the Selet Committee on Procedure."
I thought it would be convenient if I were to make a general statement within that fairly considerable sphere which, I think, covers the main part of the contentious ground which may exist between the two sides of the House this afternoon, although on a number of matters I think even within that sphere there will be agreement between us. The House now has before it the third and last Report from the Select Committee on Procedure. The occasion is appropriate to review the whole of the work of the Committee, which was set up on a Motion of the Government on 24th August, 1945.
Throughout the Committee's Reports runs a single note—the ever increasing pressure of business and the ever growing need to economise time. It is commonly said that changes designed to economise time are dangerous, because they encroach upon the opportunities which the House must have for criticising the Government. That is true, up to a point. But there is another danger which is often overlooked—that the essential functions of the House may be neglected, if time is frittered away on matters of inessential detail and vain repetition. The Select Committee have steered a careful course between the danger of over-simplification of procedure on the one hand, and over-adherence to tradition on the other. No doubt, we can see here the guiding hand of their wise and experienced chairman, the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young).
The value of the Committee's work lies not only in the positive reforms which the House is now being asked to approve, but also in the analysis they have provided of the time devoted by the House to its various functions. This will remain of value to those who, in later years, come to
1548
consider yet further adaptations of procedure. Here it may be permissible—and I am sure it would be the wish of the Select Committee—to pay tribute to the help given to the Committee and the House by Mr. Speaker, and by the Clerk of the House, who not only provided the necessary detailed evidence but also offered out of his ripe experience stimulating suggestions for reform.
The Report of the Committee is best reviewed under broad headings corresponding to the main functions of the House—legislation, the control of policy and administration, and the control of finance.
Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but since he appears to have reached the end of his preface, so to speak, may I ask whether we are right in assuming, as I think the right hon. Gentleman is assuming, that we are now to debate the Report—that the Report is now the subject of Debate?
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite know what the answer is. So far the Minister has been making his case. Possibly I may select some Amendments, and then we will see whether the Report is open to debate or not. If the hon. Member really wants to know, it is my intention to call an Amendment which will raise the question of the whole background of the Report.
Mr. Pickthorn: I was thinking of the analogy, perhaps wrongly, of the Privilege Debate the other day, when we were upon the consideration of the Report, but we were told that the Debate was strictly limited not to those words but to the words which followed. Similarly here, the words which follow are:
"That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 17th March, 1947. …"
I am not in the least suggesting what is the right answer, but I wish to be sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming, as he would appear to assume in his first paragraph, that we are now entitled to debate the whole of the Report and not to debate the House's approval of the Lord Privy Seal's statement. I wish to be quite sure which we are debating.
Mr. Speaker: Personally, I am still unable to appreciate the hon. Member's

1549
point, because the Lord President is entitled to make his statement in his own way. There is an Amendment down, which there was not in the case of the Privilege Debate, and the moving of that Amendment will bring the Report into Order, and we can discuss the whole Report. Meantime, surely, the Lord President is entitled to make his general case. If there were no Amendment down which would bring that Report into discussion, it might be difficult. It is not so, however, in this case: there is this definite Amendment which will bring all the discussion into Order.
Mr. Pickthorn: Thank you, Sir. I am so sorry.
Mr. Morrison: It is quite all right. I intended to cover the ground covered by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal in relation to the Report of the Select Committee. I thought that was right in relation to this Motion which I am moving.
Dealing, first, with legislation, which is dealt with in the third Report of the Select Committee, paragraphs 6 to 16, the Report has comparatively little on legislation, not because it is unimportant, but because the Committee had already dealt in their first Report with such matters and had recommended certain changes, chiefly in connection with Standing Committees, to which we shall come later. Even with these changes, the pressure of legislative activity on the time of the House is still severe, and the Select Committee were, therefore, right to consider the scheme propounded by the Clerk of the House for a further devolution of responsibility to Standing Committees. They were also right, if I may say so, in the Government's view, not to accept it, attractive though it may have appeared at first sight.
Coming now to control of policy and administration in relation to Supply procedure, which is dealt with in the third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, paragraphs 17 to 23, the Select Committee recognise that proceedings in Committee of Supply are now almost entirely given over to the consideration of Government policy, and have lost their former purely financial significance. In some ways, I am sorry about this change, this development; but it is the fact; and, this being so, the Committee considered how far the present procedure is really
1550
suitable and concluded that it was capable of improvement. That is also the view of the Government, even though we do not entirely agree with the Committee about the methods of making the improving changes.
The new Standing Orders No. 14 and No. 16 are intended to give effect to the principle of the recommendation of the Select Committee, with certain modifications of detail. Briefly, the object of the change is to enable Supply days to be spread more evenly through the Session, and to be used, on occasion, for debates of a less restricted character than is at present permissible on Supply days. At the same time, it is proposed to remove the present relative disparity between the time which may be spent on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the time available for the main Estimates. In order to give effect to this the proposal is, first, that all Supply Business should be concentrated in 26 allotted days which may be taken at any time before 5th August. This is the main object of new Standing Order No. 14.
There is a point here upon which the Government differ from the Select Committee, who proposed that the number of allotted days should be 28. They seem to have reached that figure by adding together the 20 Supply days available at present, the four days on which Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair, and four days for spring Supplementary Estimates. The Government consider that two days should be enough for the Supplementaries, and have, therefore, reduced the Committee's total by two. Very little more than this has been taken for Supplementary days in recent years—two and three-quarter days in 1935 to 1936 and 1936 to 1937, and two and a half days in 1937 to 1938. If, of course, more days are wanted, they may be taken; but the effect will be to reduce the number of days available for the main Estimates.
Another point is that time must be found in the future for new forms of business akin to Supply business in their nature but which for technical reasons cannot be taken on allotted days. This includes debates on the general economic situation, and on the reports of the boards of socialised industries which will have to be debated from time to time; it will not, of course, necessarily involve

1551
debating the affairs of each industry each year. If these are to be fitted in, the House must be willing, I suggest, to limit the time it spends on other business, and in the Government's view this can be done most easily by limiting the time spent on the spring Supplementary Estimates.
Captain Crookshank: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to ask just how we are going to handle this Debate, because the right hon. Gentleman is just now—and I am not complaining about it—explaining in very considerable detail the effect of one of the new Standing Orders in the Schedule. Does that mean that at this stage we are going to discuss the detail of every one of these Standing Orders, or is this something in the nature of a Second Reading Debate, in which the general outline is given, and in which our position is reserved to criticise in detail later on? Otherwise it seems to me we may run into the risk of mere repetition, or of becoming confused, in the later part of the Debate, when we are discussing the proposals in detail.
Mr. Morrison: I am entirely in the hands of the House. What I thought the House wanted, as a result of the earlier statement made to the House by the Lord Privy Seal, was some general discussion first. My right hon. Friends and I were not proposing to explain these Standing Orders when we come to move the Motions approving them later on, but to await Debate, and to reply to the Debate in due course. It was thought convenient that a general statement should be made covering the ground dealt with by the Lord Privy Seal. But I have not the least feeling about the matter. If the House would prefer to go straight on with the Motions approving the new Standing Orders we can still move them formally, and debate the points as they arise. I have no objection at all to that, and if that is thought the most expeditious way, it is all right so far as we are concerned.
Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House here, but I confess I thought that the course which the Lord President has suggested seemed to me to be reasonable—that we should have now what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)
1552
called a Second Reading Debate. Then, when we come to the various Motions which are to be moved, I dare say there will be some comment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has said, he could move the Motions, and we could wait to see if there is any comment on them. Of course, there are some Amendments. It seemed to me, frankly, that it would shorten the proceedings in the long run if we had a general statement and Debate now, and then got down to the details later. I am in the hands of the House, however, as anybody else is in this matter.
Colonel Ropner: I think we on this side entirely agree with you, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so with respect—that there should be something in the nature of a Second Reading Debate now. However, the Lord President was going into pretty considerable detail on one of the Standing Orders he is to move later today. I would hope that when the time comes to move the new Standing Orders we shall, at least, have some explanation of them then from the Minister concerned.
Mr. Morrison: That would not be necessary, really. All I am doing now is briefly indicating where the Government dissent from the views of the Select Committee in the main, and why we do so, and explaining the purposes of the new Standing Orders. It seems to me it would be a waste of time if, following that explanation, it were necessary to explain the Standing Orders when the Motions to approve them come up. Amendments may be moved, of course; but I hope that the Debate can be rather shorter, having regard to this discussion we are having now. Debate can ensue, and a Minister will be available to expound to the House the reasons the Government have for supporting the Standing Orders and putting them down. With that explanation I hope I may proceed. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in the hands of the House and have no feeling if the House would prefer to go straight to the approval of the Standing Orders. There is an Amendment down by the Opposition to approve the report of the Select Committee instead of approving the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal. I should have thought that we must have some discussion about it.

1553
Another new provision in the proposed Standing Order No. 19 is for two Guillotines before 31st March. This is necessary so that the Government may obtain all the Supply which they require—[Interruption]. If the right hon. and gallant Member wishes to urge a change I wish he would get up instead of murmuring on the Front Bench.
Sir John Mellor: Further to the point of Order, there is one matter on which I am not quite clear. There are some matters which cannot be discussed on the Schedule because they are not mentioned, but which were mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee, such as the question of delegated legislation. I assume that the correct time to refer to that matter would be when my right hon. and gallant Friend moves the Amendment to the present Motion, in line 1, to leave out from the second "the" "to the end, and to insert "Report." Should I be right in that assumption?
Mr. Speaker: I thought I had made that plain before when I answered the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). That Amendment, surely, opens a far wider field than the present one. I indicated that I intended to call it, and the hon. Baronet is therefore correct in his assumption.
Mr. Morrison: To ensure that sufficient allotted days are available before 31st March—it is necessary to make these explanations, because some of these Standing Orders are not clear upon the face of them—for adequate discussion, these Guillotines may not fall before the 7th or 8th allotted days. Moreover, the Supplementary Estimates must be presented seven clear days before the fall of the Guillotine, and an excess Vote for an earlier year may not be guillotined unless the Public Accounts Committee have reported allowing it. The existing arrangements for the last two allotted days are retained with one new feature. This is the reference to the Defence Department Estimates in addition to the others. This is necessary because the Government have decided to present the Estimate for the Ministry of Defence in future as a separate document—like the Army, Navy and Air Estimates—instead of including it in common with the volume of Civil Estimates, in which we do not think it would appropriately appear.
1554
The second part of the Government's proposal is covered by the new Standing Order No. 16, which deals with debates on moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. It is proposed that such debates may arise on any allotted day, provided that the necessary Motion is moved by a Minister of the Crown. The Government feel that they must in this way retain control of the number of these debates, since otherwise there might be too many of them and not enough time given to the actual Estimates themselves. The Select Committee were aware of this danger and suggested that the number of these debates should be limited to eight. We think that this is a somewhat arbitrary figure which might prove too great or too small in practice, and prefer that the number should be settled through the usual channels, as circumstances may require. On the four occasions when the House first goes into Committee of Supply on the Navy, Army, Air or Civil Estimates respectively, the existing procedure, by which Private Members ballot for the right to move the Amendment, will be retained. On other occasions the Amendment will be framed by the Opposition.
The other new feature of the proposal is that in all debates of this kind Mr. Speaker may modify the present practice of the House prohibiting references to legislation, as there have been some complaints about this from hon. Members; and, indeed, the matter was discussed pretty fully by the Select Committee itself in the course of evidence being taken. The extent of the modification is, I agree, limited—as I think it ought to be—by paragraph 2 of the new Standing Order No. 16, to such incidental references to legislative action as Mr. Speaker may consider relevant to any matter of administration under debate, when in cases where the enforcement of the prohibition would, in his opinion, unduly restrict the discussion of such matters.
The next subject is the control of policy and administration in relation to Statutory Instruments, in connection with which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be available to the House at the appropriate stage, because on this subject he is expert, having handled the Statutory Instruments Act. It is dealt with in the third Report of the Committee, paragraphs 24 to 30. There is, of course, first of all, the question whether a further

1555
inquiry into delegated legislation should be made, and there is the other provision in the new Standing Orders as to Statutory Instruments, with which latter point my hon. and learned Friend will be particularly concerned. In this part of the Report, to which I have referred, the Select Committee distinguished between criticism of broad policy and criticism of detailed matters of administration, and, regarding delegated legislation as a kind of administrative activity, recommend that there should be an inquiry into delegated legislation and the procedure in relation to it.
The Government are not opposed in principle to this suggestion. They recognise that much has happened in this field since 1932, when the matter was reported on by the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers' Powers. Briefly, there have been three main developments since that time. First, we have had the war and the emergency situation following, during which it has been necessary for the Government to exercise, subject to Parliament, wide powers of legislative authority. At the same time there has been a growing interest by Parliament in this matter; and in the light of experience many improvements have been made in the form, lay-out and drafting of subordinate legislation, and in its presentation to the public. Secondly, in 1944 the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders was set up on my Motion in the last Parliament—and I think the House will agree that that Committee has done useful work for us—to consider instruments subject to Parliamentary proceedings, and to draw the attention of the House to any departure, on a number of specified points, from generally accepted practice. This Committee has done useful work, and a number of the improvements I have referred to were made as the result of its reports.
Finally, in 1946 the Statutory Instruments Act was passed. This Act will come into force on 1st January, 1948, and from that date instruments which have to be laid before Parliament after being made will have to be laid before they come into operation, and in any proceedings for an offence against a Statutory Instrument it will be a defence to prove that the instrument had not been issued by the Stationery Office at the date of the alleged
1556
offence. It will be seen that these developments are generally in the direction of improving the arrangements with regard to delegated legislation and the control of the House over it. Moreover, the latest of them, the Statutory Instruments Act, has not yet come into operation, so that there has been no experience yet of its working in practice. The Government therefore, think that the time is not yet ripe for an inquiry of the kind suggested by the Select Committee.
I now come to the control of finance in the sphere of taxation. This is dealt with in Paragraphs 32 to 35 of the third Report. The Committee sub-divided this into two—control of taxation and control of expenditure. Under the first of these headings they deal with the Government's proposal regarding procedure on Ways and Means Resolutions, the most important of which are, of course, those which are moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of the Budget. In their proposal, the Government pointed out that there was duplication, firstly, between the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions, when a general debate takes place, and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when there is another general debate; and, secondly, between the Report stage of the Resolutions, when they are examined individually, and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which is altogether apart from what happens on the Report stage of the Bill itself, when the Clauses of the Bill are taken individually and the same points arise. It could hardly be suggested that one or other of the general debates should be formalised, and so the Government proposed the formalisation of the first of the detailed debates, that is to say, the Report stage of the Resolutions. It is recognised that this is an important proposal to which no doubt the House will give attention, but I think that, Members will feel in their recollection of Budget debates that there is a good deal of repetition, not owing to Members getting out of Order, but owing to the nature of the procedure itself.
The Select Committee rejected this proposal, arguing that the duplication is more apparent than real, since the Report stage of the Resolutions is more suited to a somewhat general discussion, while the Committee stage of the Bill is suitable for consideration of detailed points. That

1557
was the argument of the Select Committee. To this the Government replied that in fact a great deal of time had been occupied in the past with tedious repetition. The Select Committee have met this, but say that it reflects on the House rather than on the procedure. The Government think the fact that Members have in the past used these occasions, quite within the rules of Order, to repeat speeches, either their own or others, shows clearly that not all of these speeches are necessary. Therefore, the Government submit the proposal for the judgment and decision of the House. The main part of it is covered by paragraph 2 of the new Standing Order relating to Ways and Means Resolutions. Paragraph 1 is necessary, because the whole object of the proposal would be frustrated if Members refused to continue to observe the present entirely informal and voluntary custom, by which, in Committee of Ways and Means on Budget Day, the question is put, and decided, without Amendment or debate, on all except the last of the Resolutions proposed by the Chancellor, and is followed by a general debate. If this arrangement were upset, it would not only restore the opportunities for repetition, which we wish to remove, but would upset the machinery of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act.
We now pass to the expenditure side of the control of finance, dealt with in paragraphs 36–44. The Select Committee recommend that the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee should be amalgamated into a single committee, with an order of reference combining the functions of them both, and with sub-committees. The object is apparently to strengthen control of expenditure, although the Select Committee do not produce any reasons for supposing that strengthening is required. What they do say is that, although the functions of the two existing committees are distinct, their subject matter is the same and their work overlaps, since the Public Accounts Committee often look forward, while the Estimates Committee look back. They also think that, by amalgamating the committees, experience gained in the examination of accounts could be used in the examination of current expenditure, and vice versa. Finally, they think that a single committee, with sub-committees, could co-ordinate the work and eliminate
1558
overlapping and inconsistency. The Government share the Select Committee's desire that the machinery of the House for examining expenditure should be effective. I am sure that all Members share that wish. The Government have always been ready to take any steps within their power to secure this, and they will continue to do so. In their view, however, this proposal, so far from strengthening the machinery, would weaken it.
Their main reason for this view is that they hold that the difference in function between the two existing committees is fundamental, and that a committee attempting to carry out both tasks would fail to do justice to either, especially the examination of the accounts, which is a matter of the greatest constitutional importance, although perhaps not so interesting as the examination of the Estimates. Mixing up the two tasks would make it extremely difficult for the Comptroller and Auditor-General to adhere to his statutory functions, while the division of the work among sub-committees might easily lead to duplication of effort, for there axe many points arising on the accounts on which it is essential that all Departments should be treated alike, and in order to ensure this, the main committee might often have to go over again the ground covered by the sub-committees. It can hardly be said that there has been lack of co-ordination between the two committees in the past, since only one case of inconsistent reports is known; satisfactory liaison could be obtained in practice by overlapping membership and by consultation between the chairman and the clerks. For these reasons, the Government do not feel able to accept the Committee's proposal under this head.
With regard to Private Members' Time, it would be out of Order to discuss its resumption at this time, since the House settled that last week. I assume, however, that it would be in Order for the House, to discuss how to use Private Members' Time if and when it comes back as an institution of Parliament. The Committee's Report makes some observations about it.
Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. Did not the decision of this House relate only to this Session? Surely the recommendations in the Report are of a more permanent character, and would it not therefore be in Order to discuss them?
Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. The House has decided that no Private Members' Time is to be given this Session, and we cannot therefore discuss Private Members' Time for this Session, but only for the future, which, as the Report raises the question of Private Members' Time, is in Order.
Mr. Morrison: I was going to say that while I submit that it would be in Order to discuss the use of Private Members' Time which may be given in the future, and although it would not be in Order to discuss whether it should be reinstituted this Session, I think that discussion might wait until nearer the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is as the House likes; it is a free country. I am only making the respectful submission that I think it might perhaps be more useful at a time when we are considering the matter than on this occasion. However, the House can do as it likes.
On the question of Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 8, referred to in paragraphs 53–56, this is a recommendation which we think should be generally acceptable to the House—that in order to reduce the disturbance inevitably caused by Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 8, the time spent on them should be made up by exempting the superseded business for a corresponding amount of time. The Government accept the recommendation of the Committee, and have put down the addition to the Standing Order No. 8 that is required to give effect to it.
The next item is the proposed Business Committee, dealt with in paragraph 60. This is a Government proposal which the Select Committee dismiss, on the ground that it is substantially the same as one which they rejected in their first Report. The Government feel it necessary, however, to fill a gap in the present arrangements. The original proposal was for the establishment of an emergency Business Committee, consisting of the members of the Chairmen's Panel, with about five additional members nominated by Mr. Speaker. Where a Bill was subject to Guillotine, the function of the committee would be to allocate, between the various parts of the Bill, the time allowed by the Resolution for any particular stage. The Select Committee considered this chiefly in relation to the Committee stages of Bills
1560
sent upstairs, and suggested that a better plan would be for the Bill to be divided by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee itself.
The Government accepted this as an improvement on their own proposal, so far as concerns the Committee stages of Bills taken upstairs. The House approved it, and it has been in operation under Sessional Orders, but it does not, however, cover the Committee stages of Bills kept on the Floor of the House, nor does it cover the Report stages of any Bill. The Select Committee admitted the existence of this gap in their first Report, and suggested that in these cases, the Guillotine Resolutions should lay down the subdivision of the time allotted. The Government feel, however, that if it is agreed that these details should be kept out of Guillotine Resolutions, there is no reason to limit this to Standing Committee proceedings; and the House, we feel, should share the advantages of such an arrangement. A further advantage of the proposal is that the committee would be able to deal not only with allocations of time fixed by allocation of time orders, but also with allocations made by voluntary agreement between the various parties in the House.
In the third Report, paragraph 60, the Committee dealt with a proposal about the restriction of debate in Committee. This is another Government proposal which the Select Committee refused to consider, that in proceedings in Committee on a Bill, the Chairman should have power to disallow debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part," if he is of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and all matters arising out of it have already been adequately discussed on Amendments. When the proposal was first put to the Select Committee, they rejected it, on the ground that it would place too great an onus on the Chair, and pointed out that the Chair already has power to check repetition. But if Amendments have been offered to a Clause, and, as a result, the whole principle of the Clause has been debated, there is really no point in having further discussion. The present powers of the Chair are not really adequate, in our view, to meet this. When the situation envisaged arises, any speech at all would be either repetitive or irrelevant. The question whether the discussion on

1561
Amendments has fully covered the principle of the Clause is a matter of fact in each case, and it does not seem unfair that the Chairman should decide it.
My last reference is not to the Report itself, but to a proposal to set up a technical committee to examine the Standing Orders, not on big issues of policy, but on matters of drafting, tidiness, and so on. Having dealt with the proposals which the Government now put before the House arising out of the Report, and following the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, I proceed to the question of this committee. The changes to which I have referred, if they are approved by the House, together with the others which are to be considered later, represent a considerable alteration in the form and content of the Standing Orders—so much so, that the Government feel that it would be desirable for the whole code of Standing Orders, as amended by the result of this Debate, to be examined by a technical committee, which could make such suggestions as it thinks fit, for the general improvement of the wording and the removal of any ambiguities or obscurities. Following the precedent of 1933, it is suggested that the committee should be unofficial and informal, reporting, in the first instance, to the Government, although, of course, it will be necessary for any changes that may be suggested to be submitted to the House at a later stage. The House will be glad to know that Mr. Speaker has been good enough to say that he will be willing to preside over such a committee, and to nominate a small number of right hon. or hon. Members to assist him. I am sure that the House will be grateful for Mr. Speaker's kindness in that matter, adding, as we are, a further burden to his already heavy duties.
I thought that it might be useful to go over the ground as shortly as the numerous matters would allow. I hope that we may have a reasonable Debate, not too long, on the general issues raised, and then we can deal with the Standing Orders and the Amendments put down. I thought it right, in view of the complexities of this matter, to make this explanatory statement, and I trust that, in due course, the House will find it possible to accept the advice which I have given on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
4.27 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I have put down an Amendment—to leave out from the second "the" to the end of the Motion and to add "Report"—but I am not sure now, in view of the width allowed to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it will be necessary to move it, for this reason: I thought that it would be useful, at this stage, to have a look at the Committee's Report and the alterations which were before it, and I cannot see how that can be done within the narrow compass of approving a statement made in the House by the Lord Privy Seal. I venture, from such information as I have been able to secure, to think that my view is right, and that if we adopt the Amendment, it would widen the discussion on the whole issue of procedure related to the Report which is under discussion. If that is so, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I will move the Amendment before I sit down. It seems to me that we shall have to discuss some of the new Standing Orders in very considerable detail. The Lord President has sketched out the effect of them generally, but, of course, we shall want to probe them a great deal more, because there is a lot to be said which, naturally, in his opening statement, he has not spoken about.
I am surprised, quite frankly, that the Government have taken this form of Motion. I do not see why they have not moved that we either approve or disapprove of the Report of the Select Committee. In view of the fact that they do not accept some of the recommendations, I should have thought that it would have been more straightforward on their part to say that "The House does not approve of the Report," and then themselves to come forward with the Amendments to Standing Orders, some of them picked out from recommendations of the Report, and some picked out from their own ideas. But the Government, apparently, would prefer that we expressed no views on the Report. I think that a very lopsided way of procedure and rather unusual, and I do not see the point of it. I hope that in future when reports come before the House, and it is necessary to adopt them, the Government will move to approve or disapprove of them. That does not prevent them from coming to such conclusions as they would like to put

1563
on the reports by their own initiative. No one would agree with every word in the Report of the Select Committee; why should they? Obviously, some of the people on the Committee could not originally have agreed with every point in it, otherwise there would have been no division.
Broadly speaking, this Report comes to the House as a report which has to be carefully considered. All I have to say today has nothing to do with party or Opposition. This is purely a House of Commons affair as to how we are to regulate our business, and not a Socialist view or a Conservative view as to whether this or that alteration should be made. I hope that we will all apply our minds, as best we can, out of the confusion that almost inevitably follows debates on this topic, to the various points which are raised. I think that the Government have treated the whole matter rather lightly. They told us at the beginning of this Parliament that it was exceedingly important that the new Parliament should at once proceed into an investigation of the procedure of this House, and the Committee met for many months under the most able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young). All of us on this side of the House who were colleagues of his on that Committee would like to thank him for the help and guidance which he gave us from the chair. So great was the rush that we had to sit during the summer Recess, an unheard of thing for a Committee of this House as far as I know.
We produced the first and second Report, and we produced the final Report on 31st October, 1946. That was over a year ago, but in the last Session of Parliament and in the one before that inquiries were made from time to time as to what was going to happen. Eventually in March the Lord Privy Seal came down and gave the Government decision on the matter. He promised a debate on the Select Committee's Report, but nothing happened in that Session. Now the Government have given the Debate not on the Report as it was published, but on their own proposals arising out of the Report. Frankly, in view of the hard work which the Committee put in, and bearing in mind that when we are talking about the membership of the
1564
Committee the majority was on the side of the Government—though during our discussion and in the cross-examination I do not think anybody could point to anything said there from a purely party point of view—I feel somehow that they have not been treated any too kindly considering the labours which they put in on behalf of the House.
I should like with the right hon. Gentleman to express our thanks from this side of the House to all those who helped in giving evidence, including hon. Members of this House headed by you, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House and the other officials of the House who at different times came to help us, and were exceedingly useful in providing for us a great deal of statistical material. The third Report is a most interesting document, and a great deal of the evidence and of the points of view which were put by different witnesses are worthy of study, particularly the most brilliant memorandum of the Clerk of the House. The Select Committee did not agree with it, but that does not detract from the amazing amount of work put by him and his Department into it, and his most interesting proposals were certainly worthy of our consideration for a very long period of time. What emerged really from the whole story is that, in spite of the enthusiasm of the Government at the beginning of our affairs away back in 1945, in spite of the fact that no doubt quite deliberately and rightly, a number of the members of the Select Committee were members who had not been in the House before and, therefore, to whom presumably the whole field was quite new, in spite of the sort of attitude that everything had got to be hurried through and we had got to make great changes, and in spite of a most careful examination of all the problems under discussion with witnesses, at the end of the day the Select Committee did not propose anything very drastic. As far as I know, no one expressed any particular disappointment at that, because as I may judge it, and as the Debate shows, the House was prepared to put it into the hands of the hon. Member for Newton and his colleagues and let them consider it and see what they had to say.
We did not come forward with anything very drastic or revolutionary, but owing to the length of time since we concluded our Report there is this to be said

1565
—some of the proposals which were originally made and tentatively tried have worked out fairly satisfactory. When I read in the Press speeches made by Ministers and their supporters in the country priding themselves on the enormous number of Bills which have become Acts of Parliament during last Session and the Session before, I cannot help thinking that they cannot have it both ways. If they are going to boast of the amount of legislation which they managed to get through they cannot turn round and say the machinery is all wrong. They have got the legislation through the machinery and they have achieved much of their objective. I think I am right in saying that no major Measure or, indeed, minor Measure on which the Lord President of the Council set his heart last year failed to pass into law.
Mr. H. Morrison: Under the improved procedure.
Captain Crookshank: That is what I am saying. The conclusion that I came to is that nothing revolutionary is required. As a result of our suggestions the Lord President and his supporters very largely achieved what they wanted by getting through this enormous mass of legislation. I am not saying it is a good mass of legislation. My speeches in the country are not like those of the Lord President and his supporters on that subject; but, looking at it objectively, they said they wanted to get a certain number of things through which they outlined in the various King's Speeches, and they have succeeded in doing it. They have boasted of all this mass of legislation going through and it adds point to the general line which the Select Committee took, that except for certain changes and arrangements here and there, broadly there is nothing wrong with our procedure.
Another thing I heard the Lord President in his speech say was that we would need to have a technical committee to tidy things up. I know he likes to tidy up things, but a lot of things should be left in a condition not as tidy as he desires. However, if he wishes to do that I hope anyhow that it will not get into the heads of a great number of hon. Members that questions of procedure and Standing Orders are just mumbo-jumbo, which only a lot of experts can understand. If anybody reads them they will find there is not great difficulty in under-
1566
standing them, and that they are similar to rules for running a hospital board or a pig club. A lot of the trouble arises from the fact that Members do not read these rules. They are not so difficult.
Dr. Morgan: Some of them are very difficult to understand.
Captain Crookshank: They are not so difficult, certainly not for anyone with the skilled experience of medical men such as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). Some of the words used in his profession are difficult. I do not think there is anything very terrible in our Standing Orders, and I hope, therefore, that there will not be too much pruning and cutting down.
At this stage I do not want to go through all the proposals which were put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure, but I think it is interesting to follow up something which the right hon. Gentleman was saying, and that is the broad divisions in which our work falls. I hope he will not object to me reminding him of a statement which he made before the Select Committee, namely, that in his view the most important function of Parliament was checking the Government and not the function of legislating. I accept that view. Therefore, it is interesting to see how the various divisions of the time of the House over a period of 30 years have gone in criticising the Government and how much has gone in legislation. Perhaps I need hardly remind hon. Members when they study these figures that some figures throw out the general average, particularly where an abnormal Bill was before Parliament, For example, when the Government of India Bill occupied the time of Parliament, it gives an entirely disproportionate figure for that period for the amount of legislation considered by the House.
If the chief part which Parliament has to play, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is checking the Government, then it seems to me that there are two checks which are necessary—the check on administration and the check on finance. The check on administration comes through the Supply procedure, and I will speak in greater detail on that when we come to the new Standing Order on that point. There are one or two things which I should like to say then, if, Mr. Speaker, I catch your eye. On the control of

1567
administration, apart from the Supply procedure, we thought the time had come to go further into this matter of delegated legislation. We did take evidence on this subject from some of the best informed persons, not Members of Parliament and not in Government circles.
The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he did not think the time had quite yet come. With the enormous amount of orders and rules a tremendous burden is placed upon our own Select Committee, whose work we all admire. It must be very tedious and boring to go through all those orders and regulations in the way that the Committee does. It is very helpful to us that they should do that work. Of course, the check on administration needs to go a great deal further than that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this decision and, before very long, will accept the proposal which was made by the Committee that the time has come for an inquiry into that matter.
On the other side, in regard to the check on the Government, financial control comes not only through Supply days but through the financial procedure of the House. When we come to the new Standing Orders my hon. Friends and I will have something more to say about that. It was interesting to find from the statistics that between 1906 and 1937 the amount of time devoted to that part of our business was not really very great. The amount of time devoted to Ways and Means and Finance Bills averaged only 15 days per annum, somewhere about 10 per cent. of the total time of the House. That is not very much, even in normal times. In these days, when Budgets and finance assume such enormous figures which has some relevance to the problem—I do not think it is overmuch. The number of days work out on the average to 15. We have to bear in mind that 70 days were used for that purpose in 1909, so that the average would have been much less but for that very hectic period.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think it was worth while saying anything about Private Members' time because the matter had been settled for this Session by Sessional Order and there was not going to be any. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S.
1568
Silverman) is here, perhaps I may be allowed to say that it was for that reason that I discussed the matter the other day, when he said it was ridiculous—I do not want necessarily to bring the hon. Member to his feet—but he used words to the effect that it was rather nonsense for me to oppose the abolition of Private Members' time, when he knew perfectly well that I did not want it to go back to the system which exists in the Standing Orders. That was by way of being a Second Reading decision—either we were to have it, or we were not to have it.
Now is the opportunity, if anybody wants to take it, to say whether they think that our proposals are better than the existing proposals. It would be very valuable if something were said about that today. I take it that we are not going to have Private Members' time abolished for ever. Now that we are dealing with this Report of a Committee which spent a great deal of time on this problem, it would be helpful for the future to have some observations. I do not see, otherwise, why the matter is raised at all. It will be helpful if hon. Members would express their views on the proposals, which I must admit were very startlingly different from the system enshrined in the present Standing Orders.
In case hon. Members are not quite aware what we proposed, I would recall that it was that Private Members' time, in the sense of Bills and motions, should be limited to Fridays to begin with, and that there should not be the mid-week break. Further, we proposed that the first 20 Fridays after the Address should be at the disposal of Private Members alternately for Bills and motions, and that the first six Bill Fridays—to use our own words—would be for Second Readings of Bills and the last four for Report stages and Third Readings. The alternate Fridays would be for motions. There should be a single ballot for the two. It would be sufficient in the case of motions if only one week's notice was given. Those are the proposals which we throw on the Table, and that is my answer to the criticism which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, no doubt quite rightly, made the other day. It would be useful if something could be said about it. After all, we have deprived ourselves, not through any wish of mine, of all that for this year, but there is next year. One

1569
must be far-seeing; at least we think so, but it is not a practice that Governments are much given to, generally speaking. We think that at this stage some discussion should take place.
There is another point in the Select Committee's report on which I would like to say one word. It has nothing to do with the other; I have finished with the Fridays. It is rather a hotch-potch. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about it. It is rather a delicate matter. We went in great detail by cross-examination into the use of Standing Order No. 8, of moving the Adjournment on matters which arise urgently. A very interesting statistical table is to be found on that subject in the Report showing the number of times that the Motion was moved, the number of times it was refused and the number of times it was allowed.
It is a fact that in recent years the numbers have gone down and down and that it is quite rare now for that Motion to be accepted. We put the matter in this form. Perhaps it is just as well that it should be put before the House. If hon. Members look at page xviii they will see:
"While your Committee do not consider that any change in the Standing Order is needed, they think that a less narrow interpretation of Standing Order No. 8 and of the rules governing the subject matter of Adjournment Motions generally would be justified."
We point out that in our view, and from the evidence we have got:
"In particular, your Committee would refer to the refusal of motions because the matters raised by them involved no more than 'the ordinary administration of the law.' This rule was originally intended to refer to the administration of justice in the courts of law, but since 1920 it has been held to cover the administrative action of Government Departments."
That is a very important sentence. It is not for us, in this matter, which rests entirely in the hands of Mr. Speaker, to discuss the value which he has to put on the three prongs of Standing Order No. 8, but it is as well to call attention to the fact that we did discuss it at very great length, and that our opinion was that if, without giving instructions to anybody in the matter, a less narrow interpretation could be achieved, it would be to the public advantage.
If the House accepts the proposal which is to come before it on this subject, in the case of there being such Adjournment Motions in the future, the Government
1570
would not automatically lose time, because the time would go forward on the same day. There would be just that disadvantage that on those nights the House would sit, later. One of the objections given in the past that such Adjournment Motions would upset the Government's timetable would not be possible in the future.
The other point upon which I think, even at this stage, I would like to say something is that the Government treated the Committee rather cavalierly in letting its Report lie on the Table for over a year. It is still more extraordinary, as is to be seen from the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now, that the Government should come forward in the new Standing Orders which we shall discuss in detail later on, asking the House to accept two Standing Orders—perhaps I should not say two—which had twice been before the Committee and were twice rejected by the Committee.
There is, first, the suggestion of a Business Committee. That was originally before us at the time of the first Report. It was then turned down, and the Government, as will be seen if anybody looks at the evidence on page 100 of the Report, asked the Select Committee to look at it again, which was done. The Committee's conclusion on that was:
"Your Committee are not aware of any new point which has arisen to justify them in re-opening these questions"
The first question was the Business Committee and the second one was the proposal that the Chairmen of Standing Committees should have power to disallow a debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part."
I must say that I take rather an exception to this action on the part of the Government because, after all, this was a Committee, on which there was inevitably a majority of the supporters of the Government, which took very great care in examining whatever proposal from whatever source, and which had this before it twice and the second time repeated its previous opinion that there was no reason to re-open the question. That was accepted unanimously by the Committee, and now the Government come down and propose this to the House just as if the Committee had never sat at all or was quite unnecessary. It is treating a committee of this kind in a very odd way. I

1571
hope that when the time comes the House as a whole will support any Motion that may be put from this side of the House rejecting the Government's proposals on the grounds—
Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me? He is arguing that the Government ought to accept the recommendations or views of the Select Committee. Would he say on behalf of the Opposition for the future that they will accept any recommendations of any Select Committee on Procedure and not challenge any of them?
Captain Crookshank: I did not say that at all. What I was saying is that here is a Committee, on which the Government have a majority, which was asked to reconsider the question. Surely it makes all the difference that the Committee was asked to reconsider the question? If one puts something to a committee and they say "No," and one says, "We would like you to look at it again for this, that or the other reason," and the committee again say "No," as this Committee did, surely in a case like that—not in every-case, for one must judge each case as it comes along—it is going rather beyond the usual rules and practice of the House to come down and use the Government majority to insist upon getting other proposals through?
I am not discussing the merits of the proposal. I hope to do that later on and perhaps I may persuade the House that on the merits it is a wrong proposal, as the Select Committee thought, but at this stage I am merely saying that it is a very odd thing for the Government to do. I do not like it because if the Government had that kind of view about the changes in procedure whatever the Committee said and whatever evidence the Committee heard to influence it, I do not see that they need have bothered to have the Committee at all because they could have carried on with their own proposals. This is a pity because up to now these matters have been amicably debated and settled by everyone in no kind of party spirit, and when we have an all-party Committee agreeing on a matter of this kind it is unfortunate, to put it at its lowest, that the Government did not let it go after the Committee had, for the second time, rejected the proposal.
1572
I think the Debate will obviously be general in form at the start, but we have certain criticisms to make of most of the proposed Standing Orders. It is probably more convenient to do the detailed criticism at this stage. Generally speaking, I should have liked the House to accept the proposal to approve the Report because that is the better way of doing things, but the real object of my moving my Amendment is not so much that as to widen the scope of the Debate and to make sure that we can discuss all these matters. If the House shows any desire to approve the Report, I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Newton and those who served with him will be very happy that that should be the case but I think that on these occasions it is incumbent on the Government to say that they either approve or disapprove. What has happened in this case is quite clear, only they had not the courage to say so. They disapproved of the Report.
Mr. H. Morrison indicated dissent.
Captain Crookshank: Of course they do. They disapprove of it, and like Jack Horner they have picked out of it some of the better plums and put them on the Order Paper today. But they disapprove of the Report as a whole. If the Lord President of the Council says, "No," does he approve of it?
Mr. H. Morrison: Neither. I have a great respect for the Parliamentary ability of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but there are times when he deliberately proceeds to get himself thoroughly mixed up and he becomes extraordinarily happy in doing so. That is a reminder of the good old times. We agree with some of the Report, and there are some features with which we do not agree. We have brought some proposals before the House. Surely there is no obligation on the part of the Government, the Opposition or Private Members to have a report put before them and to be faced with the issue, "You must say whether you like this report. Answer only, 'Yes' or 'No.'" That is not a fair way to put it. We must have the right to discriminate within a report between the things with which we agree and some things with which, unhappily, we do not agree.
Mr. W. J. Brown: On that point, this is the second time within a

1573
week that we have had to deal with reports from committees and on neither of them have we had the usual Motion:
"That this House agrees with the Committee in the said Report."
If we are only to discuss today particular points that the Government dig out of the Report and let all the rest go by default—and that, I fear, will be the upshot of today's Debate on present form—it seems to me that we shall do a considerable injustice to the Committee which spent over a year on this job, and of which Committee I may say I was one.
Captain Crookshank: I have really come to the end of what I wanted to say. I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that if reports are brought before the House for consideration it would be more consonant with usual practice to say whether one approves or disapproves of them. Of course one can approve or disapprove of bits of them. Everybody does that. Naturally, I would not expect 640 hon. Members all to agree with every word of everything. All experience is against that. But after all, this is a Government responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council does lead the House. At least, he is supposed to. That is his present Office, if not occupation. I, therefore, put it to him—as the hon. Member for Rugby said—that twice within a week reports have come to the House for discussion. A lead as to whether, broadly speaking, the Government approves or disapproves and wishes the House to approve or disapprove should be the Motion the Government move.
However, the Lord President has not done that, but in order to safeguard the position that the whole field is open for discussion today because Mr. Speaker was good enough to call this Amendment, I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the second "the" to the end of the Question and to insert "Report."
4.59 p.m.
Sir Robert Young: I endorse and emphasise what has been said by the Lord President of the Council and the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in relation to our indebtedness to all those who came to the Committee, and especially to Mr. Speaker and to the Clerk of the House for the valuable work they did for us. I must confess that I am also a little
1574
disappointed by the terms of the Motion of the Lord President of the Council. I should have thought the best thing to do would be to take the recommendations of the Select Committee and get the decision of the House on those. The Motion of the Lord President of the Council says:
"arising out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure."
I should have preferred, if I had been asked, to see the words:
"arising out of the Government's proposals to the Select Committee on Procedure "
because seven questions were put to the Select Committee. Four of them have been dropped and three of them are to be proposed by the Lord President of the Council. This is not the stage at which we may criticise the various proposals; we are only making, I understand, general observations about the report as a whole. In this connection I would say that the Report as a whole was submitted after long and serious consideration by the Members of the Committee without reference to any party spirit whatever during the long term of the Committee. We approached these matters as Members of the House of Commons seeking to come to decisions that would be in the interests of the business of the House of Commons, and for the convenience not only of the Government but of hon. Members themselves. I can assure the Lord President, as I am sure he is aware, that there was seldom any necessity for going into division in relation to the third Report which is now before us. I would assure him also that before we came to our decisions, to make sure that it was as far as possible the unanimous Report of the Committee, we had a special meeting before the draft Report was submitted to the Committee, to get the views of Members in relation to what should be in the Report.
I took it as part of my responsibility as Chairman to decide that there was no use our putting anything in the Report that was not likely to meet with the approval of the Committee, and I think there was only one Division in relation to the whole Report when we came to discuss it. We selected that previous meeting for a general consensus of opinion to know exactly where the Committee—not individual Members—stood in relation to our various recommendations, and the Report gives an accurate summary of the whole thing.

1575
One or two things have arisen in the course of this discussion which I trust will be further probed as we consider the various suggestions made. The Lord President has told us that he wishes the 28 days to be reduced to 26. The Committee was very careful about that. We were told that on the average 28.6 days were taken up. We reduced it to 28, and in the Report we put something into the 28 which was not before in the 28. The 28 days were to be made up of four days getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, of 20 Supply days, of two for the Public Accounts Report, and the other two to include the time that had been given to Supplementary Estimates, so that, on the whole, I thought we were saving the Government's time in proposing 28 days, not merely saving.6 of a day, but saving a considerable amount of time, because those 28 days were to include the time taken up by Supplementary Estimates. When we come to consider that later on, I hope the Lord President of the Council will give his serious attention to it.
Another point was that there should be no Debate on "the Clause stand part." As one who has been a Chairman I would not like to be saddled with that responsibility. Sometimes it might be very easy, at other times not so easy. After all, there may be a Clause with which one does not agree; it may be amended, and then one agrees with it. On the other hand, it might be a reverse process. Under those circumstances it is absolutely necessary that there should be a Debate on "the Clause stand part." Who is to decide whether—
Mr. H. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, the Government—
Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, nobody can hear a single word of what the Lord President is saying.
Mr. Morrison: I was trying to let my hon. Friend hear, which was rather important—
Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are other hon. Members in the House.
Mr. Morrison: I was only saying that the Government are not taking the line that my hon. Friend is assuming, that there should never be a Debate on "the
1576
Clause stand part," but that we want a clear discretion for the Chairman to rule that out if, in his opinion, the Clause has been discussed adequately already.
Sir R. Young: I know the Government are not taking up the extreme line but, at the same time, I say it will be very difficult for the Chairman, and that is what I am concerned about. In the mind of the Lord President it may be easy for the Chairman, but I do not think it will be so easy, and the only way the Chairman would get out of it would be simply to ignore it and let things go on.
Mr. McKie: There are difficulties in the way.
Sir R. Young: I do not want the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) to make my speech for me, but I think there are difficulties in the way, and I think a Chairman should not be saddled with responsibilities of that kind. If he is, he may come under the suspicion of hon. Members of deciding in one way in one case and in another way in another case, and they may not agree. I trust that also will be considered when we come to deal with the Amendment.
Then there is the question of Private Members' time. I agree with the Lord President that the time for deciding that is when we come to clear away to some extent the present restriction on Private Members' time. However, I hope that when we do consider that, the other proposals we have suggested about Fridays will be seriously taken into consideration, because I think they are a great improvement on the previous practice. If they are adopted, I think they will not only be to the benefit of hon. Members in that they will have something to discuss worth discussing and carrying through, but they will also be to the benefit of the Government in many ways.
I do not desire at this stage, and I do not think it right, to recapitulate what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough has said. He has gone through many of the points in this Report, and, therefore, I would only be wasting time if I repeated what he has said. However, when we come to deal with the various Amendments I hope we shall consider them seriously from the point of view of the House as a whole, and recognise that, after all, democracy means debate and discussion, and that it

1577
means the free opinion of Members being allowed on every possible occasion, even in a House which has a large amount of business before it. If we manage to do that, it will be to the credit of the House. As the Chairman of the Select Committee I shall not now enter into any controversy, but simply say that I trust that particular points in the Report will be considered seriously, and that, if possible, the Lord President will give us an idea of why he preferred 26 days to 28. He said that if we took those two days for the Public Accounts Committee, the 26 would then count. I want him to tell the House whether that means that the 26 days he is proposing does not in any way apply to the time given to discussion of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, if that should be required? If that is so, it makes a difference to our approach to the 26, as against the 28 days. But, if it is meant to include the two days, it is a serious reduction of time, which should be obviated if at all possible.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to begin by very cordially endorsing what has been said by the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), who with great dignity and capacity presided over the sittings of this Committee. It is true that its approach to all these problems was a non-party approach; that it was extremely seldom that the dividing line on the Committee had anything to do with party; and that, in fact, the number of Divisions we took in the course of something like a year's sittings was so small as to be almost negligible. I think that is a very considerable achievement on matters, some of which were potentially controversial. I submit that it was a good committee, which did a good job. But, if the Committee had a responsibility to the House, with great respect I submit that the House has some responsibility to the Committee. After all, after a year's labour, we produced a pretty substantial volume, and we produced it for the House of Commons. We did not produce this only for the Government. We were appointed by the House to make a report to the House, and today the Report of the Committee comes before the House.
There would have been two conceivable lines of approach, neither of which
1578
has been adopted, but either of which would have permitted us adequately to discuss this Report. One line would have been a Motion that "This House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report." If there had been that kind of Motion we could have had a discussion covering all aspects of the Committee's work, enabling us to reach a conclusion whether on the whole we liked the Report or not. But the Lord President of the Council says that the position of the Government is that they regard the Report as like the curate's egg—only good in parts. If that were the view of the Government, I submit that another way of dealing with the problem would have been to allow each of the recommendations of the Committee to come before the House one by one, and if the Government objected to any of them they could oppose it, or put down an Amendment. Then, at the end of the day, we would have discussed the whole Report.
At the end of today we shall not be in that position at all. There will have been some general debate at the beginning, and then the discussion will narrow down to the Motions put down in the name of the Lord President of the Council dealing with only a few of the many issues with which we dealt; while the rest of the points will neither be discussed nor decided upon, but will go by default. I am not going to deal with what happened the other day, because I would be out of Order. But, I think I am in Order in pointing out that this is the second time in a week that reports of a substantial and major character have come to the House, and we have not had an opportunity of pronouncing a plain "yea" or "nay" on them. The other day we had a report which contained matters of grave importance and we could not pronounce judgment on them. We indeed pronounced sentence on a couple of hon. Members, but we have not pronounced judgment on the Report of the Committee of Privileges. Today we are asked by the Lord, President of the Council to pass a number of Motions; and all the rest of the Report will be left in the air. Whether it is a Report by the Committee of Privileges, which I do not like, or a Report by this Committee on which I served, and which I do like, the Committee have the right to have their recommendations considered, and determined by the House.

1579
I agree generally with the line of criticism developed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Newton. We gave great care to all aspects of this matter, and where the Government have departed from what we say they are wrong. We took into account all they had to say upstairs. We had the Lord President of the Council up there, and what he could not achieve by authority, he sought to achieve by charm. We resisted the attack from both angles, and firmly decided that our view about this particular matter was right, and that his was wrong. Then, about a year later, he bobs up like a smiling seraph with the same proposals which he put to us twice upstairs, and which we twice rejected. If this were not so sublime, it would be impudent. It is redeemed from impudence only by its sublimity, and I think the Committee merits the justice of consideration of its Report.
None of the motions of the Lord President of the Council deals with a matter on which I feel pretty strongly, and which, unless I say something about it now, I cannot refer to later on the Standing Orders which we shall be discussing. It is Private Members' time. Unless we get in on this general Debate, we shall be precluded from discussing the matter. But the Committee want that matter discussed. We gave prolonged and careful consideration to the question of whether Private Members' time was a valuable thing or not. We gave careful consideration to the question whether the time had come to restore it, and whether it should be restored in the same form or in a different form. We gave consideration to exactly what we should say to the House, taking into account the Government's need for time, as well as the desire of Private Members. When the Lord President came before us on that matter he made his approach plain—I hope I am not doing him any injustice, he has subsequently made it plain to the House anyway—that he personally has not very much use for Private Members' time. He thought its value was grossly overrated, he thought that very little good use had been made of it in the past, and that on the whole it was time that could have been put to better use.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am sure the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) does not desire to misrepresent my right hon. Friend, but I did not understand the Lord President as saying that. I agree that he expressed all those opinions, but I think he was speaking not of Private Members' time as such, but of Private Members' time as it was used under the present Standing Orders, and that view was unanimously shared by the Committee.
Mr. Brown: No.
Mr. Silverman: I thought that.
Mr. Brown: That is fair enough. The hon. Member thinks so, and he is entitled to his thought. I have given way to enable him to express that thought, and I will resume, if I may, the expression of my own thought. I will not give quotations, because the print of this volume is of inverse size to the truth it contains. I do not want to put words into the Lord President's mouth, but I think I shall be endorsed when I say that he made it pretty plain to us that he had not much use for Private Members' time. I will not bother to dig out the references now.
I hold the view that Private Members' time is very important. I disagree with the view that it has not been well used. I do not say that all of it has always been as well used as it could be. But would anyone make a claim that all Government time has always been as well used as it could be? This is a common disability, due to our common humanity, and our common failings? There are remarkable cases of the use of Private Members' time within the knowledge of all of us. One aspect of it is of supreme importance. All Governments dodge certain questions if they can, questions involving religion, morals and votes. From time to time it has been the experience of this House, over the centuries, that again and again on some great issue which no Government was prepared to tackle, it required the self-sacrificing efforts of some Private Member, using Private Members' time, ultimately to impel Governments into action upon it.
I will mention only a case or two by way of illustration. There was the slave trade. Wilberforce spent 20 years in this House carrying on an insistent campaign to stop the sending of further slaves

1581
abroad. It took him 20 years to get that done. It took him another 20 years to get freedom for the slaves who had already been sent into the Colonies. There was Plimsoll. In the days when British ships were sent to sea in the knowledge and expectation that they would probably never arrive at their destination, it required the devoted labours of Plimsoll, an Independent—most of these remarkable men were Independents—to get through an Act of Parliament which made overloading illegal, and established on the side of ships the "Plimsoll line" below which a ship must not be submerged. In our day one can recall two hon. Members of this House, one unhappily departed—the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) with his Divorce Bill, and the late Ellen Wilkinson with her Hire Purchase Bill. Those were examples in our time of the use of Private Members' time to secure some socially worthy or desirable end.
Mr. S. Silverman: Night baking.
Mr. Brown: Yes. I might also refer to another departed Member, the late Miss Rathbone, who used this instrument again and again to ventilate what was, at the beginning, the unpopular idea of family allowances, but which subsequently became embodied in the legislative programme of the Government. AH these are important things, and emphasise the importance of Private Members' time.
There is another aspect, the general position of this House vis-à-vis the Government. I doubt very much whether late comers to the House realise what a tremendous inversion of the natural order of things has occurred in the last century, as regards the relation between the House of Commons and the Executive. At the beginning of the 19th century practically all time in this House was Private Members' time. Within the last century or so there has been a profound and radical change from a situation where the time of Parliament belonged to the Members of Parliament, except for two days, which by courtesy were given to the Government, until today, when the Government claims all Parliamentary time, with a new Motion at the beginning of every Session to deprive Private Members of their rights. This is not the whole picture, but it is
1582
an element in a picture, the total content of which is to reduce the House from its old status to the level of a ratifying instrument for the decisions of the Government, taken over in Whitehall—
Dr. Morgan: Surely, even if what the hon. Member says is true, it has no bearing upon the present situation, because even if the Executive has increased its power at the expense of Private Members, the functions of the House as laid down in this Report, and accepted by the Members of the Committee on the advice of the Clerk, could never be carried out if Private Members had to themselves all the time which they used to have.
Mr. Brown: I doubt whether I ought to have given way for that intervention to be made. That is an argument which the hon. Member is perfectly at liberty to develop in the Debate as it goes on, if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. I am not proposing that we should go back to the year 1800. If I were proposing to go back there, and give all time to Private Members except a couple of days to the Government, that interruption would have been relevant and pertinent. As I am proposing nothing of the kind it is neither relevant nor pertinent.
We on the Committee considered the Government's case. It was represented to us by the Lord President that we lived in a time of rapidly changing circumstances, and that, with new problems continually arising, the scope of Governmental activity was bound to be widened and extended in every direction, and that, therefore, stark necessity—Governmental legislative necessity—demanded that we should not restore Private Members' time, at any rate now. The Lord President made it plain that as far as he was concerned, he did not care if it never were restored. We ought to have some statement on this, because only a few days ago the Prime Minister said that he had hoped to be able to do something about Private Members' time this Session, and that unhappily he had not been able to do so. We all know that the Lord President came along and claim all the time this Session for the Government. We on the Committee recognise that we would not get back our prewar rights all at once. We knew that a declaration that all prewar practices

1583
should be restored with the end of hostilities was confined to the trade unions, and did not extend to the rights and privileges of this House. But we hope to get back there at some time, so in our Report we recommend that Private Members' time should be restored, in a somewhat different and perhaps more efficient form, which is the point which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was making, "as soon as possible."
We said that over a year ago. It is now three years since the end of the war, and there are literally scores if not hundreds of Members of this House who have never had the opportunity of introducing either a Private Member's Motion or a Private Member's Bill. And if there is the same turnover at the next Election as occurred in the last one, we may have a House of Commons consisting predominantly of people who have never had experience of a Private Member's Motion or a Private Member's Bill. We do not ask the Government to do impossibilities. They have got their Motion for this Session taking all the time, and I am not attempting to re-argue that. But can the Government say what they think about that recommendation of the Committee? Can they give us some idea when they propose to restore to us, either in its own form or the modified form we suggest, the privileges we enjoyed before, and which have now been taken away from us for something like seven years? On that theme we are entitled to expect an answer. Finally, it ought to be an axiom of a legislative chamber that reports should come before it in a form which enables the House of Commons to pass a clear verdict upon them. That privilege is denied to us today. As I said earlier, it is the second time it has happened in the course of a week. I hope the House will not agree that the reports of its committees which it appoints itself should be treated in that rather cavalier fashion.
5.30 p.m.
Dr. Morgan: I hope the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow in the main many of the comments he has made, because I dislike his manner and attitude as much as I dislike his views—
Mr. W. J. Brown rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Brown: I only want to say that this attitude is reciprocal and mutual.
Dr. Morgan: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say something abusive. That is why I did not give way. It is quite typical. I only wish to mention one point which he raised. The whole basis of his theme about Private Members' time was the fact that the Executive had ursurped most of what was previously Private Members' time. Far be it from me to oppose in any way any relaxation of the restrictions on the time allowed to Private Members. I would be in favour of giving Private Members all the time they ever had, but for the hon. Member to argue that because some time in the distant past, a past the ghost of which is always haunting him—
Mr. W. J. Brown: It is probably the ghost of the future which is haunting the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Morgan: How a future could have a ghost when it is not even born, I do not know. That has not occurred to my biological knowledge.
Mr. Follick: On a point of Order. When is a ghost born?
Dr. Morgan: We are getting into rather deep water, I am afraid. The point I was going to make is that the hon. Member for Rugby talked about my interruption not being relevant or pertinent, insinuating of course, that it was impertinent. The fact remains that the Executive must new have power if they are to carry out the functions of the House. Their duties as representatives of public opinion include control of finance, formulation and control of policy—legislation. After all, Parliament must advance and evolve just as much as any other institution.
I rose for the purpose of making one point which I understand I must make now on the general discussion or not make at all. I want to make some remarks about paragraph 59. I want to ask whether it is not possible that there should be some rationing of time, some system by which the unpopular, non-parasitical Member, the Member who has not got a showy manner but who is sent here to represent popular opinion and the opinion of his constituents, can get his due, even though small, proportion of the time available in order to state a case as the occasion demands. This is a non-party matter. On many occasions, I have seen hon. Members

1585
in all parts of the House rising time and again and then sitting back dejectedly in their seats. I do not know whether they feel as I feel after six or seven hours of trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. After that time I feel like a wet rag, exhausted and frustrated and, if I were not a teetotaller, I would think that it was the morning after the night before.
I would make particular exceptions for the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Government Front Bench speakers have to state a policy and that needs time. They must have time, otherwise we cannot Debate properly. The Opposition Front Bench speakers, by virtue of their position, should also have the opportunity of stating their case. After that, surely the ordinary Member is here on equal terms. Really, it is very hurtful to an hon. Member to find after months, and sometimes after more than months, of trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, that he has great difficulty. If he goes and asks to be allowed to try to get in, he is asked, urged and warned to be short, even though he has not spoken for about six months. This Parliament is very different from previous Parliaments when a small clique of brilliant orators set the pace and the dummies behind simply did the voting. Nowadays, not only do the young Members and the old veterans, like myself, expect to have their proper share and to be entitled to make remarks to the House now and again, but our constituents also expect us to take part in debates. If we do not, they want to know why. Political feeling, experience and knowledge are rising in the country. That is why we are in power now. Because of that, our constituents expect us to have the opportunity. It is difficult to explain to constituents that by the Rules of the House one must take the chance of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
Sometimes, even when a specialist wants to speak on a certain subject, another person who has no particular knowledge of that subject but who wants to air some trivial opinions about it, has the fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and the specialist is unfortunate. I would also make special arrangements for special Members. I would give facilities to the hon. Member for Rugby and I would give special facilities to the hon. Member for
1586
Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but in the case of the ordinary Member who finds it hard to get in, I say that something should be done so that he can have a chance. They should not need to be prepared to go to the Whips' room and beg for chances either of going abroad or of being able to speak. As a Member sent here by the free vote of my constituents, I am not prepared to do things which I do not think an ordinary Member of Parliament should be prepared to do. I prefer to stand on my own legs. If I am to be frustrated, I will take it and take it willingly. Not only do I think that the ordinary Member should have opportunities of getting on committees of the House and of taking part in the proceedings upstairs—not as an exception but as part and parcel of his ordinary rights as a Member equal to other Members—but I also think some system should be devised by which the ordinary back bencher will get an opportunity of having sufficient time on occasions to state his case.
I know the answer. The answer is that such a system of rationing of time for speeches will be quite impracticable and impossible. I have been long enough in one of the most difficult professions in the world to know that what was considered impracticable and impossible at one time has been made both practicable and possible if men of goodwill put their minds together to see that it is carried out. It is on those grounds that I appeal, as a back bencher and as an old hon. Member of this House who has seen this House inside and out for ten years. I plead, not necessarily for myself, but for some back benchers who have great difficulty in being able to state a case, and who should be given an opportunity, time and again, in preference to other hon. Members. It is very hard to find an hon. Member who can state a case, and, after that, to find also a junior hon. Member making a very poor show at the Despatch Box. On these grounds, I ask that this matter should be reconsidered by any committee which may be set up to deal with it.
5.41 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: We must, I think, be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having saved the House from witnessing the calamitous consequences which might have resulted if the hon.

1587
Member who has just spoken had been made to wait six or seven hours before catching your eye. To see him now, as we do, a fine upstanding Member, and to think that, if he had had to wait a little longer, he would have been reduced to a wet rag, is enough to move the hearts of all hon. Members present.
I am not the first, but one of the first hon. Members, speaking in this Debate who was not a Member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and that, I think, makes it all the more easy for me to say how grateful the House should be, and I think is, for the amount of work which the Committee put into the examination of the problems with which they were presented. The Committee consisted of hon. and right hon. Members of outstanding ability, and I would like to compliment the Chairman of that Committee on the ability with which he conducted its affairs. I followed the proceedings of his Committee and I have read the three voluminous Reports which it issued. There could be no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member in this House that the Committee made a most exhaustive inquiry into the various points of our procedure, and examined witnesses in the greatest detail. They were very considerably assisted by the memorandum which was submitted for their consideration by the Clerk of the House. I think all that is to be expected of a Select Committee of this House, but what was, in the circumstances quite remarkable was the unanimity of the Report.
The Lord President of the Council, in opening the Debate this afternoon, appeared to think that the Report contained contentious matter, and he indicated that the disagreement would be on party lines. The proceedings of the Committee do not in the least bear out that assumption of the Lord President. The Committee examined with the greatest care a number of suggestions made by the Government and, again after the greatest care, made very definite recommendations, but, now, the Government are asking us—I will not say to ignore the Reports of the Committee—but to approve a statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 17th March. It is a most remarkable procedure to ask this House to adopt, and I would like to support as
1588
strongly as I can the remarks already made that the proper procedure would have been for the Government to ask this House either to approve or disapprove the Report of the Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank).
There is one other aspect of this question with which I want to deal. I want to ask the Lord President, or whoever will reply, why it is being proposed this afternoon that we should amend Standing Orders. Why should not the proposal be that we should introduce Sessional Orders? The alteration of Standing Orders is almost tantamount to altering our constitution. Indeed, I think it will be no exaggeration to say that, in some respects, the alterations which are to be proposed later would alter our constitution. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government should have proposed to the House that we should proceed as we did last year, and, in adapting alterations to Standing Orders, should have done it for this Session only, and, particularly in cases where the proposals are new, by introducing Sessional Orders; and then by amending our Standing Orders in accordance with our experience, if that experience was satisfactory, or by introducing other proposals next year, if our experience proved unsatisfactory. I submit that we are taking a step which, at this stage, is contrary to the spirit in which the Committee were asked to conduct their inquiries, and contrary to the terms of the Government memorandum submitted to the Committee for their consideration. May I illustrate that point? The memorandum which the Government submitted for consideration contains these words:
"In the period of transition from war to peace, … a heavy programme of legislation would be urgently required for the purposes of reconstruction."
I, therefore, suggest that the Lord President gave a definite intimation to the Committee that any proposals which it had to make would be of a temporary nature to get over a crisis, and that, quite naturally, their recommendations have been made with that object in view. The Government, in their memorandum, said this:

1589
"The scheme therefore suggests certain modification of Parliamentary Procedure as proposals which might be given a trial, on an experimental basis, during the first one or two Sessions.'…."
That is, after the war. Surely, therefore, I am being perfectly fair when I say that the Committee was being asked to decide on proposals for emergency legislation and not permanent amendments of Standing Orders. I would remind the House further of the statement contained in the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) will remember this quotation, and I think he will agree with me that it does show that the Committee were making proposals which they considered would be temporary or experimental:
"Your Committee desire to draw attention to the experimental character of the proposals submitted by the Government, and to emphasise that it is on this basis that they have considered them. It would follow that any alterations in the Orders governing the Procedure of the House which the adoption of these proposals may require would take the form of Sessional Orders during the experimental period."
I want the Lord. President of the Council to let the House know why, in that respect, the proposals of the Government have been completely changed, and why we are being asked this afternoon to make what must be regarded as a permanent change in our Standing Orders.
A number of points will arise during the course of the evening, and I do not want to deal now with the proposals of the Government to amend Standing Orders which will be discussed later. But I would like to say a few words on a subject which will not arise, because it is not dealt with in the proposed change to Standing Orders, namely, the inquiry into delegated legislation which was recommended by the Select Committee. I know, of course, that the Statutory Instruments Act has only very recently become an Act, but the Select Committee were, for the greater part of their deliberations, aware of the terms of what was then a Bill, and must have taken account of those terms before making their recommendations.
The recommendation of the Select Committee is perfectly straightforward. It is that an inquiry should be made into the delegation of legislative power and of the procedure of the House in relation thereto. But the Government recommendation,
1590
contained in the Lord Privy Seal's statement on 17th March is that there should be no inquiry
"so long as the scope and form of subordinate legislation is influenced by wartime powers, and until experience has been gained of the working of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 31, 32.]
I am a little worried about what the Lord President of the Council may mean by the influence of wartime powers. I hope that, during this Debate, we may get a definition of what he really means by that statement. It seems to me that peacetime legislation, influenced by wartime powers, is particularly deserving of the scrutiny of this House, and there has certainly been no diminution in the spate of orders and regulations which have been issued by one Department or another.
The Report of the Select Committee points out that, for the great majority of instruments, the governing Act provides no Parliamentary control at all, and, in point of fact, only about one quarter of the Statutory Instruments which are issued can be examined by this House; and, of Course, a much smaller proportion is, in fact, examined by this House. In the Report, the Clerk of the House drew attention to the highly unsatisfactory position in which this House finds itself today with regard to delegated legislation. I do not think that there is any supporter of the Government who would claim that the procedure in this House is satisfactory.
The House is familiar with the impossibility of amending any statutory instrument, and that Prayers are almost invariably—if it had not been for yesterday's Debate, I think I could have said "invariably"—taken at a late hour, and I see no reason at all why the Government should not grant an inquiry now. The Lord President of the Council has given us reasons which have persuaded him that an inquiry is premature. I do not think he carried very many hon. Members with him when he used that argument. On the contrary, I know that many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House desire that an inquiry should be held, and I believe that if it were left to a free vote we would get the support of a very large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that before we terminate this Debate we shall have an assurance from the Govern-

1591
ment that, in this respect anyhow, they are prepared to change their minds, and will cause an inquiry to be made into delegated legislation at the first possible opportunity.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On the question of delegated legislation to which the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) referred, I would like to express my own view that the questions arising out of delegated legislation, important as they are, are really not questions of procedure at all. Some questions of procedure may be incidentally involved, but all the great and very important constitutional controversy about legislation by delegation really involves much more fundamental constitutional points and issues than could properly be covered in a Select Committee which is asked to look purely at the procedure of the House as procedure and to make recommendations to the House on procedural matters. I am not denying for a moment either that the question is important or that procedural questions may, at some stage, be involved, but I say that, by their nature, these questions are not questions of procedure at all.
I would like to say—and this is really my main reason for troubling the House in this Debate—that I do not share the polite, but quite definite, resentment shown by my colleagues on the Committee at the way the Government have treated the Report. I do not mean that I agree with all the Government have done, or failed to do, about our recommendations. Certainly not, but I certainly would not subscribe to the view that it is the Government's duty to put down on the Order Paper a resolution either approving or disapproving the Report as a whole. I do not think that any Government could commit itself to that course, or that any Government has ever done so. It would be a quite impossible task for any Government to discharge.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment which we are now discussing and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) both referred to the fact that this is the second occasion on which the Government have not put down a plain Motion of acceptance
1592
or rejection of the Report of a Select Committee. On the last occasion—it was the Committee of Privileges last week—no objection came from the Opposition to the Government's procedure. What the Government were doing on that occasion was to accept the view of the minority of the Committee of Privileges against the majority, that minority being two hon. Members of the Opposition. I do not know whether that was why no objection was raised on that occasion, or whether there is some other reason for it. I am bound to point out that what the Government have done on this occasion, namely, to pick out those parts of the Report with which they agree, to move Motions accordingly, and to say nothing about the matters with which they do not agree, is certainly proper, and certainly very practical.
It is perfectly true that it deprives the House of the opportunity of discussing other matters which the Committee may have recommended, but that is a thing which the House can put right for itself if it wishes to take action, either by the kind of Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has now moved, and which we are considering, or by Amendments to the proposals, or by new proposals dealing with the matters which are left out. If the House does not wish to take action, then it might just as well leave the discussion until it does. I can see nothing wrong with it at all, and I cannot see that the House is handicapped in any way.
The fact that a Government do not accept the recommendation of a Select Committee, even when that recommendation is unanimous and even when it is repeated, is not a matter for complaint. A Government must be perfectly free, and certainly must be held to be free by right hon. and hon. Members who object to delegated legislation. The Government did not delegate their powers to the Select Committee on Procedure. They asked the Select Committee to consider evidence and to make recommendations, but they were not delegating the duty of legislating to the Select Committee on Procedure. That is reserved to the House on the Motion of the Government or on the Motion of other hon. Members.
I say—and I am talking now of the merits and not of the way in which it

1593
was done—that I am very disappointed to see that the Government should persist in their proposal about the Business Committee. I shall not discuss the merits of it, because I do not think it is proper to do so at this stage. No doubt, when the Motion is moved we will have opportunities. But I certainly think that the Committee did indeed examine the evidence for this proposal very carefully. The Committee unanimously rejected it; they looked at it a second time on new evidence offered, decided that the new evidence offered raised no new point, and remained of the same opinion. I think the Government might possibly have been satisfied after that, that there really was not much merit in the proposal. But I do not think that deprives them of their right to think otherwise, and I do not think it deprives them of their right to ask the House to think otherwise. No doubt, this Select Committee reached a careful conclusion. I think they reached a correct conclusion. Certainly they reached a unanimous one. But if the Government can convince the House otherwise, they are within their rights to try, and I do not at all think that it is a matter for complaint.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should leave this matter to a free vote of the House?
Mr. Silverman: I think they should. I think matters of procedure of this kind are better left to a free vote. I do, not think that the members of the Select Committee took party views about the matter. They did not submit to any party Whip or party direction or party leading of any kind. The House of Commons might very well be left the privilege of approaching these completely non-party questions in the same way. I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will share my view, but, since I am asked the question, I am stating my own view that it would be a very proper thing for the Government to do, especially in a case of this kind where the Select Committee had reached a unanimous conclusion.
I wish to say a word about Private Members' time. I cannot help feeling that there is a great deal of confusion of thought and speech about this question. People continually talk about Private Members' time, when what they really have in mind is the Private Members' right
1594
to initiate business. I ask hon. Members to observe that there is a very real difference. Particularly would I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) who dealt with the same kind of question from a different point of view. Private Members' time is not inhibited in any way. All of the time of the House is Private Members' time, except that part which is occupied by speakers on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Pickthorn: That is not what it means.
Mr. Silverman: I know. I am perfectly aware that that is not what it means, but people often talk as though that is what it does mean. They talk about Private Members not having the right to do this or that, not being independent, and the Government taking up the whole time of the House. People outside these walls misunderstand those statements.
Mr. McKie: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that people outside the House are unaware that no Private Member in the present Session or in either of the two preceding Sessions of this Parliament has had a chance of initiating legislation?
Mr. Silverman: I think so. I think people resent it, and that, as far as it may be possible to avoid that state of affairs, they are right to resent it. I say that the argument, which ought to be limited to the question of the right to initiate legislation and business, is too often confused with a totally different argument about the contributions of Members in the proceedings of the House. Hon. Members are misunderstood by people outside the House to mean that the Government take up all the time of the House and that back benchers have no share in it at all.
Mr. Austin: Surely, my hon. Friend will agree that in no sense did my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) confuse the issue? He referred to the difficulty of a back bencher in catching Mr. Speaker's eye from time to time.
Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I am coming to that point in a moment. The point I want to make is that Members who want to make an active and individual contribution to the House have ample opportunity of doing so on every day of the week.
Dr. Morgan: Nonsense.
Mr. Silverman: I myself am not conscious of any difficulty in that respect. If Members want to make an active and independent contribution, there are ample opportunities to enable them to do so if they will look for those opportunities, and if they will come to the House and take them. Of course, if the only occasions on which a Member wants to speak are the occasions when other Members want to speak, he is likely to be crowded out. One cannot catch a bus or a train that way either. If one wishes to be an active Member one must be prepared to be here at all times and not merely on the sensational occasions—not merely on the red letter days, the Second Readings and Third Readings, but on the Committee stages, Report stages and Prayers.
Mr. McKie: When we have them, which is very seldom.
Dr. Morgan rose—
Mr. Silverman: I will give way in a minute.
Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend referred to me specifically, and I am entitled to my reply. He has spoken as if I have been sadly lacking in my attendance in this House.
Mr. Silverman: No.
Dr. Morgan: Oh, yes. My hon. Friend said that a Member who complains should be here not only on the red letter days but at all times, seizing every possible opportunity May I inform my hon. Friend that I am as assiduous in my attendance in this House as he is, and perhaps more so. My hon. Friend is not dealing with the point which I made. Because he happens to be a forceful Member—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member really cannot make another speech.
Dr. Morgan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I only wanted to say that my hon. Friend is not doing me justice.
Mr. Silverman: I had no intention of being unjust to my hon. Friend. I never thought that he was speaking of his own conduct. I thought that he was speaking on behalf of other Members who do not speak as often as I do.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me?
Mr. Silverman: I had not noticed that the hon. Member for Rochdale was inhibited, any more than I am. He makes frequent, active and, if I may say so without impertinence, very useful contributions to the House. I never thought that he was speaking as an inhibited Member. I never regarded him as inhibited or frustrated. I thought he was speaking of other Members—and there are such Members—who only attend this House on the great occasions, who like to speak on the great occasions, and who then feel a sense of frustration because there are other speakers and the time is not sufficient to enable them to make their speeches. I am saying that if hon. Members want to be active, they may be so on other occasions, and make quite valuable contributions when they are.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the hon. Member if he has ever had offered to him, as many Members have had, an opportunity of being called provided he limited himself to 10 minutes or even to five minutes?
Mr. Silverman: I have been limited to less than that in my time—although I am prepared to confess that it was not on the majority of occasions. I have made speeches of one minute before now, but even that is only, after all, due to an attempt by the Chair, if I may be permitted to say so, to get in a large number of speakers by having short speeches, instead of our hearing only one Member making a long speech. There is nothing wrong with that, and surely no one complains of that. It occurs only on days when there are more speakers than there is time in which they can all make long speeches.
Dr. Morgan: That happens every day.
Mr. Silverman: Not every day at all. However, I do not want to be too long about this. Nothing I have said, I hope, will be interpreted as meaning that I am not in favour of the restoration as soon as possible, along the lines of the Select Committee's recommendation, of the Private Member's right to initiate business either by Motion or by legislation. I thought myself that the best job the Committee did was in the investigation of that problem. I thought myself that

1597
the recommendations we made were eminently practical and a reasonable compromise between the right of the Private Members and the ever-increasing claims of public business, and I hope that the Government will accept those proposals and implement them, as the Select Committee said, as soon as possible.
I should like to say, finally, a word about the finance debates. People have said so far that the recommendations of the Select Committee were unanimous, and that Divisions did not follow party lines. I think that, perhaps, the House ought to know that this occasion was an exception to that. It is true that the proposal to limit the number of days allotted to the Budget Resolutions was rejected by the Select Committee; but it was rejected on a vote which was determined by the casting vote of the Chairman.
Sir R. Young: The hon. Gentleman must admit that we had a meeting before that, at which this same matter was considered from the point of view of getting an expression of opinion from every individual Member of the Committee; and none of them was on that occasion supporting what happened the last time.
Mr. Silverman: I remember the occasion very well. I think that some of us were—certainly I was—guilty of a quite unforgivable inadvertence on the occasion to which my hon. Friend has just referred. I do not recollect now—I accept this statement to the contrary—I do not recollect now that this proposal ever came before that preliminary meeting. I myself and, I think, many of my colleagues, were persuaded that the Government's case for this had been overwhelmingly demonstrated by the evidence given—overwhelmingly. If that matter came up at the preliminary meeting referred to, it could only be a question of my own inadvertence, but inadvertence it was, because when the Report was, in fact, before us, and we were considering the draft report and going through it page by page, I noticed what was said in the draft report, and which now appears in the Report. I disagreed with every word of it, and I said so at once, and moved an Amendment to delete it, which was, I thought, the proper step to take in order to put in its place the contrary recommendation. That Motion to delete
1598
this part of the Report had the support of all my colleagues belonging to this party who were present on that occasion, and the opposition of all Members of the Select Committee belonging to the Opposition. Their numbers were equal, and the Chairman, as was quite understandable and right in the particular circumstances, gave his casting vote in favour of his own report that he had already drafted. I do not blame him for that. But it was carried in that way.
I think that was the only occasion on which the votes of the Select Committee followed party lines. I think even on this occasion, although the votes turned out to follow party lines, they were not reached by party principles at all. I think that if hon. Members will look back over the actual words of the Report and look at the evidence on this point they will come to the conclusion that on this occasion Homer nodded, and that the Select Committee came by the casting vote of the chairman to the wrong and not the right conclusion.
Sir R. Young: No.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Butcher: I was indeed attracted by the observation of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that matters of this kind should be left to the free vote of the House. I feel that these matters might well be considered on a entirely non-party basis. This House would then feel that it was working under a method of procedure and under Standing Orders which were derived, not from the point of view of the Government of the day, which changes from time to time—and last Saturday's events give some evidence of that—but from the point of view of the Members of the House, having discussed the matters, and, on their own judgment in the light of their experience in the House, come to decisions on them. I rose not so much to say that as to express with the utmost gratitude my colleagues' appreciation of the work performed by this Select Committee. Indeed, I do not know whether it was a labour of love, but certainly anyone who has taken the trouble to go through the recommendations and to read the evidence cannot but feel that they have given most careful and painstaking thought to the matters referred to them, and placed the House under a deep debt.
Earl Winterton: Largely due to a most excellent Chairman.
Mr. Butcher: I am sure that under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) any committee would be a committee of harmony. I think we might have given these recommendations more attention than we have done. I think the Government have selected the more dubious ones to recommend to the House, whereas those which should command the attention of all Members of the House have been left in some kind of receptacle from which it is doubtful they will ever emerge. I have some reservations about this new idea of having a Business Committee. It might be worth trying for one Session, but I think if it were tried for one Session, it would not be tried for a second. Here we are to try this new scheme of Standing Orders, and run the risk of making ourselves really ridiculous if, after a period of 12 months, we find it is unworkable, so that Standing Orders will again have to be revised.
As there are other matters to be discussed later on I do not want on this occasion to speak at length, but I should like to deal with the matter of time raised in the observations by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). He has been in the House longer, I believe, than I have, but for the 10ears I have been here I have always heard the plea from the Chair for shorter speeches. Shorter speeches throughout the House make it easier for the Chair to bring in more speakers, and I have always heard pleas from the back benches for shorter speeches from the Front Benches. I think that the back benches might reiterate that plea on every conceivable occasion, not only to the Opposition Front Bench, where one of my fellow Members for Lincolnshire the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) modestly hangs his head, but also to the Government Front Bench. At least, time would be saved if the Government were to amplify the explanatory memoranda which accompany Bills in many cases.
Finally, I should like to reiterate the plea which has come from all quarters of the House for the restoration of the Private Members' right to introduce Bills under the Ten-minute Rule. Some of us saw this scheme in operation for two
1600
years before the war. It may be quite true to say that there were some very stupid Bills introduced; but there were some very useful ones as well. There were some Bills about which hon. Members, after hearing the two sides under the Ten-minute Rule, could not decide whether they were useful or otherwise. There were the two cases, put by Private Members usually, and decided by the House. Whatever happened, whether the Bill secured advancement or whether it did not, it brought the attention of this House and of the public outside to that matter, with the result that at a subsequent introduction the Bill may have had better success, or, alternatively, may very well have been consigned to oblivion.
The Select Committee have earned the thanks and deep gratitude of the House for their care and their recommendations, and I regret extremely that the Government have not thought fit to bring forward a proposal to restore Private Members' time. It is typical that this Government do not desire Private Members of this House to have the right of initiating business. This Government are working, as we saw last night, on the basis of the gag and the large majority. But their time is coming; the writing is on the wall—on the municipal wall; and the time will come when it will be on the Parliamentary wall as well.
6.22 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had an interesting Debate on this matter—
Mr. Harold Macmillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman ending the Debate?
Mr. Ede: I cannot end the Debate, and I cannot closure the Debate; nor am I moving the closure in this Debate. I am making neither a promise nor a threat in reply to the interruption from the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), but I think, that a sufficient expression of views has been given to make it at any rate advisable that there should be an intervention by a Member of the Government, out of courtesy to the views that have been expressed by hon. and right hon. Members.
I understand there is some feeling on the other side of the House that the Debate might have been better conducted

1601
had the Government put down on the Order Paper a Motion either to approve or to disapprove the Report. The difficulty that confronts us on that is that we neither approve nor disapprove of the whole of the Report. Therefore, we have taken the course which is open to us of placing on the Order Paper a series of Motions which can be discussed in the light of the Committee's Report. Since our Motions appeared on the Order Paper it has been open to any hon. Member to put down an Amendment, either to bring our Motions into line with the Report of the Committee where it differs from that Report, or to substitute a definite recommendation of the Committee for the Motions which we placed on the Order Paper. I do not think the House is really inconvenienced by the course which we have taken, and when we leave the general Debate to come to the Motions we shall then, of course, have the advantage that the Government's views are set out quite clearly, instead of there being merely a Motion to approve a recommendation of the Report with certain Amendments.
I share the view that has been generally expressed in the House, that the Committee have done a very good job of work in canalising the views of hon. Members on the subjects raised in their Report. They have given a great deal of time to the consideration of the matter, and as a result we are today able to discuss all the issues raised in the Government's Motions with knowledge of what the Committee's prolonged consideration of the matter has led them to report. But that cannot commit the Government to the acceptance of the exact wording of what the Committee have put before us. I regret that some hon. Members should have suggested that in following the course we have done we have in some way slighted the Committee. There is no such intention on our part at all, and on behalf of the Government I want to express their thanks to the members of the Committee, irrespective of party, for the great amount of time and thought they have given to this matter. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves unable to agree with them on some matters; it is equally unfortunate that they find themselves unable to agree with us; and I do not intend to say which of the two is the greater misfortune.
1602
The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said that he wanted a further Committee to consider the whole problem of delegated legislation. Well, of course, delegated legislation is a matter which, in the present circumstances of the House, is bound to be one of very considerable controversy. I have no doubt myself that from time to time, as it develops—it may in future be more restricted, when the urgency of matters is not so great—the Select Committee on Procedure will have to take into their consideration—
Captain Crookshank: I did not say I wanted a committee. What I was referring to was the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an inquiry, with which I agreed. I was not putting forward my own idea that there should be a special Committee. I was agreeing with the recommendation of the Select Committee for an inquiry.
Mr. Ede: Let me put it this way. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepted the view of the Select Committee that it was desirable that such a committee should be set up. I do not think I am doing either him or the Select Committee any injustice when I put it that way. My answer is that, from time to time, this matter will have to be considered, but I do not think that just as the moment the time is ripe for a further Committee on the matter.
Most hon. Members who have spoken have raised the issue of the restoration, in some form or other, of Private Members' time. Without accepting the whole of the history as unfolded by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), it is, of course, notorious that for a century the situation has been completely reversed; and I do not think that today anyone could claim that we should go back to the kind of system which he described as operating 150 years ago. After all, the extension of services provided by the Government would make it necessary that there should be a very substantial amount of the time of the House given to checking the activities of the Government and of its various Departments. It has to be borne in mind—as was pointed out the other day; I merely state it, and then I shall pass from it—that the selection of matters to be discussed when those subjects come under review is left to the Opposition; and they, no matter whether

1603
they sit on the Front Bench or on the back benches, rank as Private Members as far as the House is concerned. There is no doubt it would be desirable, when opportunity affords, to give Private Members a greater chance of initiative in bringing matters before the House. While I am not to be taken as giving any promise as to time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the statement he made in the Debate on the Gracious Speech, did indicate that he desired that there should be some restoration. I suggest that the appropriate time to debate the exact form in which the restoration of Private Members' time should take place will be at the moment when it is found possible to make some fresh arrangement in the matter.
Mr. W. J. Brown: While I do not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, can he give us some idea when we may expect restoration of Private Members' time in some form?
Mr. Ede: I am not going to say in this Parliament, or when the Greek Kalends arrive. I am not going to be drawn into the realm of exact prophecy in this matter. I hope that if I have been noncommittal, I have at least shown reasonable sympathy, having regard to the present situation. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then dealt with Standing Order No. 8. I gather he does not object to the proposal that if Government time is lost by a Debate under Standing Order No. 8, the Sitting should be prolonged so that that lost time can be recovered. I cannot accept the view, which I understood him to advance, that it might be possible that the Ruling of Mr. Speaker might be less stringent in future than it appears to have been in recent years. I think that Members who merely rely on statistical tables, without having regard to the circumstances of the years to which the various lines in the tables relate, forget that the use of Standing Order No. 8 was one of the great weapons of obstruction in the hands of the Irish Nationalist Members in the 8o's and 90's of the last century. [Interruption.] I purposely chose those two dates, because they were before the noble Lord arrived in this House.
Earl Winterton: It is the exact opposite.
Mr. Ede: If hon. Members will look at the tables, they will see that the great years when these Motions were accepted were years in which the troubles of Ireland were continually being brought to the House. It is interesting to observe that 1893–4 is given as one of the Sessions in which there was considerable use made of this Order; it was not the Irish Nationalists, but another brand of Irish Members who were not particularly favourable to the Government of the day.
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I think it is only fair to point out that Standing Order No. 8 has been amended since then, in April, 1906, and December, 1927, and that the Order in those days was quite different.
Mr. Ede: Standing Orders of this type have generally been amended in the past to prevent them from being abused. The fact that there was an amendment in the first of the years mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member does not disprove what I have said. It may be presumptuous of the Government to suggest, or indeed for any Member to suggest, that Mr. Speaker should be more, or less, stringent. This is the wording of the Standing Order, and while it remains, the occupant of the Chair has to construe it in the light of the circumstances which arise on each occasion when a Member demands to raise a matter under it. In my experience, there is probably some feeling by the Government on occasions that it was given a little too easily, and by the Opposition that it was refused a little too harshly. However, taking one occasion with another, the Standing Order has, I think, worked out very well, and has enabled the type of questions it is supposed to let through to be raised when a sufficient case has been made out.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that two proposals we had put down have been twice rejected by the Select Committee. That is quite true, and we ask the House, therefore, to express its opinion on the issues which we regard as being of considerable importance. We shall, when the appropriate Motions are moved, be prepared to defend the proposals we have made, and in view of the discussion which must obviously take place on these particular

1605
proposals, I do not think it would be reasonable to make an extended defence of our attitude at this stage. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) said, namely, that Members of the Select Committee acted as Members of the House of Commons, and not as partisans. As far as I can find out, there was only one occasion in the history of the Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) alluded, when they appear to have divided themselves on party lines—we do not see the discussion, but merely have the record of the Division.
I do not share the view that it is a difficult matter for the Chairman of Committees to have to decide when ample discussion on the principle of a Clause has taken place on the various Amendments. I have sometimes heard Chairmen, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, say to hon. Members that if a wide discussion takes place on this or that Amendment, it will lessen the amount of discussion which can take place on the Question that the Clause stand part. It seems to me that this is really only giving the Chairman a more effective weapon with which to enforce the hint he has undoubtedly conveyed to hon. Members when making such a statement.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is no more invidious to ask the Chairman of a Committee to decide that than to ask him to decide whether he will or will not accept a Motion for the Closure?
Mr. Ede: I was going to suggest, in my next sentence or two, that that was the case. My hon. Friend also said that democracy means debate and discussion. That is quite true, but it also means decision; it must be debate and discussion leading up to a decision. I hope that will not be lost sight of when we are considering such points as the one with which I dealt last. The hon. Member for Rugby reinforced the arguments used by previous Members on most of the points with which I have been dealing. He said that the Committee was appointed by the House, it reports to the House, and, after all, if there is any Member of the Committee who feels that a particular recommendation of which he is in favour has hot been adequately
1606
brought before the House, he can put down his Amendment to our proposals or put down a Motion of his own on consideration of the Report, and if Mr. Speaker chooses to select it, the matter can be debated.
We have not prevented the House from reaching a decision on the various issues raised, and I suggest that we have made it rather easier for the subsequent Debate on the detailed Motions to be conducted without confusion by the course we have adopted. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) regretted that we had not dealt with the problem of a time-limit for speeches. In times gone by, I have shared the views which he expressed today. I also share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Dr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman has changed his views.
Mr. Ede: No, I have not. I do not think that the two speeches are really contradictory. There are 640 Members in this House, and I do not imagine that anyone would propose that rationing should be carried to such an extent that everybody should be entitled to one-640th part of the time of the Session, because that might lead to a black market in coupons.
Dr. Morgan: My right hon. Friend does not deal with the vital point of the case.
Mr. Ede: I am trying to come to the hon. Member's point. There was a time, when I sat in the seat now occupied for the moment by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), when, in two successive Sessions, I spoke more often than any other private Member on the Opposition side, without taking part in a single big Debate. If people expect to be called in big Debates, I think they have to prove that they can make a substantial contribution to the subject under discussion; but I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that if Members attend on the House, when subjects in which they are interested are under discussion, and have a contribution of reasonable length to make, even in these days there are many opportunities for a Member to intervene.
Mr. Austin: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Members in-the House who, in big and small Debates,

1607
are perhaps called once every five or six months, for whatever reason that may be, and may we have his views on that?
Mr. Ede: The Chair decides who is to be called; but, having sat in this House under three Speakers, I am bound to say that I have noticed that where Members attend regularly, and are known to be able to compress their views into a reasonable space of time, there are ample opportunities for them to be called.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Home Secretary aware that the hon. Member from whom this particular complaint proceeded, judging from my own experience, turns up once every few months, and invariably gets in a speech.
Mr. Austin: That is not true.
Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was referring to me?
Mr. Brown: I was.
Dr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Rugby to withdraw that? He has made a definite charge against me that I only attend here on rare occasions, and that when I attend on those rare occasions I make a speech. That is a totally inaccurate statement, and I ask you to protect me by asking him to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has made his statement, and he has made it quite clear that he is not here just on rare occasions, and, therefore, that goes down on the record.
Dr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has made a definite charge against me, and I am asking for your protection, Mr. Speaker, against an inaccurate statement made by an hon. Member against me in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has repudiated it, and made it perfectly plain that he does not accept the charge, and, therefore, it is not accurate.
Mr. Austin: In view of the fact that such an imputation may affect my hon. Friend adversely in his constituency, would it not be in Order to ask the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member does not wish to withdraw, I imagine that he need not. The hon. Member for Rochdale has made it perfectly plain, and I think I have made it perfectly plain, that I accept his statement that he was here not only occasionally but as duty called.
Mr. Ede: The subject of a time-limit on speeches is one that has been discussed almost from time immemorial in this House. It is astonishing to find that even centuries ago the complaint was that speeches were too long, and when one tries to read some of them, one feels that if they were not long, they must have seemed long to the people listening to them. I have no doubt that at some time or another the House may be willing to make an alteration on those lines, but I suggest that it would have to be on a Motion that would command very general assent in the House, before any steps could be taken to implement it.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, while giving general support to the propositions we have put in front of the House, did, I understand, while I was out, dissent from the view about the Business Committee. He will have opportunities for advancing that, if he so desires, when we come to that particular Motion, and as it is one of those on which we differ from the views of the Select Committee, I think that any further Government views on that matter might be held over until that time. Several hon. Members have given us their views on the matter. I suggest that at an early stage of the proceedings, it may be helpful to all concerned if we can get to the definite Motions which are before the House. I hope that hon. Members will feel that they can soon go to that part of the proceedings where quite definite Motions are on the Order Paper, and where the proposals of the Government can be examined in detail.
6.49 p.m.
Earl Winterton: My rising does not mean that the Opposition can agree to the last proposition advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. We regard this general debate as really important. The only reason for my rising is because I want to deal with one or two points which the right. hon. Gentleman has made, not in any unduly controversial spirit. There is much with which I agree.

1609
I want to correct his memory in one or two regards, and to dispute one particular proposition which he put. He is perfectly entitled as the responsible Minister in this matter to suggest that we should now come to a conclusion. I hope that the House will not be in a hurry to come to a conclusion, and I would remind the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we were told by the Government that we were to have a full day's Debate on the Report.
Mr. H. Morrison: When was that?
Earl Winterton: If I am wrong, I will withdraw that statement. The right hon. Gentleman need not get up in a state of great excitement, because, if I am wrong, I will withdraw it. My impression is we were told on the occasion when the Report was presented—indeed I think I asked the question myself—that the Government would give consideration to having a day's Debate. At any rate, I do not want to stress the point. I am now saying I hope we shall have a full Second Reading discussion on the particular point.
Mr. H. Morrison: I only wanted to say that I did not recollect the promise, but if the noble Lord can put his finger on the evidence I would be glad to see it. I cannot fully follow the new line of argument, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in his speech seemed to be stupefied that there was to be any general Debate at all.
Mr. Pickthorn: Since the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has asked for the exact words spoken, here they are. On 17th March the Lord Privy Seal said:
"It is the Government's intention to afford time for a Debate on the Select Committee's Report before the end of this Session, so that those changes in procedure which are accepted by the House may be brought into operation at the beginning of next Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 30.]
That is a clear statement that there was to be a Debate on the Report.
Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing about a whole day in it. That was my point.
Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is in the
1610
habit of accusing me of being controversial. May I suggest that he was being rather unnecessarily controversial at the beginning of his speech on which I am going to make one or two comments. Whether he promised a whole day or not, he promised a full Debate on the Report. I would rather speak not in the language of great controversy, but in the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—and this is the second occasion on which I have praised the hon. Member and I hope he is not embarrassed.
Before I come to the two points I want to make I would like to deal with a subsidiary point. This is a House of Commons matter, and for that very reason I agreed with the concluding observations of the Home Secretary in regard to this question of limiting time. Here I can usefully bring in a long experience. I have heard again and again in this House Debates in which the back benchers asserted—and no doubt I have said it myself as has the Home Secretary—that the Front Benchers take up the time and the back benchers never get a chance. On those occasions there have been suggestions of a limitation of time or some such system. The answer to that in my opinion—I say this with the greatest care and delicacy—is that the charge that back benchers do not get fairly called absolutely falls to the ground. I am going to state this in my honourable position of the Member with the longest record of service and it is a statement which nobody can controvert—by long standing agreement in this House Mr. Speaker calls those Members whom the House wants to hear, and those who, in private or public, claim that they are never called are generally the people whom no one wants to hear. It is not even true that they do not get called. In the past, but not in the present, if I were going to make that complaint it would be on other lines.
I do not want to interfere in the quarrel that has taken place between the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), but I must say that my recollection was rather the same as that of the hon. Member for Rugby. The hon. Member for Rochdale has completely re-established what is the most important thing in the House and for him

1611
and that is, his Parliamentary honour. I am sure the House is most grateful to him for his effort and delighted at seeing it fully refurbished.
I should like to refer to what is a much more important matter, namely, the line which the Home Secretary took at the beginning of his speech and I will deal with it in a non-controversial way. I think the Home Secretary has the wrong idea on the subject of what were the functions of the Select Committee and what were intended to be its purposes. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, this was a Committee in which there was really the very minimum of Party controversy. I ventured to say in a friendly interjection to an hon. Friend of mine that that was very largely due to the very wise leadership—because it was wise leadership—of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young). It was composed of experienced Members of the House, a number of whom had held office and at least one or two of whom were subsequently to hold office. Therefore, it might be regarded as a committee to whom attention should be paid.
The right hon. Gentleman made some extremely dubitable statements at the beginning of his speech. He said it was not the duty of the Government either to approve or disapprove of the whole of the Report. The point is not whether it is the duty of the Government to approve or disapprove of the whole of the Report, but whether the Government should not give an opportunity to this House to approve or disapprove of the whole of the Report. It may be that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) took a different line, but we are not here speaking as party politicians. I am thinking of the point of view of the House, and I think it was a very dubitable proposition for the right hon. Gentleman to advance that it was not the duty of the Government to approve or disapprove of the whole of the Report for the real point is that the House should have the opportunity of doing so. He used most extraordinary words with which I hope no one in the Committee would agree that the object of this Committee was to canalise the views of the Government. It was nothing of the sort.
Mr. Ede: If I did say that it must have been a slip. I did not mean to suggest it. What I did mean to infer was that the Committee should have canalised the views of the House.
Earl Winterton: Those were the words, but I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction for I am glad to have it. Then he said that the Committee could not commit the Government. Nobody suggested it should commit the Government, but the point which was being made was that the House should consider the Report as a whole. He went on to say that it was unfortunate that the Government had not agreed with the Committee's Report and equally unfortunate that the Committee had not agreed with the Government's view. I think that that is a very doubtful proposition. When we appoint a committee of this kind—I have not the reference by me, but I think I have historical reasons for stating it—the Government when they take a different line, must give very strong reasons for not agreeing with a committee on procedure.
I come now to my last point and I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friends who were on the Committee for raising this matter, but, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will agree, I have what is called an idée fixe on this subject. I refer to Standing Order No. 8, which is a very delicate matter. I hope I shall deal with it in a way which will not cause any offence to your predecessors or to yourself, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in his statement. It was not abuse of the Order that led to the alteration in what I might call the attitude of the Chair. The Order itself was brought in many years ago in order to deal with the obstruction of the Irish Members, who could move the Adjournment of the House on any day. There was one famous week in which no Government business was done at all, because every day the Nationalists moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
This Standing Order was then brought in, and looking over HANSARD it is easy to see that there have seldom been more angry Debates than the Debates on the Standing Order. The Government were accused by the father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), Lord Randolph Churchill, of introducing foreign methods and repress-

1613
ing the House. Throughout the Debate he repeatedly used the term clôture, and said that this was something unknown to our English system. There was even some opposition from the Liberals and the House was then assured by the Leader of the House, who I think was Mr. Gladstone—I speak from recollection—that on the contrary this particular Standing Order was intended to give Members a reasonable chance of moving the Adjournment of the House in place of the existing Standing Order which had been abused. On that, the Standing Order was passed. That Standing Order was passed. I was in the House and I say that it was far from being true that abuse by the Irish Nationalists caused the alteration in the attitude of the Chair. I do not wish to comment upon that matter, because at least one distinguished occupant of the Chair is still alive and comment might be taken as a reflection upon him. Moreover, I do not know whether it would be in Order to reflect even upon former occupants of the Chair.
For some reason which I cannot explain, occupants of the Chair became much more rigid in their attitude from 1920 onwards than was the case before. I can show that from figures in the Report. If hon. Members will forgive me for a moment I will find the page. Unfortunately, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough having borrowed my book, I am now unable at the moment to find the place I want, [HON. MEMBERS: "It is on pages 45 and 54."] At any rate, the figures can be seen—Oh, I now have the table of figures for which I was looking. It shows that from the period 1902–1920 the average number of Motions—this table is on pages liv and lv, as I believe some hon. Members were good enough to try to tell me—was 8.6. Those refused by the then Speaker were 2.5, and those allowed by the Speaker were 6.1. That was in the days of the so-called wicked Irish Nationalist Members. They went out in 1922. From 1920–1922 they were so much under the weather that they did not often try to move the Adjournment of the House.
Let us see, after the wicked Irish Nationalist Members, whom the right hon. Gentleman attacked so strongly, had been removed from the House, what happened. From 1921 to 1939 the
1614
Motion for the Adjournment of the House was offered on 6.0 occasions. It was refused upon 4.5 occasions and was allowed on 1.5 occasions. It is, therefore, obvious from that—this is not a reflection upon the Chair but is a statement of fact—that the right to move this Adjournment of the House has gradually, until quite recently—here I am on very delicate ground and I do not want to say more than "quite recently"—has fallen into desuetude. It is right that we should call attention to these matters when we are discussing procedure. The reference to this matter was carefully and admirably worded by the Committee, and that was all we meant to say on the subject. It is not for us to say any more, but if our recommendation is not accepted in the next 20 or 30 years we shall be back in the same position in which we were before. There is no question about it.
Let me put the matter in a much more objective form. I will make an assertion which nobody can controvert. They can look it up in HANSARD. I have seen a Speaker between 1906 and 1920 allow Motions for the Adjournment on the very ground on which subsequent occupants of the Chair between 1920 and 1930 have refused them. I will assert that as a statement of fact. The subsequent occupants of the Chair have said that such a Motion was not urgent or important or that the House would have an opportunity of doing this or that. I attach very much importance to this matter and I thank the House for listening to this very involved argument on a matter about which I feel very strongly. This is one of the most important rights we have; it is far more important than Private Members' time. It is a right which was given to this House as an institution in return for the taking away of the rights of being able to move the Adjournment on every occasion. It is the right of being able to move the Adjournment upon a matter of definite and urgent public importance.
This House wishes to keep abreast of public opinion, but if there is a matter which is obviously in the public mind and upon which the public obviously want a statement by the Government, and if such a statement is not available because of the rules of the House or the interpretation given to the rules of the House,

1615
then we must expect people outside to say, "What an extraordinary place. What an extraordinary ruling Mr. Speaker X has given. He says that this matter is not urgent. Why, good gracious it affects me in my life. He says that it is not definite, but this very matter is hitting me very hard." I assure the House—and I do not think this will be regarded as a reflection upon anybody—that people come to me and say, "What an extraordinary ruling has been given. Here is a matter which everybody is talking about, and yet Mr. Speaker has refused to allow the matter to be dealt with as one of definite and urgent public importance.
Dr. Morgan: Is the noble Lord in Order?
Earl Winterton: I am grateful to the House for listening to me.
Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the noble Lord is in Order? He seems to have been disputing decisions of past Speakers, and rather casting a reflection upon the reputation of the Speakers who made those decisions.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. I think the noble Lord was putting forward an argument which we could all understand.
7.6 p.m.
Sir John Mellor: The Home Secretary dismissed the recommendation for inquiry into delegated legislation as premature. I cannot help thinking that the motive, actuating a number of Members of the Government in taking that course is a fear that there might be some interference with their dictatorial powers. Statutory orders are coming to our notice at the present time in a crescendo, and I assert that the grounds given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) are very important. The Select Committee said in paragraph 29 of its Report:
"It will be seen that the opportunities for discussing legislation in the House are extremely limited and not altogether satisfactory."
I regard that as, if anything, an understatement.
There is one particular aspect of this matter on which we should have a full inquiry. Things have changed very much
1616
because of the increasing number and importance of statutory orders. What happens is this: in the case of an order which is subject to the affirmative procedure, as soon as the order has received the assent of this House its subsequent course is entirely beyond our control. In the case of an order which is subject to the negative procedure and is laid before Parliament for 40 days, after the 40 days have expired the order is entirely beyond the effective control of this House. There is no opportunity for snatching it back and having a further examination into such questions as whether it is still appropriate and whether or not it has outlasted its usefulness.
The control which this House has over delegated legislation very often comes at the wrong time in one sense. It comes when we have had no experience of the working of the orders and no time to learn whether the assurances given by Ministers when making the orders are being carried out. I know that this House must have power to refuse assent under affirmative procedure as soon as the order is before the House. In the same way it is vitally necessary that there should be the power to annul as soon as the order is laid before Parliament. At the same time even when the assent has been given under the affirmative procedure or the 40 days have expired under the negative procedure, the order should not pass entirely beyond the reach and control of Parliament. I am fortified in my contention by a further passage in paragraph 29 in the Report of the Select Committee. There the Committee refer to the suggestion made by the Clerk of the House:
"that the existing Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders might be empowered to consider and report on any statutory instrument in force. …"
The point is that there should be given, according to that suggestion, an opportunity to a Committee of this House to examine statutory orders not merely at their inception but during the time they are in force. I do not propose to express any view as to how we should carry out the suggestion of the Clerk of the House, and, indeed, the Committee itself did not express approval or disapproval of that suggestion, but they did say that there should be a committee of inquiry to examine this and a number of other suggestions. One thing which it is vital should

1617
be examined by a committee is the control which this House should have over orders after they have passed through the initial phase.
Another point—in practice we all suffer from this so much—is the hour at which orders subject to affirmative or negative procedure come before the House. It is at a time when hon. Members are tired, and very often the matters are of extreme importance. We know as a matter of practice that discussion is curtailed to some extent. I am not necessarily referring to the application of the Closure, though in practice it must be recognised that a Prayer is more vulnerable to the Closure than business taken earlier in the day. There was the exception yesterday, as mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, when time was given for a Prayer to be taken before the Orders of the Day. That is the only occasion which has occurred in my experience. On most occasions where affirmative or negative procedure has been employed the subject has not come on until some time after ten o'clock at night.
The only other point I wish to stress is that an inquiry into the procedure for dealing with statutory rules and orders should embrace the question whether or not this House should have power to amend these orders. Very often orders which are good to the extent of 90 per cent. perhaps are brought before us but, there may be one small though highly objectionable feature with which hon. Members would wish to deal. A Motion to annul seems a rather clumsy way to deal with it and in practice does not work. An inquiry which would consider enabling this House to amend as well as to annul statutory orders would be very valuable. I deplore the way in which the Government have simply dismissed as premature this recommendation of the Select Committee for an inquiry. The Home Secretary said that the time is not ripe. I do not believe the Government will ever admit that the time is ripe because they do not want this inquiry. I believe they are particularly anxious to preserve and, if possible, increase their powers to legislate in a way which shall not be within the control of this House. I shall be very interested to see how soon, if ever, the Government will agree to this inquiry. If they will indicate in the near future that they consider that
1618
the time is nearer being ripe I shall perhaps be prepared to withdraw the remarks I am now making, but quite honestly I do not believe they mean to have an inquiry at all.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Austin: I wish to ask for the forbearance of the Government and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for prolonging our proceedings when I know that it is wished to come to a conclusion on the matter, but there is a fundamental point which touches the rights of every back bencher and the freedom of back benchers to ventilate their point of view, to which I wish to draw attention. It is on a subject arising out of paragraph 59 of the Report, the "Time limit for Speeches." I am aghast at the treatment which has been accorded to this matter by both Front Benches today. The Home Secretary in his reference to the matter as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) referred to the fact that most hon. Members can get in from time to time and that they do not have to wait very long. Without any reflection on the Chair, may I say, purely as an example and speaking for myself alone, that I was called last week and given six minutes only by the Chair in the winding-up Debate on the Address. That was the first time I was called, apart from an Adjournment Debate, although I have been an assidious attender at the House since the Debate on the Navy Estimates in March.
My contention is that the plight in which back benchers find themselves would be alleviated to some considerable degree if we had an agreed time limit for back bench speeches, perhaps of 15 minutes I am not referring to Front Bench speeches on either side, although I must say frankly that they often bore the House to an inordinate degree though the respective back benchers are too polite to say so. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said quite rightly that the Chair has the right to call on speakers who can make a valid and substantial contribution to the Debate. I do not disagree in any respect whatever. It is within the prerogative of the Chair to call whichever Member the Chair desires, but we have not all got the eloquence and the oratory of a Demosthenes or a Donald Duck. To which category the noble Lord belongs I am not

1619
quite certain in any case. It is fundamental that back benchers should be allowed from time to time to ventilate their views, and it is because I think that a time limit would be a means of attaining this desirable object that I wish to put this forward.
Back benchers in this House vary in the light of their party, their views and their talents, and naturally hon. Members who are independent, such as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) are perhaps called more than hon. Members on these benches, the Communist Party perhaps get called more than some other hon. Members, and the Liberals and the Opposition, by virtue of their fewer numbers, are allowed to speak more often than back benchers on the Government Benches. I quite appreciate that from time immemorial, back benchers on the Government side, by virtue of their numbers, have not been called as frequently as other hon. Members, but the point must be considered that many back benchers suffer a great deal of frustration. Many back benchers who have not got secretaries, sometimes sit in this House four or five hours on end bobbing up and down in an endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, who have to neglect their correspondence and their meals and a host of other duties at committees and meetings elsewhere. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is a feeling you will appreciate, that it is something not to be envied to feel frustrated in an endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman made a friendly, although slightly sarcastic, reference to me. I would like to convince him that his views and mine are not so separate. Does he realise that, with the exception of my right hon. Leader, Mr. F. E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, and some others who were so supreme that they rose practically at once to the Front Bench, every Member who has made his mark in this House has had to do all the dull things the hon. Gentleman has said? I will make this assertion, that there is hardly an hon. Member who at some period in the course of his career did not feel that he had been rather harshly treated and that he ought to have been called. It is part of the rules of the game.
Mr. Austin: I cannot dissent from the noble Lord. The only case to my mind of an hon. Member who was not a back bencher is that of the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps he would be a much better Member of Parliament had he gone through the apprenticeship of a back bencher. About 18 months ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked your views as to a time limit and you gave a favourable reply. If I may say so without breach of confidence, I raised this matter together with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) with my party at a party meeting. I suggested there that there ought to be discussion between the usual channels as to the imposition of a time limit on back benchers. Unfortunately, that was rejected by my party. I feel the time has come in a Parliament such as this, which is virile and alive and differs in many regards from previous Parliaments, when some attention ought to be paid to the recommendations of Sir Gilbert Campion. I want to read them out because they are most relevant and important. Paragraph 59 says:
"Sir Gilbert Campion suggested that Your Committee might inquire into the question of a time limit on speeches. The idea found no support among Your Committee's witnesses. In view of this and in view of the practical difficulty to which Sir Gilbert Campion refers, of devising a tariff which is adapted to the nature of the business and the place of the speaker in the Debate, Your Committee did not pursue this inquiry further. While Your Committee consider that speeches should be as short as possible, they concur in the view expressed by Mr. Speaker that the influence of the Chair with the general support of the House is the only effective and practical check.'"
I cannot deny the effectiveness of the concluding remarks that,
"'the influence of the Chair with the general support of the House is the only effective and practical check.'"
All I can submit to you and to the House is that when a Select Committee on Procedure meets again, it should take into consideration the frustration and heartburning, caused through nobody's fault, suffered by all back benchers on both sides of the House. It is a fundamental issue of great importance and I thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to raise it.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has reminded me of a

1621
joke in a comic paper when I was young—
Mr. Keenan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) spoken already?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot find his name down as having made a speech.
Mr. Keenan: I thought he had.
Mr. K. Pickthorn: I am sorry about this, Mr. Speaker, I did not know my soul-force was so great that I was able to express myself even in silence.
I was reminded by the last speech of a joke in a comic paper when I was young, a drawing of a young man and a young women sitting on a bench in a park, with the caption underneath, "'Arriet, do you 'ave 'eart burn after 'ash?" The answer was, "I do, 'orrid." Of course, we all, like the hon. Member from Stretford, have heartburn while the other chaps are hashing their stuff, but I hope the House will not consider limitation of speeches, except possibly of the speech of whoever speaks immediately before me. I feel sure that the Select Committee was right in dismissing, as technically too difficult, that suggestion.
I do not want to talk about all the parts of the Select Committee's report which are not in the Government's Motions. This is the only chance of talking about them, but I do not wish to detain the House with them. Nor do I wish to detain the House by talking about what is in their separate Motions which I hope we shall be able to discuss quickly when we come to them. However, I hope it is not too arrogant to think that there is still a word to be said about the general constitutional disquiet felt by some of us about this way of proceeding, both the object and the manner of proceeding.
I think there has been some misunderstanding, both above the Gangway and from one or two of the speakers below the Gangway on the other side, about the relation between procedural and constitutional. People have spoken of this or that as "merely procedural." Somebody said the matter of delegated legislation was not properly a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure because it was constitutional. Surely the Committee did
1622
quite rightly—I have no doubt the Chairman was right in his interpretation of the terms of reference—to discuss that matter, and the truth is that our Constitution is built up out of the procedure rather than there being a Constitution first built up and then the procedure hanging from it. Therefore we make a great mistake if we do not carefully watch that point, just as we make a great mistake—and I think this is a fair illustration and in order—if we try to distinguish too widely between the economic and the political. The Leader of the House has too often said, "That is a matter of great economic importance but not of enough political importance to be constitutional." In fact, economic matters above a certain level of importance or generality become matters of constitutional importance. We have a striking example of that in the Prayer which we spent almost all of yesterday debating.
Therefore I suggest that it is a matter of great constitutional importance what we are doing today, and particularly for this reason: I thought the Home Secretary, though no doubt he meant to be fair, and I think I quite followed his argument, was less than fair when he talked about the procedure which we are using today. I think he himself used, and certainly several of his supporters have used, the word "legislation" about what we are doing today. Of course it is not public legislation, but it is domestic legislation so to speak; it is legislation for the purposes of the House about the behaviour of this House; in that sense we are proceeding to legislate and to make rules.
When it comes to other sorts of legislation, when we are legislating for outside, passing Bills that become Statutes, there is elaborate procedure—Second Readings, Committee stages, Report stages, all sorts of ways of making sure that we all get the opportunity of understanding exactly what it is we are doing and that the final vote of the House is a real expression of the House's general understanding of the matter. When it comes to Standing Orders we have not that kind of elaborate machinery; what we have instead of that kind of elaborate machinery is the reference to a Select Committee. I entirely agree of course that neither the Government nor any other hon. Member of the House is bound to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee. Of

1623
course not. The House does not abdicate when it appoints a Select Committee. But I think there has been some misunderstanding today when people have talked as if Members of the Select Committee were resentful, or had some sort of pun d'onor, or some sense of wounded dignity in the matter because they had taken the trouble to produce three fat Reports which had not been accepted or even, on the initiative of the Government, discussed.
That is to misconceive any disquiet which we feel. I do not think any of the Members of the Committee, certainly none on this side of the House, feel any point of honour or wounded dignity about it at all. What we feel is this: that here was a Select Committee, of ordinary Members of Parliament no doubt, but at least presumably of Members of Parliament on the average not less competent than the rest to deal with these matters, which took a great deal of trouble, which was as near as could be unanimous in such a matter—very remarkably near to unanimity upon such a matter. The Government now proposes to alter Standing Orders in a way which it implicitly admits to be considerable enough to be constitutionally important, when the Leader of the House says that of course it will necessitate a technical Committee. There can be no doubt of that, I think. And the Government do that without any direct reference of its proposals to the Committee's Report.
If I may go back to what I said before, changes of bits of procedure add up to changed bits of the Constitution. When the Executive does not observe that truth in a generous frame of mind then the Executive is becoming despotic and overriding the real will of the House. It is not really very much use talking as the Lord President talked about the Government having the right to convince the House that it is right and the Select Committee are wrong. What proportion of Members of the House have listened to the Debate? I have counted about every ten minutes and find that rarely were more than one tenth of the Members present, and this on a subject very difficult to follow quickly unless one has the documents on one's knee and has read them two or three times. What the Government are
1624
doing is not to convince the House that their view is right and that the Select Committee are wrong. That is just Parliamentary claptrap. Even if the Government purported to take the Whips off, they know that that is not what they are doing by putting the thing down in this form of governmental Motions, and taking no steps to get the Report discussed.
It is quite true that the Opposition have allowed hon. Members opposite to make speeches such as the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford, but they could not have done so if the Government had their way. Almost none of the speeches from the other side of the House could have been made if the Government had had their way.
Mr. Austin: On that last point, surely the Government could have moved the Closure if they so wished?
Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. Perhaps I was not clear. My point was not that I could not have made my speech if the Government had moved the Closure. That would have exactly proved my case that here is the Executive using an already excessive power to make its power greater by a merely nominal agreement. I was not complaining that I had not been closured but that the hon. Member's speech would not have been in Order if the Opposition had not put down an Amendment so as to alter the whole method of discussing our business today. For the Government to purport to make permanent changes in Standing Orders which it explicitly and implicitly admits to be of first rate importance, and to purport to do that on procedure which as far as the Government controlled it, gave no scope for Debate at all and narrowed Debate as far as possible, for that to be done at this stage in this Government's life—and of this Parliament's procedural life—is wrong. Because, remember, this Committee was appointed immediately after we met two and a half years ago and was directed to sit in the long vacation, and we sat more assiduously, I think, than any other committee and answered and reanswered points put to us by the Government. No attempt of any sort whatever was made to confuse issues or delay discussions.
All that we did as quickly as we could because they wanted to facilitate what we

1625
regarded as a disastrous change in the framework of our whole country. They let a year go past and then propose without any proper discussion in the House to alter the Rules of Procedure in a permanent and considerable way. These things may seem small things but it is monstrous behaviour for such a Government at such a stage of its miserable life.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: I hope I shall not be considered impertinent if as a new Member I enter on a Debate to which older hon. Members can contribute much more, but there are one or two points emerging from the Report to which I would like to draw the attention of the Front Bench. I refer in particular to paragraph 44 of the Report in which the learned Clerk of the House makes a suggestion:
"that provision should be made for securing discussion in the House of the Reports of the proposed Public Expenditure Committee by giving them precedence on not more than two of the days allotted to Supply."
We have heard from the Lord President today that the recommendation which was made by the Select Committee to merge the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee was not accepted. I have had some short experience of the Estimates Committee, and I believe it to be doing very valuable work. I think that is generally accepted in the House and in the country, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with the work of the Public Accounts Committee to give any considered view. I gather the Government think that the functions of the committee are sufficiently distinct to warrant their attention in their present form. Certainly, we overlap in some of our work. On consideration I think the Government are wise, but it seems that much of the excellent work which is, done in the Estimates Committee, at least, is not fully appreciated by the House, and that little opportunity is given for considering its reports.
If the Government are unwilling to accept the proposals to merge the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, I hope they will give some attention to the derivative proposals made by the learned Clerk, because during the past few months many excellent reports have been produced, and, so far as I know, no time has been earmarked
1626
for their consideration. For example, we have had very detailed inquiries into the whole establishment of civil aviation in this country, a matter of great public interest, in which many millions of pounds are involved. That blows up from time to time, and there is much difference in points of view about it. Similarly, the Civil Service comes in for a great deal of criticism from time to time. Some people say there are too many civil servants, and so on. The point I am making about that is that during the last few months the Estimates Committee has conducted a detailed inquiry into the matter and published the Organisation and Methods Report. It would seem that this was a matter which ought to have been provided for, it possible. Similarly, derequisitioning of premises covered the question of land used by the War Department and requisitioned premises, and I do not think any opportunity was given by the Government for the discussion of that matter.
These are merely illustrations which lend point to the suggestion made by the learned Clerk of the House in paragraph 44. I hope that although the Government are not accepting the proposal of the Select Committee to merge the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, they will not overlook what seems to me to be a very cogent suggestion, as are all suggestions coming from so eminent a quarter. I take it that we are considering how best to make the machine such as will enable us to do our work here and how best to utilise our time; and whether we call it by the name of procedure, or constitutional reform, matters little in practice, effect, or application. As one wise philosopher said many years ago, the unexamined life is not worth while, and so a constitution or procedure is not worth while unless it is examined from time to time. Although we have much respect for many practices and customs of the House, it is very salutary and necessary that we should have this kind of investigation from time to time, and for that reason I welcome the Report, and, as a new Member, express indebtedness for the education it has given me.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would like to add a word or two on the question of limiting the time of

1627
speeches. As a very silent back bench Member, who rarely speaks and hardly ever interrupts, perhaps I may be allowed to give only 14 years' impression of what happens in this House. My own feeling is that when ultimately we leave this place, we shall find that the road to our final destination is paved with our good intentions in the shape of torn-up speeches. But unless we have many speeches torn up because we are unable to deliver them, we shall never be able to make speeches which mean anything at all when we get the chance of making them. Inability to catch Mr. Speaker's eye is, I think, probably the best training for being able to make a good speech when called upon from the Chair.
May I add my plea to what has been said on the question of a free vote on this matter? I agree that the Government cannot possibly delegate their authority to any Select Committee, but I think we are in a very peculiar position tonight in considering this Report and the Government's action upon it. I cannot help feeling that when a Government deny the recommendations—in many cases unanimous—of a Select Committee on such questions as those which have been raised today it would be very much wiser on their part if they took down the barriers and took off the Whips. As has been stressed, over and over again, this is no party matter. We should, I think, be discouraged from any introduction of party matter into our very serious deliberations if we could get some undertaking from the Government Front Bench that the Whips would not be put on tonight. After all, the vote we shall take tonight on this Report will be very different from that which generally follows the consideration of a Select Committee's Report in this House. In view of the attitude which the Government have taken on the recommendations of this Select Committee I ask them seriously to reconsider the whole question of a free vote. I think it would leave a nicer taste in the mouths of practically all Members if they took that line.
There are three points which arise largely out of the Lord President's speech, and which, I thought, were rather alarming. I could not help feeling that when he was speaking he showed a tendency merely to consider this House as a gearbox, on the lever of
1628
which the hand of the Government must always rest; and that the transmission of power and action must always reside in the hands of the Government and of their supporters, thereby showing an inherent desire on the part of the Executive always to impose their will on the House.
May I give three examples? First, there is the question of Private Members' time. Deplorable though it is, I agree that the re-introduction of Private Members' time is obviously impracticable at the moment, although highly desirable. At the same time, it ought to have been possible for the Government to put something on paper to show what their intentions were, that they mean to see that the Private Member has fair play and that Parliament is allowed to work as it should. That would have been a guarantee of their intentions, but it is the absence of any declaration of good intention which is bound to make one suspicious, in however kindly a way this problem is approached.
Secondly, we were told that there was to be modification on the consideration on Report stages of the Budget Resolutions, the reason given being that by this arrangement a great deal of repetition could be avoided. I do not consider that debate and discussion on those stages of what is surely the most important Measure passing through Parliament are a waste of time. What is meant by saying that there is a waste of time, and that there may be repetition? It means that if we are to have this sort of approach to this problem those outside this House, who may not have appreciated fully the intentions and meanings of the declaration of policy of the Government, will be debarred additional time to consider the Government's proposals. Here again, there arises the danger that the Government are considering this place as a closed gearbox, which works the Parliamentary machine with little reaction and little relation to what goes on outside this House. Parliament should always be in the closest possible contact, and should retain that contact, with the people outside. I believe that there is, here, an attempt to segregate the House of Commons from those outside. Anything which whittles down the opportunity for those outside fairly to consider the proposals of the Executive is, to my mind, extremely dangerous to this place.

1629
Thirdly, there is a proposal to arm the Chairman of Committees with the right to debar discussion on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I believe that any Chairman in future, if that power is given to him, will find himself in a very embarrassing position on many occasions. I do not think that it will be at all easy to find Members of this House ready and willing to come forward to serve on the Chairman's Panel if this sort of proposal is carried into effect. The reactions of a Committee to Amendments, either made or rejected, and the effect on the Clause after debate, cannot possibly be fairly expressed unless debate is allowed on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. It is not merely that one Amendment has been put into the Clause, that it has been fully debated, and that the principle of the Clause has been fully debated. How can the principle be fully debated until the Amendment is in the Clause itself? Here, again, there is exactly the same danger of the gearbox mind, that the lever must be used to select what the Executive wish to be selected in order that powers shall be transmitted as the Executive desire. I have quoted only three examples, which may not appear to be serious ones, but which I believe, point to the tendency of the Government first of all to segregate Parliament from the life of the people, and, second, to take—although perhaps, in many cases, unwittingly—greater power to the Executive simply for the purpose of getting business through. That is the most unhealthy power that could possibly be granted.
One other point. I am very disappointed that neither the Select Committee nor the Lord President, or anybody else, has fully considered the problem we are up
against when we have to look at, examine, "vet," and filter all the reports which are bound to come before this House relating to nationalised industries and groups of industries. With the greatest respect I say that Parliament has rather shirked that problem. The present machinery of Parliament, as we know it, will, I think, find the greatest difficulty in finding time properly to examine the results of the years of trading of these nationalised industries in a full and proper manner. There is vagueness even on the question as to how these reports shall be submitted to Parliament at all. That is another issue. However they may be submitted they will be a matter of very great national importance, affecting the lives of everyone in this country. I do not see why either in the Select Committee's Report or in the Government's reaction to it, full allowance has not been made for that problem. Again, we get this extraordinary mentality, that it is something outside this place, that we have handed over these industries to these boards and executive authorities, and that we do not need to bother very much about them here. There again the same danger lies, and unless something is done to stop this general drift, sooner or later, if this Government last long enough—thank Heaven we know they will not—we shall find this place segregated from the people, not representing the people, not being able to speak with the voice of the people at all. That will be the death of Parliament.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 118.

Division No. 12.]

AYES.

[7.51 p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Bing, G. H. C

Chamberlain, R A

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Binns, J.

Chater, D.

Alpass, J. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Chetwynd, G R.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Blyton, W. R

Cluse, W. S.

Attewell, H. C

Boardman, H

Cobb, F A.

Austin, H Lewis

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Cocks, F. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Coldrick, W.

Ayles, W H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Collick, P.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Bacon, Miss A.

Bramall, E A

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Balfour, A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W.)

Barstow, P. G

Brooks, T J (Rothwell)

Corlett, Dr J.

Barton, C.

Brown, George (Beiper)

Corvedale, Viscount

Battley, J. R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Crawley, A.

Bechervaise, A. E

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Daggar, G

Benson, G.

Buchanan, G.

Daines, P.

Berry, H.

Burden, T W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Beswick, F.

Callaghan, James

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Deer, G.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Segal, Dr. S.

Delargy, H. J.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Shackleton, E. A. A

Diamond, J.

Leslie, J. R.

Sharp, Granville

Dobbie, W.

Levy, B. W.

Shurmer, P.

Dodds, N. N.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Donovan, T.

Lindgren, G. S.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Simmons, C. J.

Dye, S.

Logan, D. G.

Skeffington, A. M.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Longden, F.

Skinnard, F. W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lyne, A W

Smith, C (Colchester)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McAdam, W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McAllister, G.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McEntee, V. La T

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Evans, . (Islington, W.)

McGhee, H. G.

Snow, J. W.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mack, J. D.

Sorensen, R. W.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McKinlay, A. S.

Sparks, J. A.

Ewart, R.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Stamford, W.

Fairhurst, F.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Steele, T.

Farthing, W. J.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stokes, R. R

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Stross, Dr. B

Follick, M.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Stubbs, A. E

Foot, M. M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Swingler, S.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Medland, H. M.

Sylvester, G. O.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Messer, F.

Symonds, A. L.

Gallacher, W.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Gibbins, J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Gibson, C. W

Monslow, W.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Gilzean, A.

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Glanville, J. E (Consett)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Gooch, E. G.

Morley, R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Thurtle, Ernest

Grenfell, D. R.

Mort, D. L.

Tiffany, S.

Grey, C. F.

Moyle, A.

Timmons, J.

Grierson, E.

Murray, J. D.

Titterington, M. F.

Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

Nally, W.

Tolley, L.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Gunter, R. J.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Guy, W. H

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Viant, S. P.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Walker, G. H.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

O'Brien, T.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hardy, E. A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Haworth, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Warbey, W. N.

Herbison, Miss M.

Orbach, M.

Watkins, T. E.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Watson, W. M.

Hobson, C. R

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Holman, P.

Parkin, B. T.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pearson, A.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Hoy, J.

Perrins, W.

West, D. G

Hubbard, T.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Popplewell, E.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wilkes, L.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Pritt, D. N.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Proct r, W. T.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Janner, B.

Randall, H. E.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Jay, D. P. T.

Ranger, J.

Williamson, T.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J.

Willis, E.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Reeves, J.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wise, Major F J

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Richards, R.

Woodburn, A

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Woods, G. S

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Robens, A.

Wyatt, W.

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Kenyon, C.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Zilliacus, K

Key, C. W.

Royle, C.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Sargood, R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Kinley, J.

Scollan, T.

Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins

Kirkwood, D.

Scott-Elliot, W.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Bowen, R.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Astor, Hon M

Bower, N.

Butcher, H. W.

Barlow, Sir J.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Byers, Frank

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Carson, E.

Bossom, A. C.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Challen, C.

1632

1633

Channon, H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H.

Ropner, Col. L

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Lipson, D L

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Shepherd, W. S (Buck)

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Low, A. R. W.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Smith, E. P (Ashford)

De la Bère, R

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Smithers, Sir W.

Digby, S. W.

McCallum, Maj D

Snadden, W. M.

Donner, P. W.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, R E.

Sutcliffe, H.

Duthie, W S.

Marples, A. E.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

Erroll, F J

Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

Medlicott, F.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D. P M

Mellor, Sir J

Touche, G. C.

Gage, C.

Morrison, Maj J G. (Salisbury)

Turton, R. H.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'ster)

Vane, W M. F.

George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Grimston, R. V.

Nicholson, G.

Walker-Smith, D.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Whealley, Colonel M. J.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Headlam, Lieut.-. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Osborne, C.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Hogg, Hon. Q

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Howard, Hon. A.

Pickthorn, K.

Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl

Hurd, A.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

York, C.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Raikes, H. V

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Jarvis, Sir J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Jennings, R.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Mr. Studholme and

Lambert, Hon. G.

Renton, D.

Major Conant

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
"That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 17th March, 1947, arising out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure."
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Amendment to Standing Orders, and new Standing Orders, relating to Public Business, hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made; and that Standing Orders Nos. 14 and 16 be repealed.
SCHEDULE
Standing Order No. 8, at end, add:
Any proceeding which has been postponed under this order shall be exempted from the provisions of the standing order 'Sittings of the House' for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon a motion under this order, and may be resumed and proceeded with at or after ten of the clock.
Insert new Standing Order No. 14:

1. Twenty-six days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted to the business of supply in each session.

2. On a day so allotted, being a day on which committee or report of supply stands as the first order, no business other than the business of supply shall be taken before ten of the clock, and no business of supply shall be taken after ten of the clock, whether a general order exempting business from interruption under the standing order 'Sittings of the House' is in force or not, unless the House otherwise order on the motion of a minister of the crown, moved at
1634
the commencement of public business, to be decided without amendment or debate.

3. For the purposes of this order the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair'; supplementary or additional estimates for the current financial year; any excess vote; votes on account; main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year; and reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates. But such business shall not include any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates presented by the government for war expenditure.

4. On a day not earlier than the seventh allotted day, being a day before the 31st of March, the chairman shall at half-past nine of the clock, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the vote then under consideration and shall then forthwith put the question with respect to any vote on account and all such navy, army and air votes for the coming financial year as shall have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration in committee of supply on an allotted day, that the total amount of all such votes outstanding be granted for those services. And the chairman shall then in like manner put severally the questions that the total amounts of all such outstanding estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as shall have been presented seven clear days, and any outstanding excess vote (provided that the Committee of Public Accounts shall have reported allowing such vote), be granted for the services defined in the supplementary estimates or any statement of excess.

5. On a day not earlier than the eighth allotted day, being a day before the 31st of March, Mr. Speaker shall at half-past nine of

1635
the clock forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the report of the resolution then under consideration and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each resolution ordered to be reported by the committee of supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the question That this House doth agree with the committee in that resolution.

6. On the last day but one of the allotted days the chairman shall at half-past nine of the clock forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the vote then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put the question with respect to each class of the civil estimates that the total amount of the votes outstanding in that class be granted for the services defined in the class, and-shall in like manner put severally the questions that the total amounts of the votes outstanding in the revenue departments and defence department estimates, and in the navy, the army, and the air estimates be granted for the services defined in those estimates.

7. On the last of the allotted days, Mr. Speaker shall, at half-past nine of the clock, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the report of the resolution then under consideration, and shall then forthwith put, with respect to each class of the civil estimates, the question that the House doth agree with the committee in all the outstanding resolutions reported in respect of that class, and shall then put a like question with respect to all the resolutions outstanding in the revenue departments and defence department estimates, and in the navy, the army and the air estimates, and other outstanding resolutions severally.

8. On any day upon which the chairman or Mr. Speaker is, under this order, directed to put forthwith any question, the consideration of the business of supply shall not be anticipated by a motion of adjournment, and no dilatory motion shall be moved on proceedings for that business and the business shall not be interrupted under any standing order.

9. For the purposes of this order two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day.

Insert new Standing Order No. 106:

1. Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into committee other than a committee on a bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless on a day on which the committee of supply stands as the first order of the day a minister of the crown moves, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,' for the purpose of enabling a motion on going into committee of supply to be moved as an amendment to that question.

2. Notwithstanding the practice of the House which prohibits reference to matters involving legislation in the course of debate in, or on going into, committee of supply, Mr. Speaker may, when an amendment to the question 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair' is under discussion, permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter of administration then under debate, when enforcement of the prohibition would, in his opinion, unduly restrict the discussion of such matters.

After Standing Order No. 34, insert new Standing Order (Committee of the whole House on bill):
Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into committee on a bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee, unless notice of an instruction to such committee has been given, when such instruction shall be first disposed of.
Insert new Standing Order (Ways and Means resolutions):

(1) When a Minister of the Crown in Committee of Ways and Means has moved the first of several motions for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, the chairman shall forthwith put the question thereupon and shall then successively put forthwith the question on each further motion moved by the Minister, save the last motion; and all such questions shall be decided without amendment or debate.

(2) On consideration of any resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing a charge upon the people, the question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said resolution" shall be put forthwith.

Insert new Standing Order (Business Committee):
There shall be a committee, to be designated "the Business Committee" consisting of the members of the chairmen's panel together with not more than five other members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker, which committee

(1) shall, in the case of any bill in respect of which an allocation of time order has been made by the House, allotting a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House or on report, divide the bill into such parts as they may see fit and allot to each part so many days or portions of a day so allotted as they may consider appropriate;

(2) may, if they think fit, do the like in respect of any bill to the consideration of which in committee of the whole House or on report a specified number of days or portions of days has been allotted by general agreement notified orally to the House by a Minister of the Crown; and

(3) shall report their recommendations to the House, and on consideration of any such report the question "That this House doth agree with the committee in the said report" shall be put forthwith and, if agreed to, shall have effect as if it were an order of the House.

Insert new Standing Order (Restriction of debate on question for clause to stand part):
If, during the consideration of a bill in committee of the whole House or in a standing committee, the chairman is of opinion that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on

1637
the amendments proposed thereto, he may, after the last amendment to be selected has been disposed of, so state his opinion and shall then forthwith put the question "That the clause (or, the clause as amended) stand part of the bill."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
8.0 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in line 9, to leave out "ten," and to insert "eleven."
This addition to Standing Order No. 8 is one with which I personally am in entire agreement. The effect of it is that if there is a successful Motion for the Adjournment then the time which, so to speak, has been lost to the House, by being occupied by that Debate, can be extended, as it now says:
"… at or after ten of the clock."
That raises the question of the time for which the House is to sit. I think this is an important point. In Standing Order No. 1 which directs the time of sittings, we have had no Amendment since 1933. The normal time for the House to rise is, therefore, eleven o'clock. Naturally, during the war that was inconsistent with what was possible, and we have had various times. We had the daytime sittings during the hours of daylight on very few days of the week and sometimes not at all. In November, 1943, the hours were 11 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and then, when the longer days came in February, 1944, that was extended to 6.30 p.m. I take the figures from Erskine May. The time remained so until March, 1945, when we resumed afternoon sittings from 2.15 to 9.45 and that has now been changed and exists at 2.30 to 10 o'clock.
That is the case for this Session what ever we say tonight because, though possibly hon. Members may not have realised it, that was passed on the first day of the new Session. Therefore, it makes no difference for this Session what decision we take now. I put if to the Government that this is not a wholly appropriate occasion on which to change the Standing Order permanently. The reasons why there were the alterations during and since the war, were the difficulties of the war, the traffic difficulties then and those which still persist. I do not know whether the Government want it to go forth that in no circumstances after this year is traffic ever going to be good enough after 10 o'clock for Members to return home, because if that is their thesis, it is a very poor advertisement for the national-
1638
ised transport system. It is a logical deduction. It is the effect of the war on transport which has kept the hours where they are now by Sessional Order. If that is to be permanent, it follows logically that it is because transport is permanently going to be as bad as or worse than it is today. I am a little more optimistic about the future than are some hon. Members if that is the view they take because, of course, there may be changes later on.
But for the moment I want to put it to the Lord President that it will be just as well to let the Standing Order remain as it is. It has not been altered during the war or postwar years and the House has thought it more convenient to be flexible about the times of sitting because all sorts of considerations may come up and we do not want to keep changing the Standing Order. The permanent 11 o'clock arrangement seems to us to be the right answer. As I say, nothing we do tonight makes any difference for this year because we have decided that already. It is only a question of whether this time next year there will be a Sessional Order or that Parliament will find that, there has been a change in Standing Orders as a result of tonight's Debate. This has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Procedure. This was not a matter which we had under discussion in any way. I do not know whether or not we ought to have considered it but, in fact, we did not. Of course, the first part is relevant because we did hope that some such alteration would be made to Standing Order No. 8 in case the Adjournment was secured, but the actual time was no part of our recommendation.
The Government may have a defence for this, I do not know. Unfortunately, under the procedure tonight, except for the preliminary explanations made by the right hon. Gentleman earlier, each case as it comes up must be argued on an Amendment to omit. I may say that it is a most inconvenient way. I hope that in future if there are any changes in Standing Orders we will not do it in this way. It would be much simpler to do it with each Standing Order separately. If that had happened we may not have had to have a Debate at all. It would have been very much simpler to have done it in the normal way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not

1639
propose to repeat my arguments on all the other Amendments, but we have had to pepper the Order Paper with this change from 10 to 11 o'clock in order to make quite sure that the Amendment was completely in Order and would be called.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to accept the view that the Sessional Order having been passed, this is academic for this year and it is unnecessary to make a permanent change because we are still not able to foresee the future and to decide whether 10 o'clock is the right time for the end of the Parliamentary day. I dare say some of my hon. Friends will have other points to make but there is one further point which I wish to raise. There were three speeches in the general Debate about Members' speeches, shortened speeches and all the rest of it. Let the House remember before it takes a decision that the present sitting of from 2.30 to 10 o'clock, as compared with the prewar sitting of from 2.45 to 11 o'clock, makes a difference of three-quarters of an hour every day in the length of time the House sits. That means, probably, on the average, that either three or four fewer speeches in the Debate are made every single day. Now, if hon. Members are pressing for more opportunities to speak in the House, as they were, this is one of the ways in which it can be done. It cannot be done this Session, because we have decided otherwise, but there is the possibility of it being done in future, which we ought not entirely to exclude.
Mr. Naylor: What about those who have to listen?
Captain Crookshank: Those of us who have to listen can always leave the Chamber, if that is not too Irish a way of putting it. That was not the argument put from the benches behind the hon. Member earlier on. I suppose they assumed that their colleagues would know just what to do when whoever it was got on to his feet—stay or depart, as they pleased. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is not the time permanently to change the Standing Order, and will, therefore, accept the Amendment.
8.10 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: I did not intend to speak on this proposal, but the Lord
1640
President of the Council, who was present during the Debate which we have just concluded, evidently did not pass on to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a question which I addressed to the Government and to which I have received no reply. Therefore, I intend to ask that question in this Debate and in all subsequent Debates until I get a reply. Perhaps it is particularly appropriate in connection with this change of time. The question which I asked the Government is why, in introducing these changes in our procedure, they are not content to deal with the matter by asking the House to agree to Sessional Orders? It is really a very serious matter to alter Standing Orders to the extent which the Government are proposing this evening. It is even more serious when the Government give themselves no opportunity of experimenting by introducing Sessional Orders and do not take advantage of that expedient. Now there must be some reason which has persuaded the Government to alter our Standing Orders before their proposals—
Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of Order. This particular proposed Standing Order was previously a Sessional Order. Therefore, I presume we are confined to talking on this Standing Order. I submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing the general issue.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Yes, we are clearly confined to the Amendment.
Colonel Ropner: It is true that this was a Sessional Order, but now the Government are proposing to alter our Standing Orders. I am prepared to ask why they make that change on every proposal for making such an alteration in our Standing Orders. I should have thought it would be now convenient to the Government to give a reply showing by its terms what persuaded them to deal with their proposals by altering our Standing Orders rather than by introducing Sessional Orders.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: On the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, the only question before us is the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to this particular Standing Order—to leave out "ten"

1641
and substitute the word "eleven." I think I would be out of Order if I were to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a general point, but in this case it is a Sessional Order, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. It was, I am sure, a Sessional Order in the last Session, and it was a Sessional Order—not quite the same, but something very much like it—in the Session before. In this case, we have proceeded in the Conservative tradition, so to speak, by experimenting with this as a Sessional Order for some time, apart from which there was some limitation on the hours of sitting in the war days, more serious than now, so that that point fails. We have in this case proceeded on the basis of Sessional Orders by way of an experiment, first of all, and then by way of Amendment to Standing Orders.
The question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks is why convert a Sessional Order into a Standing Order at this point? Why not wait a bit longer and see how we get on over a somewhat longer period? That is a perfectly fair argument, and, of course, it will be a possible course. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, nothing would happen this Session, but we should go on as we are going, and as we propose to go, under the Sessional Orders. But we have had this long experience of a somewhat earlier finish of the sitting of the House, and a slightly earlier commencement. The Government made every effort they could, through the usual channels, to sound the various parties in the House as to how the general convenience would be met. In fact, the only party which complained that they were not adequately consulted at the time when I dealt with the matter last year, were hon. Members on this side of the House. Indeed, they had a bit of a grievance, which I took steps to put right thereafter. But I feel sure that the—
Captain Crookshank: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that was agreed, because, if so, will he also add that it was agreed as a Sessional plan?
Mr. Morrison: I am talking on the merits of the timing. That was so at that time, and, as a matter of fact—I hate this business of quoting the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, because it is becoming a little bit
1642
boring, but, somehow or other, one just cannot help it on the issues that come up—when I made a statement on 4th April, 1946, to the effect that after consultation with the Opposition, agreement had been reached that the hour of interruption should be 10 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said:
"So far as His Majesty's Government's Opposition are concerned, we think that the changes proposed are very sensible and will add much to our general convenience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1401.]
The proposal was debated on 12th April, 1946, when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said:
"I am very glad that an agreement has been confirmed between the Government and the Opposition parties on this matter. The discussions which take place through the usual channels are of very great importance to the smooth working of the House, and it would be a great pity if such discussions took place and afterwards the conclusions reached had to be thrown over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2225, 2226.]
I admit here that I am only speaking on the merits of the proposal when it was a Sessional Order proposition, but when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is himself quite clear, on the merits, that this meets the general convenience of the House, and when, more or less, we have had this time of sitting in three Sessions, I think it is legitimate to consider the conversion of a Sessional Order into a Standing Order as, otherwise, it would have to be moved again next Session, and it is a Motion which is debatable.
I remember the good old days—and they are not so very long ago—when the hours of sitting were from 2.45 p.m. to 11 p.m., and let me say, as some of my hon. Friends know, that, on this matter, I am a bit of a Conservative myself. I rather liked those hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "We finished at 11 p.m."] No, we did not; there were a fair number of suspensions, and it must not be assumed that this would avoid suspensions. I liked those times; indeed, in a way, the later the winding up, the more lively the atmosphere. They were quite lively and pleasant occasions. Winding up a Debate at 11 o'clock, with a full House and plenty of feeling after hon. Members had had their evening meal, was a happy time. I look back on it with

1643
some sentimental Conservative glow. But there is no doubt about it that the war experience led the majority of hon. Members to prefer the earlier termination when they got it. I have no doubt at all that the great majority of opinion on this side of the House would resist a reversion to 11 o'clock. My impression is—of course, I cannot talk about "great majority" in respect of the party opposite, because I do not know them so well—that the majority would not wish to go back to 11 o'clock, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will know more about that than I do. Therefore, I think it reasonable, after three Sessions of experience, together with our war experience, to convert this from a Sessional to a Standing Order.
Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has not had the experience of a third Session yet.
Mr. Morrison: Well, we have, because this is the third Session. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. I do not think anybody can accuse me of having been a revolutionary for having taken this course after this fairly substantial period of experience. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we may as well take this Amendment as the test of a series of Amendments dealing with the Hours of Sitting of the House, but I think it is reasonable for the House now to make this a Standing Order. If next Session there should be any change in the general opinion' of the House, or of any one part of the House, I would be quite prepared to listen to representations, and if the feeling was sufficiently strong we could still amend the Standing Order. But it is a little untidy for this little volume to appear year after year with these times carefully set out, when the times are not operative and there does not appear to be any sign of them being operative, and I hope the House will be good enough to concur with the Government view.
8.22 p.m.
Sir R. Young: I am curious to know why the Lord President of the Council proposes to change this Standing Order to 10 o'clock, in view of the fact that we have not altered Standing Order No. 1. If there is any substance in the argument he has put forward in favour of the House
1644
rising at 10 o'clock, the alteration should start at the beginning of these Standing Orders. Reference has been made to the question of transport. Transport is bad enough at any time, and I would not like us to be inconvenienced as we have been in the past. But I do not think it is so much a matter of transport. I am in favour of this Motion because I want the workers to have reduced hours of labour, and I do not want them to work for my particular benefit until midnight, or 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. I would not like to ask them to do it, and, on the other hand, as I do not own a car, I do not want to walk home. I am in favour of 10 o'clock, but I do not know why Standing Order No. 1 was not amended at the same time.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The proposed alterations to Standing Order No. 1 first appear in the Schedule at the bottom of page 320.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: I hope the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) will not mind if I do not follow his speech, in which he expressed a point of view with which most of us have some sympathy. I rose because of the speech of the Lord President of the Council. When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper and I saw that the right hon. Gentleman was going to speak, I wondered what excuse he would make for not reverting to 11 o'clock. I thought that if he had been one of the other Ministers it would have been a case of sheer laziness, but I would not accuse the Lord President of sheer laziness.
The Lord President's speech amazed and interested me. There was a little hint at the end, which he often gives, to the effect that he likes to get things tidy. I have no objection to that. Neither have I any objection to the real reason which he gave why we should sit until 10 o'clock. It is a reason which, I am sure, must commend itself, to a limited extent, to almost every Member of the House. He quoted the Leader of the Opposition, and said that as my right hon. Friend had stated that 10 o'clock was the right time, therefore, it must be right. That is, roughly, the gist of the Lord President's argument, and I think it is a matter which ought to be emphasised. The Lord President, the Leader of the House, seems to think that if the Leader of the Opposi-

1645
tion has said a thing, it must be right. I will not controvert him on that subject.
Although that was his best reason, he could have given two other reasons, one of which would have been stronger and the other more accurate. The real reason he wants the time to be 10 o'clock is that he wants to get the House to bed and shut up as quickly as he possibly can. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear cheers from hon. Members opposite, because they apparently agree that the House should be shut up, and the sooner we have an Election the better. Really, why should we always follow in this House the line that we ought to get our business done as quickly as possible, that we should cut out as many Members from speaking as we can, and that we should shut up at the earliest possible moment simply because we have what is called a Labour Government, which is a Government that does not believe in work? It is really going rather far for the Government to take this point of view. I am not going to amplify now, all the main reasons for they have already been given; but the Government are always saying they cannot find time for this or that, and here are the Opposition ready to help them, urging them to take a little extra time. Why do they not seize this offer, and then, in their turn, tell the Opposition to do a little more work?
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman briefly—if that is possible—tell me why the Tory Press has been accusing me for months and months of overworking Parliament?
Mr. Williams: I do not know how I can explain that within the rules of Order. What the Tory Opposition, outside and inside the House, complains of is that Parliament is overworked, not so much because of the amount of time spent in discussion, as because of the rushing through of Bills without their being properly discussed. That is what the complaint is, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman knows is the trouble at the present time. I think that is the answer to his question. If he wishes me to develop it further within the rules of Order—I would not dream of going outside them—or if he wants to ask me another question, I shall try to answer. I am not as practised in answering questions as a Minister should be, although I can always have a shot.
1646
Putting aside all the advantages that have so far been mentioned for stopping at 10 o'clock—the problem of transport, and many other things—there is one point which, I think, the Lord President might have used, a point of which I will make him a present on this occasion. We now have after 10 o'clock on many nights a very serious bit of Business which we used not to have. It arises fairly often. It consists of Prayers. It is undoubtedly an advantage to have Prayers coming on at 10 rather than at 11 o'clock. I am glad to see I have the agreement of the Lord President on that. So now he is agreed with me that he is not very lazy, and he is agreed with me that it is an advantage to get to Prayers at 10 o'clock rather than at 11 o'clock. He is coming on. I should like to ask, by way of suggesting an Amendment to the Amendment, how it would be if we had Prayers two days a week after 10 o'clock, and if two days a week after 10 o'clock we worked a bit longer. I put that suggestion to the Government without any hope that they will accept it, because I am completely and utterly certain that the main object of the Lord President and the main object of the Government in cutting us down to 10 o'clock is to deprive back bench Members of as many speeches as they can.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to say a word or two because I do find it surprising that the right hon. Gentleman advocates this as a Standing Order, seeing that the whole of the complaint which emanated from him, which started the Committee on their duties, and which runs through the evidence and the memoranda, is that there is not enough time for this House to perform all its functions, and that we must curtail some of them. What better way could there be of getting extra time than sitting an extra three quarters of an hour? Not only should we get a great deal of extra time, but it would give opportunities for a great number of back benchers—at least three every day—who are at present cut out, to get in speeches, which seems to me to be a proper, democratic way of approaching the due performance of our duties in this House.
What are the reasons against? There appear to me to be only two. One is that conditions of transport will be so bad for many years that it is not reasonable

1647
that this House should sit on as late as it used to. Well, we know that in a number of nationalised industries shorter hours have cut off essential services, such as late connections in the Post Office, and so on. But, surely, when we come to the vital and essential functions of this House we can look forward to something better than that? Is it really the case that the right hon. Gentleman—who knows a great deal about transport—is determined that we shall not have as good transport facilities in this capital city three, four or five years hence as we had before the war? If that is his determination, if he is determined that in the interests of the transport workers the interests of the rest of the community are to be sacrificed, and that transport is to be curtailed far below what it used to be, and as a permanency, then, of course, I understand this Motion. But if, as we hope, the present conditions of crisis and disturbance are not to be very lengthy, and if we are to see an end of them, then the proper thing would be to have a Sessional Order this year, and probably next year, and then we would hope that the year after next we could get back to something like civilised conditions.
If the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that he does not see any chance of getting back to civilised conditions for two, three, four, even five years, then I understand this Motion. I cannot understand it on any other basis. I do not think the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) was really suggesting—at least I hope I misunderstood his words, otherwise I do not think he was doing himself justice—that this House must reduce the hours of work of its Members because so many peoples' hours of work are being reduced outside. I do not think he was suggesting that.
Sir R. Young: No, I was not suggesting that. What I was suggesting was that as the trade unionists in the transport industry settle their hours, as far as they possibly can, and as they wanted shorter hours, I did not want to be among those who would suffer because of those shorter hours by being kept here for an unreasonable length of time.
Mr. Reid: Then the hon. Member is taking the point that I made a minute ago; he is looking forward to a permanent
1648
curtailment of public facilities in this capital city of the Empire so that a few people can benefit, but as a consequence of which a great many are to suffer. If it is the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the public must always suffer by reason of shorter hours, and that it is more important that a few workers should benefit than that a great many of the public should be prevented suffering, then, of course, I understand it as a logical basis for this Motion. But let us get it quite clear that that is the reason, and that what we are being asked to do in this Motion is to agree to the proposition that for as long as we can see reasonable transport facilities are not to be restored in London.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Butcher: I rarely find myself in agreement with the Lord President, but when I do find myself in that happy position I feel that I must get up and say so. After all, we should bear in mind that it is not only Members of this House who are in attendance in this Palace of Westminster. There are large numbers of other people—police, messengers and others—who perhaps have not the same facilities as we have for returning "to their homes. Therefore, I support the argument of the Lord President that 10 o'clock is a more suitable and satisfactory hour for this House to terminate its business than 11 o'clock. It is, of course, subject to one proviso, namely, that the 10 o'clock Rule is not going to be made complete nonsense by frequently moving the suspension. The thing that matters is not the time printed in Standing Orders or Sessional Orders, but what time Members are free from their duties to return to their families, as well as the servants of this House. Therefore, I believe that we have seen some signs of repentance on the part of the Lord President of the Council. I believe that he has seen the errors of his ways in the past, and the inconvenience he has imposed on Members in keeping the House so late, that he has decided that 10 o'clock is to be made the normal rising, plus the half-hour's Adjournment, and that the Motion for suspension will be moved only on very rare occasions. I congratulate him on his conversion.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Bramall: I had no intention of joining in this Debate until the right hon. and learned Gentleman the

1649
Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) referred to the Opposition desiring to return to the ideas of civilisation. Personally, I do not regard staying at one's job until 11 o'clock at night as being a permanent sign of civilisation. I consider that civilisation requires, among other things, a certain amount of sleep. If the need to carry out the business of this House requires that we should sit here until 11 o'clock, midnight, or from one to four o'clock in the morning, as we have had to do on many occasions, I am as willing as any Member to do it. To suggest that there is some advantage in making 11 o'clock instead of 10 o'clock the regular hour seems to me to be perverse.
If we have to sit this length of time, let us do it with a good grace and get our job done, but let us not say that we will stay on as a matter of course merely for the sake of talking. I am one of those back benchers who have reason to believe that the occupant of the Chair does not consider that I have much contribution to offer, because it is not very often that I take part in debates. I would much rather maintain that position and not be able to raise my voice quite so often, than that this House should be kept here merely in order that two or three Members like myself should make a few more speeches. I think that in the past we have had to sit late at night all too often. Let us, therefore, be thankful for the comparatively rare occasions when we can get away at 10 o'clock, and let us not make it a regular rule that we should sit longer.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the House for not having been at the beginning of the Debate, but this is the only 20 minutes I have spent out of the Chamber since three o'clock this afternoon. I hope that the House is not going to' accept the argument from the Treasury Bench. I think that the argument about the other persons who have to attend upon this House, the clerks, messengers and so on, is, with respect, really a false argument. It sometimes wavers on the edge of claptrap, and sometimes dips right down into the really irrational. Arthur Roberts used to say: "Whatever you do for a living, it spoils something: if you are an actor, it cuts into your evenings." If there are
1650
some disadvantages, there are some advantages in being in the service of this House; and if there is not, there certainly ought to be, ample remuneration to meet any over-plus of disadvantage over advantage. I am certain that if the House thinks its Debates are best conducted by going on to the hour of 11 o'clock, it should not hesitate on any grounds of kindheartedness to those whose attendance is objective and not substantive.
I want to say a word about the Private Members' point. I do not want to "come the old soldier," but it is fair for those of us who have tried both plans to testify about our experience. There are many Members who have never sat when the House is normally here until eleven; some of us have done both. I have never over-called the argument for what is called Private Members' time in the technical sense—the old Wednesdays and Fridays. I never thought it the most important thing from a back bench point of view. Much the most important thing is that ordinary Private Members, and particularly Private Members who may not be on the best of terms with their party authorities, should have a reasonable chance, every now and then, of taking part in full-dress debates. I sat in this House six years, I think, before I took part in a full-dress debate except when I made my maiden speech. If you cut the hour of stopping from 11 to 10, it cuts out about half the time available for those sort of attempts. The chance a Private Member has of getting in in the middle of a full-dress debate, even when, it may be, his own leaders are not particularly anxious for him to get in, is much cut down through moving the hour back from 11 to 10. I ask hon. Members who have not sat in the House under those conditions to think it possible that they may be mistaken in underestimating this point There is one other thing which I wanted to say but I have forgotten what it is. I do not think I ought to stay on my feet vamping till it comes back to me. I hope these two points, however, may both of them be carefully considered, as I believe them to be extremely serious.
Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 104.

Division No. 13.]

AYES.

[8.42 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Monslow, W.

Allan, A C (Bosworth)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Moody, A. S

Alpass, J H

Gallacher, W

Morgan, Dr. H B

Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

Ganley, Mrs C. S

Morley, R

Attewell, H C

Gibbins, J.

Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

Austin, H. Lewis

Gibson, C. W

Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham, E.)

Awbery, S S

Gilzean A

Mort, D L.

Ayles, W H

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Moyle, A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Gooch, E. G.

Murray, J D

Bacon, Miss A

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Nally, W

Baird, J

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

Naylor, T. E.

Balfour, A

Grenfell, D R

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Barstow, P G

Grey, C. F.

Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N)

Barton, C

Grierson, E.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Battley, J. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Bechervaise, A E

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J (Derby)

Benson, G

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Oldfield, W H

Berry, H

Gunter, R J.

Oliver, G. H

Beswick, F

Guy, W. H

Orbach, M

Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Binns, J

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Blackburn, A R

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Parkin, B. T

Blenkinsop, A

Hardy, E. A.

Pearson, A

Blyton, W R

Hastings, Dr Somerville

Perrins, W.

Boardman, H

Haworth, J

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W

Harbison, Miss M

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)

Hewitson, Capt M

Popplewell, E.

Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hicks, G.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Braddock, T (Mitcham)

Hobson, C. R

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Bramall, E A

Holman, P

Pritt, D. N.

Brook, D (Halifax)

Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

Proctor, W. T.

Brooks, T J (Rothwell)

Hoy, J

Pryde, D. J.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hubbard, T

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Brown, T J (Ince)

Hudson, J H (Ealing, W)

Randall, H. E.

Bruce, Maj D W T

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ranger, J.

Buchanan, G

Hutchinson, H L (Rusholme)

Rankin, J.

Burden, T W

Irvine, A. J (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Reeves, J.

Butcher, H W

Irving, W. J (Tottenham, N.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Callaghan, James

Isaacs, Rt Hon G. A

Richards, R.

Castle, Mrs B A

Janner, B.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Chamberlain, R A

Jay, D P. T.

Robens, A.

Chater, D

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Chetwynd, G R

Jeger, Dr S W (St. Pancras, S E)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Cluse, W S

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Cobb, F A

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Royle, C.

Cocks, F S.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Sargood, R.

Coldrick, W

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitch)

Scollan, T.

Collick, P

Keenan, W

Scott-Elliot, W.

Collindridge, F

Kenyan, C

Segal, Dr. S.

Colman, Miss G M

Key, C. W

Shackleton, E. A. A

Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

Sharp, Granville

Corlett, Dr J

Kinley, J.

Shurmer, P.

Corvedale, Viscount

Kirkwood, D.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Crawley, A.

Lawson, Rt. Hon J J

Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

Daggar, G

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Simmons, C. J.

Daines, P

Leslie, J R

Skeffington, A. M

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Levy, B. W

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Skinnard, F W

Deer, G

Lindgren, G. S.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lipton, Lt -Col. M

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Delargy, H. J

Logan, D G

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Diamond, J

Longden, F

Sorensen, R. W.

Dobbie, W

Lyne, A W

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Dodds, N. N

McAdam, W

Sparks, J. A

Donovan, T

McAllister, G

Stamford, W

Dumpleton, C W

McEntee, V La T

Steele, T.

Dye, S

McGhee, H G

Stress, Dr B

Ede, Rt. Hon J C

Mack, J D.

Stubbs, A E

Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N W.)

Swingler, S.

Edwards, Rt. Hon Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McKinlay, A S.

Sylvester, G. O

Edwards, N (Caerphilly)

Maclean, N (Govan)

Symonds, A. L

Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

Macpherson, T (Romford)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mainwaring, W. H

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

Mann, Mrs J.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Ewart, R

Manning, C (Camberwell, N)

Thomas, I O (Wrekin)

Fairhurst, F

Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

Thomas, John R (Dover)

Farthing, W J

Medland, H. M.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Fernyhough, E

Messer, F

Thurtle, Ernest

Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)

Middleton, Mrs L

Tiffany, S.

Follick, M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

Timmons, J

Foot, M M

Mitchison, G R

Titterington, M F

1652

1653

Tolley, L.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Willis, E.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Turner-Samuels, M.

West, D. G.

Wise, Major F J

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Woodburn, A

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Woods, G. S

Viant, S. P.

Wigg, George

Wyatt, W

Walker, G H

Wilcock, Group-Cant. C. A. B

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Wallace, G. D. (Chirslehurst)

Wilkes, L.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Zilliacus, K.

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Watkins, T. E.

Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)

TEDLERS FOR THE AYES:

Watson, W. M.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Williamson, T.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Ramsey, Maj. S.

Barlow, Sir J.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Howard, Hon. A.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bossom, A. C.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bowen, R.

Hurd, A

Ropner, Col. L.

Bower, N.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Jarvis, Sir J.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jennings, R.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Byers, Frank

Lambert, Hon. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Carson, E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Snadden, W. M.

Challen, C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Studholme, H G.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Sutcliffe, H

Cooper-Key, E. M.

McCallum, Maj D

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Crowder, Capt. John E

Marples, A. E.

Touche, G. C.

De la Bère, R.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Digby, S. W.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Vane, W. M. F.

Donner, P. W

Medlicott, F.

Wakefield, Sir W W.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Mellor, Sir J.

Walker-Smith, D.

Drewe, C.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Duthie, W. S

Nicholson, G.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Erroll, F. J

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fox, Sir G.

Osborne, C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gage, C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

York, C

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Pickthorn, K.

Grimston, R. V.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Raikes, H. V.

Major Conant.

8.53 p.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out "Twenty-six" and to insert "Twenty-eight."
The Motion to insert a new Standing Order No. 14 under which there are to be 26 days allotted to the business of Supply each Session appears at first sight to be generous. We all know that at the moment there are 20 Supply days, so-called. When we look into the matter, we find that the proposal is anything but generous. The days which are to be allotted to the business of Supply under the new Standing Order No. 14 are to cover a variety of topics which have time at present on days other than any of the 20 Supply days.
I do not think there is really any controversy about this matter. There are four days on which Mr. Speaker is moved
1654
out of the Chair on going into Committee on the Navy, Army, Air or Civil Estimates. Those four days are additional to the 20, but they are to be included in the 26. There are a number of days, varying from Session to Session, devoted to Supplementary Estimates. The House will be aware that Supplementary Estimates are at present debatable outside the 20 Supply days. If anyone cares to look at the table to be found on page 1, he will find that, on the average, some five days per Session have been devoted to consideration of Supplementary Estimates and that in some years the number of days has gone into double figures. Accordingly, there will be at least 29 days under those three headings now to be compressed into 26.
There is another fact which I brought out in the course of certain questions

1655
which anybody who is interested will find on pages 42 and 131 of the evidence. I put questions both to the learned Clerk and to the Lord President. I do not want to read the passages, but they both agreed that the Government would insist, under the new scheme which will come into operation under this Standing Order, on the Opposition taking a Supply day for certain topics where they are not in a position to insist on that at present. The reason given was that the Supply day season, if I may so term it, only begins in the spring whereas, under the proposals for these changes, the season goes on throughout the year.
Accordingly, if a question arises in the autumn which requires debate, which is a question arising out of the administration, the Government at present have to give a day out of Government time. But if we have a Supply day season throughout the year, it was admitted by the Lord President that Governments would probably say, "Well, Supply days are available now; you had better take one." I put it to the learned Clerk and the Lord President that it was not only 28 or 29 days that were being compressed into 26, but something more like 32 days. But if that is excessive, there is no doubt at all that several days are being cut off the time at present available for the consideration of administration and criticism of policy. The excuse given by the Lord President was so thin as to show that there was no other reason at all, except a desire to curtail legitimate opportunity for discussion in order to increase legislative output.
The right hon. Gentleman—and I do not wish to quote the passage; it is to be found in his evidence on page 128–said that because the Committee's proposal for a new committee to supervise public expenditure was being turned down, and because it had been suggested that two of the 28 days might properly be devoted to consideration of their reports, these two days could be saved. The right hon. Gentleman, however, completely failed to observe that precisely the same questions will arise now as would arise if the proposal for a new Committee on Public Expenditure had been adopted. The necessity for criticism of Government expenditure would arise. We have had some very valuable reports from the Committee
1656
on Estimates. If the new proposals had been adopted these would have been reports of the Committee on Public Expenditure. But in either case they ought to be debated in the House. The same applies to the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, all that would have happened, if the proposals of the Committee had been accepted, would have been to change the name on the outside of these reports. The reports would have been there just the same; the necessity for criticism would have been there just the same. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman takes advantage of this purely nominal change to curtail the 28 days to 26, and gives no reason whatever. If that is so, this is a deliberate attempt to curtail the existing facilities of this House for the consideration of Government policy and the expenditure of public money.
That seems to run through a good deal of the Government's proposals, part of which the House is now being asked to adopt, although the Committee, unanimously in many cases, rejected them. I would like to refer to the somewhat naive terms of the first paragraph on page 97 of the Report headed:
"REFORM IN PROCEDURE
Memorandum by His Majesty's Government
… The Government inevitably approach this matter from a point of view different from that of the Clerk of the House. He is concerned with 'the general improvement of the machinery and forms of proceedings of the House so as to provide suitable instruments for the discharge of its various functions'; the Government, on the other hand, must be constantly mindful of their legislative requirements. …"
So there is a deliberate statement that the necessary functions of this House must be curtailed in order that the Government may get through a swollen legislative programme.
Let us for a moment accept the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that when they first came into power there were a lot of arrears to be overtaken, and that there had to be a rather swollen legislative programme for a year or two until those arrears were overtaken. Of course, I would not agree with them, but that would be a fair statement of the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Will that not come to an end some day? Will they not overtake those arrears some day? I should have thought that this wonderful

1657
programme would some day reach a stage when a spate of legislation was no longer necessary to sustain it and I should have thought that when that day comes, however much it might be necessary to curtail proper discussion while the spate of legislation is going through, we might return to a full discharge of the proper functions of this House. If the Government had said—I go back to the same point that has been made so often today—that last year the facilities for the discussion of finance and policy ought to have been curtailed, from their point of view there would have been a good deal to say for it, but they did not say that. In the peak year of legislative output they allowed the old system to continue, and it is only now, when I would assume that we are beginning the lessening of legislative output, that we have to start curtailing proper opportunities for discussion. Is it really to be said that next year and the year after there is still to be such a spate of legislative enactments that we cannot properly discharge our ancient functions of criticism? That is the meaning of this proposal, and that is confessed to be the meaning of this proposal in the Government's own Memorandum.
Let me examine for a moment what the effect of this curtailment will be. It sounds a small thing, curtailing from 28, 30 or 32 to 26 days. The party opposite take the view that the Government ought to interfere in more and more aspects of our life. It may be a good view or a bad one, but that is the view they take, and accordingly, the more they interfere, according to their theory, the more there is to criticise and the wider is the scope of Government activity which ought to be subject to criticism in this House. Therefore, as Government activity expands under Socialist theory, so ought the opportunity for raising questions about it if time were available.
Let me give one example—Scottish affairs. In the past it has been usual that two of the 20 Supply days should be devoted to Scottish affairs, and that was not wholly inadequate in the past, although now it would not be reasonable to suppose that more than two days out of these 26 should be devoted to Scottish affairs because there is the whole of Imperial affairs, Defence affairs, United Kingdom Departments, and so on, in
1658
addition to those Departments which operate solely in England and solely in Scotland. Therefore, it would not be reasonable, except in some special circumstances, for more than two days to be devoted to Scottish affairs. We offered the Government an alternative, seeing this coming and seeing the growth of administration in Scotland. We said, "If you are determined to cut down facilities for discussion of Scottish business, or restrict the facilities on the Floor of the House, what about giving us some more facilities upstairs where they will not interfere with the Government programme on the Floor of the House?" Last Thursday I thought the Lord President was at least going to give us an opportunity of discussing that proposal, but apparently not. I am surprised that the Government take this view. Not only must opportunities for legitimate discussion be restricted on the Floor of the House, but no alternative is to be allowed anywhere else.
What is the object of this? It is not to save time. Is it to prevent the legitimate ventilation of perfectly proper points? Very often, I should think in the majority of cases, when a Supply day is put down by the Opposition, there is no Division; the object is to get an explanation to let the public understand what is going on. It is not a search for opportunities to beat the Government; the search is for opportunities to inform the public, as they ought to be informed if this is a democratic country. Here the Government are deliberately curtailing opportunity on the Floor of the House, preventing an outlet upstairs, and thereby making it quite certain that Scottish affairs at Least cannot be discussed adequately by 'Scottish Members of Parliament. I have no doubt that if one went into other Departments, the same would follow.
If we cut down these days, it is not the contentious Departments that will suffer. We shall not find that the Minister of Health gets off without a Supply day; we shall not find that some of his other colleagues get off either. It is the more humdrum Departments that are inclined to be lost sight of, where a Supply day is extremely valuable, which will not perhaps have a Supply day at all in the future, whereas in the past they would have had one, not every year, but most years. That is not where there will be any attack on the Government but where there is

1659
an opportunity of forming public opinion. That is the kind of opportunity which these proposals will cut off. The Government will not save themselves from any attacks—the Opposition will see to that—by cutting down the number of days. They will prevent the country from learning about a number of extremely important and interesting matters and having public opinions formed on these matters.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about this. Is he really going to tell us that so great will be the spate of legislation this year, next year, the year after, and the year after that, if he is still in power, that he cannot afford even then to give us 28 Supply days? I wonder if he really will say that? That is the only excuse that has yet been put forward. He cannot say, because nobody has said upstairs or anywhere else as yet, that 28 days is in any way excessive for the proper discharge of its functions by this side. It is impossible for him to say that. If he cannot say that, he must find some other and. more essential use to which the House must put the time. I ask him, does he really think that we are going on legislating for ever at the rate at which we have been legislating last year and this year? If not, what is the reason for depriving the House and the country of proper opportunities for formulating public opinion?
9.11 p.m.
The Solicitor - General (Sir Frank Soskice): The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has delivered himself of a detailed and,—I am making no complaint—fairly long speech. The speech was designed to show that the Government were apparently deliberately trying to prevent hon. Members having an adequate opportunity of discussing matters of interest to them. If the Government have not that intention, his speech is quite beside the point. The issue is really much narrower. There is no question of attempting to deprive anyone. The issue between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government on this point is whether the figure should be 28, or 26. That is a very narrow issue, and could be resolved by a very simple consideration of the basis upon which the Committee arrived at the figure of 28.
1660
To judge by the terms of the Report, they took the 20 Supply days allotted at present, and added to them the four days on which Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair, and in addition to that they estimated that the figure for Supplementary Estimates should be another four days. Those numbers added together come to 28. The whole point on which we differ from that estimate is as to the proper time for Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a figure of five days but, in giving evidence, the Clerk of the House gave figures which showed that on a true analysis the figure should be somewhat less. For many Sessions before the war something like two days were taken. In 1935 and 1936 the figure was 2¾ days, and in 1937 and 1938 it was 2½ days—
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There was good administration in those days.
The Solicitor-General: I am accepting the 20 Supply days, and the four days on which Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair. How much more should be allotted for the purpose of Supplementary Estimates in view of that analysis? That analysis is between two and three days. The further consideration the Committee seem to have had in mind is that there should be two days' precedence given to the reports of the Public Accounts Committee which they recommended. As the House knows, that recommendation is not being accepted, and business which can be taken in Supply under the new Standing Order would permit of the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to be taken on those days. Therefore, we feel that that consideration should not influence the figure finally arrived at as being the token figure.
It is really such a small issue, the issue being that 20, plus four days, being accepted as proper, how much further should one go than that, bearing in mind that the object of the Committee in investigating the Procedure of the House was to see how far it could be expedited, and how far unnecessary discussion could be cut off. We feel that adding to the 24 days another two to cover the period of time which experience has shown in recent years is necessary for Supplementary Estimates is quite enough. It is upon that basis that we have arrived at the figure of 26 days.
Mr. David Renton: Would the Solicitor-General give the figures for the last two Sessions of the number of days spent on Supplementary Estimates? So far he has only quoted prewar figures.
The Solicitor-General: I quoted from the actual figures given in the evidence. I will endeavour to give the figures for the last two Sessions. I know that they were quite small.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it seems to me that the discussion on this particular small point—I do not mean small in importance but in scope—really does not justify wandering over the very large field which he covered in the course of his remarks. I would ask the House to say that it is a question of 26 or 28 days, and whether there is any reason for the extra two days, and that if there is not in order to achieve the best effect from the work of the Committee, namely, to prevent any unnecessary waste of time in the proceedings of the House, obviously the two days should come off. I would ask the House to say that we have hit on the right figure, and that the figure of 26 days is the proper one; that it is unnecessary and, being unnecessary, it is unjustifiable to allow further time.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Renton: The Solicitor-General has sought to justify the 26 days by his contention that only two days will be required for Supplementary Estimates. In justifying that contention, he has quoted the prewar figures of the number of days spent on Supplementary Estimates. It will be within the recollection of most hon. Members that during the past Session we spent very much more than two days upon Supplementary Estimates. The matter very largely rests with the Government. If they do not have to produce Supplementary Estimates, if they have managed to look ahead sufficiently at the time the Estimates are produced, clearly it will not be necessary to produce Supplementary Estimates. In fact, last Session, when the Supplementary Estimates were put forward, they gave rise to certain matters which called for further inquiry. In regard to the Army Estimates at least, that further inquiry required one evening a further three or four hours of consideration of the Supplementary Estimate all over again.
1662
That was the occasion when it was revealed that £50 million were being asked for on a Supplementary Estimate in order to cover the misdealings in German marks and N.A.A.F.I. cigarettes in occupied Germany.
The real importance of the matter seems to me to be that when the Supplementary Estimates come forward, both the Government and the House have an opportunity of considering in some detail matters of important current interest, and if we are to be curtailed at this stage to the very short period of two days for the consideration of these matters, they will not receive the attention which they have received in the past, at all events during the past Session. The Solicitor-General has promised us that, before this Debate comes to an end, he will give us for the past two Sessions, the figures of the time spent on Supplementary Estimates. That is of great importance, bearing in mind that the Clerk of the House, when giving evidence before the Committee, said that the average time spent was four days. Presumably the amount of time spent on Supplementary Estimates has increased considerably since the prewar days which the Solicitor-General quoted. In conclusion, I would like to ask the House to look ahead in this matter. It would be a very great pity indeed by our vote this evening to curtail important discussion of matters which at this moment, cannot be foreseen but which may arise at some distant time.
The Solicitor-General: If I may interrupt, I have now got the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I was wrong on the last figure. The figures and the summary show that over the last 17 years the average is two and one-seventh of a day, or just over two days; in 1946 it was one and one-seventh; and in 1947 it was five and two-sevenths. I was wrong about the last year, but for the previous year I gave an over-estimate. The over-all average for 17 years is two and one-seventh.
Mr. Renton: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but surely the figure of five and two-sevenths for 1947 is an indication of the fact that, owing partly, no doubt, to the times in which we live, these unexpected matters arise. These are times in which the Government themselves are always claiming

1663
that they are having to provide suddenly for the unexpected. I should have thought that, from their own point of view, it would be most unwise to curtail this. It seems to me that it is only by the use of the Closure in future that they can rush through in two days anything approaching the volume of Supplementary Estimates which they have ever put before us in five days during the past Session. In my submission, there is an overwhelming case in support of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid).
9.22 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General's arithmetic is right but it is slightly surprising if one looks at the run of the figures beforehand. It is very striking, if one looks at the run of the figures, that, going back, when there was a Socialist Government more days were required for Supplementary Estimates. There is no doubt about that; that is a statistical fact. There are various ways of explaining it. Men with one set of prejudices might say it is because Socialist Ministers are incompetent administrators; men with another set of prejudices might say it is because a Socialist Government naturally plans more and plans better, and the more planning there is the more, every now and then, it requires to be dug up and looked at.
Whatever the reason, the figures are certainly very striking. Three and three-quarters, seven and as much as up to eight and a quarter days have been needed; so that the Solicitor-General's argument that we need not reckon on there ever really being any need for more than two days on Supplementary Estimates does not really seem to be very strong, looking at the statistics of the last 20 years. Nor can I pay very much attention to his argument that, after all, the Committee was honestly looking for ways of saving time for the Government. That is true. The hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), I am sure, would bear evidence that the whole Committee—there were no personal or party differences—was honestly trying to look for ways of saving time. I cannot understand why the Solicitor-General thinks that is an argument for his view. The fact that the Committee, doing its best to save the Government time, could not get the figure
1664
below 28–why that is an argument to persuade us to believe that it now ought to be brought down to 26. I cannot understand at all.
The Solicitor-General's only other argument was that this is a very small thing—that the scope is very small. The scope is not so very small. Two out of 28 is one-fourteenth—as a percentage I cannot work it out so quickly—something like 14 per cent. None of us would think that a small charge on our income or a small charge on most of the other things we care about. I suggest that the House ought to be extremely slow to think that cutting down by one-fourteenth the amount of time that the House can insist upon having—not that the Government chooses but that the House can insist upon having devoted to Supplementary Estimates—I cannot believe that the House ought to accept the argument that cutting that down by so much as one-fourteenth is a matter of very small scope.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Member who has just spoken did not want to mislead the House, but the figures he quoted certainly do not bear out the charge he made that Supplementary Estimates tend to occupy a longer period of time in the House when there is a Labour Government than when there is not.
Mr. Pickthorn: I did not make a charge; I stated a fact.
Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member made the statement, and said the figures quoted in the Report showed that as a fact, and he also went on to say that it was the period of time taken on Supplementary Estimates which was the only argument adduced by the learned Solicitor-General in support of his case for reducing the number of Supply days from 28 to 26. What I want to say, in order that the House may not be misled, is that the figures do not show that at all. What they do show, if hon. Members would like to look at pages lxii and lxiii, is that there has been a steady decline in the length of time occupied in the House in considering Supplementary Estimates. For example, in. 1926, when there was a Conservative Government—
Captain Crookshank: Could we have 1924, when there was a Labour Government?
Mr. Fletcher: Starting with 1920, the figure is 12¼ days; in 1921, under a Coalition Government, 11½; in 1922, still a Coalition Government, 12. When there was a Labour Government in 1924, it fell to seven. In 1923, it was even smaller; it was three and a quarter. In 1924, it was seven, in 1924–25, it was six and a half, and, in 1926, under a Conservative Government, it was 11½ again. These figures certainly do not bear out the statement made by the hon. Member. On the contrary, what the figures show is that there has been a tendency in recent years for less time to be spent on Supplementary Estimates than in the days from 1920 to 1930. I only mention that in order that the House should appreciate the facts.
Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman is quite fair, of course—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is out of Order.
Mr. Pickthorn: I was only trying to point out—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said the hon. Member is out of Order. Colonel Ropner.
9.29 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: I hesitate before giving any further figures in connection with this dispute as to whether the number of days to be devoted to Supply should be 28 or 26, but, somewhere in one of these three voluminous Reports, I have found that if, in the Business of Supply, we include the Supplementary or additional Estimates, Excess Votes, Votes on Account and the four days devoted to moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, as well as those devoted to the main Estimates—in other words, when we include all the business which the Government now proposes should be taken on Supply days—the actual annual average from 1906 to 1938 was 28.6 days. It therefore seems to me that when the Select Committee, which had a great deal more time than we are prepared to devote tonight to the examination of these figures, recommended that the number of Supply days should be 28, they had that particular figure in view, and were endeavouring to save the Government, on the average,.6 of a day a year.
The learned Solicitor-General said we were accusing the Government of deliberately trying to stifle Debate on Supply
1666
days. I do not think that we, on this side of the House have ever accused the Government in such strong language as that, but my hon. Friend who preceded me was, of course, right when he said that the difference between 28 days and 26 is a very real difference. The extra two days, as recommended by the Select Committee, would be very valuable additions to the time which this House devotes to the control of administrative policy. As we all know, Supply days are, more and more, devoted to criticism of administrative policy. They are of real value to this House, and, moreover, speaking on behalf of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House, we are glad to have these occasions of suggesting the subject for debate—some of the not too frequent occasions when the Opposition has still a say in the business which shall come before the House. For the reasons which I have given, and for the reasons which other hon. Members from this side of the House have given, I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter, and will accept the recommendation of the Select Committee to allow 28 days instead of 26.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Donner: Having listened to this brief discussion, it seems to me that one aspect of this matter has been quite inadequately considered, if not wholly overlooked. It is that we are certainly not discussing the time which the Government must give to the consideration of Supplementary Estimates, but the time which the House can use for the purpose of discussing such Estimates if, at any time, it becomes important or essential that it should do so. If that is the case, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should wish to deprive this House of Commons of an opportunity to discuss matters, which may well be unforeseen, when time need not, in fact, be used up for that purpose should it not be necessary. If I am right in thinking that that is the crux of the matter, it seems to me that the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General falls to the ground, and that the Government have no case at all.
9.33 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It seems to me that the Government are treating the House a little cavalierly in this matter. After all, it is the fundamental right of this House to stress grievances on Supply days; it is

1667
the foundation on which this House is built. This is not a matter on which the Government are opposed to the Opposition; it is a matter on which the Executive is opposed to the House as a whole. It is as much in the interest of hon. Members on the Government side as in the interest of hon. Members on this side. There is nothing, in any way, that the private Member on the Opposition side gains more than the private Member on the Government side. Indeed, in many cases the private Member on the Government side is more interested in an adequate discussion on Supply than the Opposition, because the Opposition have opportunities of putting down business which must be considered, such as Motions of Censure, and so on. But it is on Supply day that the ordinary back bencher on the Government side has an opportunity of bringing forward his grievances for consideration.
The Lord President deplored—and I also deplore—the fact that Supply days tend to pass more and more into the ambit of general discussions, and that the actual close, meticulous consideration of administration, which used to be one of the main features of Supply day, is tending to pass rather into oblivion. But, in so far as Supply days are cut down, that tendency will increase, and, in so far as more Supply days are made available, that tendency will decrease. The case of Scottish business is very much to the point here. It is true that Scottish Members desire—as the Lord President will have noticed, if on any occasion he strode into the House during the discussion of Scottish business, and could understand the language in which we conduct our affairs on those days—by the stringent limitation of speeches, to reduce our consideration of supply proposals to actual factual criticism. But we do desire, and have frequently desired, that more time should be available for that purpose. We have brought forward proposals whereby more time should be available for that purpose—more time which could only be devoted to that exact, meticulous scrutiny of administration which is desired by both the right hon. Gentleman and myself—and to reverse this tendency of general policy discussions and focus the light of the criticism of the ordinary Member on the day-to-day actions of the administration.
1668
The Lord President of the Council finds himself unable to consider that proposal or even attempt to discuss it. It is a little hard that he also, through the mouth of the Solicitor-General, desires to hold down, to curb and drastically to limit the number of days on which Supply may be discussed. I altogether reject the argument that, taking an average over a long period of years, one can say that so many days were required each year, and, therefore, the number of days can be limited by a strict Resolution of the House to no more than that average. The figures in respect of the period immediately after the last war were figures of very large numbers of days for Supplementary Estimates. It is not enough to say that after the war period these figures came down to numbers which would enable us to average out as a maximum a period no more than the period which is suggested here. Those were days when the country was straightening itself out after a great war, as it is doing now. A margin of days in administration is just as important as a certain amount of play in the smooth working of machinery.
If I may say so, the Solicitor-General does not remember those days. But the Lord President of the Council remembers. His memory stretches over a long period of Parliamentary time. He remembers years when a very considerable number of days was required, and when under his vigorous impulse, the Opposition required, demanded and used to the utmost every opportunity of a Supply, day which it could seize. It is a little ungenerous of him to deny to those who are now in Opposition the opportunities which he used to the full in his own day.
I wish to emphasise with every means at my disposal that Supply is the means by which the Member of Parliament exercises a certain amount of control on the Executive. Once the House has voted Supply its power has gone. It can express its disapproval of the Executive in various ways, but it cannot enforce that disapproval. When the Executive has got its Supply voted, the Executive is safe in the saddle and can snap its fingers at the ordinary Member. On more than one occasion a revolt over Supply has taken place on the Government side, both when right hon. and hon. Members on this side were sitting on the opposite benches, and when they were not. Many of us have seen such a revolt brewing up. That is

1669
the moment when the Whips say to the Minister in charge, "We have got to pay attention to the House because the House is getting fractious about Supply." If the House once gets fractious about Supply, the Government know that their progress is really endangered, and at that point the Government begin to pay attention to the ordinary Members who may be discussing the matter.
I know very well that on more than one occasion in the Scottish administration, for instance, I have seen such a movement among the Scottish Members—not from one side only, but from more than one side—who have expressed themselves as being very hostile to the Government and have succeeded in obtaining reforms of considerable advantage. The MacBrayne contract, the whole question of Highland transport, is a case in point. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President may not think that very important, but it was very important from the point of view of those concerned, and from the point of view of the House asserting its ancient and traditional right in the redress of grievances. On that occasion the House insisted on the redress of grievances, and obtained it before granting the Government of the day their Supply.
We have offered alternatives on that particular line of Scottish Business. There is not, I think, a Scottish Minister, not even the humblest, anywhere on the Government Front Bench, not a Scottish Member opposite, not even the humblest, who has dared to raise his voice during this discussion; and I suppose none will. I think they are abdicating their position, and abdicating rights which are not theirs to give away. It is not within the discretion of the Private Members of today to give away the rights which have been won for them by Private Members in generations past. More opportunities rather than fewer will be required for Supply. I think it was in the time of Mr. Gladstone that this allotment of 20 Supply days was made. How vast the extension of the power of Governments since that day! How enormous the sweep of their operations, the impact of their work upon our everyday life! I was surprised at the moderation of the Committee when examining this. It seems to me that a case might well have been made out for a considerable extension of the
1670
Supply days on which the administration of the Government is reviewed and revised. But for the Government not merely not to add to, but actually to shorten, the period which is proposed by the Committee, which examined this in far greater detail than we are able to today, seems to me indefensible. To put up one Member of the Government to defend this proposal and one only, and not a senior Member, or one with the greatest experience of administration and of the working of this House is, indeed, treating the House a little cavalierly, and the purposes and traditions by which we came into existence as one of the greatest Parliaments in the world.
9.43 p.m.
Mr. McKie: I should not have intervened but for the enlivening speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I am bound to say that I agree with every word that he said. I speak on this matter, as he does, from the point of view of a Scottish Member, although the whole question before us now goes far beyond the purview of a Scottish Member, and far beyond the province of a Member of the Opposition or a supporter of the Government in this House, for it is a matter which concerns every hon. Member of the House, this question of the granting of supplies. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has asked, what does the granting of Supply exist for but the redress of grievances?
My right hon. and gallant Friend very rightly called attention to the fact that we on this side of the House—or, indeed, all Scottish Members, no matter in what part of the House they may sit—have for long years felt that, as far as the granting of Supply has been accorded, we have suffered somewhat unfairly in having merely two days in a Session. Now, by this proposal—and I have no doubt that the proposal will go through merely by the automatic ringing of the bells on the Government side—even the modest request suggested by the Select Committee on Procedure, that the days accorded to supply should, be 28, will be reduced.
I approach this matter from the point of view of a Scottish Member, not merely as an Opposition Member, not merely as a Private Member of the House; and I ask myself, if we are to be accorded only 26 days instead of the 28 suggested by

1671
the Select Committee on Procedure, how will Scottish interests in the future come to be dealt with? We shall have even fewer opportunities in the future than we have had in the past of putting forward the question of Scottish rights and Scottish grievances. That is a matter which hon. Members opposite certainly cannot overlook. Who have been loudest in the past regarding Scottish grievances? Even though I do not notice one right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench at the present time who represents those interests, who have been loudest in declaiming against the way Scottish interests have been overlooked in this House than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now they calmly come down here and, by their silence, give tacit consent to this curtailment, and when the Division bell rings they will go into the Government Lobby in support of this Motion.
I should like to enter my most emphatic protest against the cavalier way in which the Solicitor-General attempted to reply—as far as he replied at all—to this quite modest Amendment which, after all, is only a request that the wishes of the Select Committee on Procedure should be complied with. As my right hon. and gallant Friend very properly pointed out, the granting of Supply is one of the oldest prerogatives—if I may so express it—which the Private Member on either side of the House has in his or her jurisdiction and control.
Outside, when hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby, they will see two pictures—[Laughter.] From the hilarity with which my remarks are greeted by hon. Members opposite I can only plead for them that they are yet too new to the ways of this House to appreciate what I am attempting to express. Outside there are two pictures, one in St. Stephen's Hall and one in the Lobby which leads from here to the Central Lobby. They illustrate—and illustrate well—what my right hon. and gallant Friend was outlining to the House a few moments ago. One is a picture of Speaker Lenthall kneeling before a former monarch and saying that he had neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, but as this House, whose servant he was, was pleased to direct him. That was on the legal granting of Supply. Go into St. Stephen's Hall and there is the other
1672
picture—now unveiled again after the ravages of war—of Sir Thomas More refusing the imperious demands of Cardinal Wolsey on behalf of King Henry VIII to the granting of Supply without due debate.
I respectfully submit that this present House will be in danger if the Home Secretary, the Lord President or the Solicitor-General in their wisdom, or unwisdom, refuse to grant us this very modest Amendment. There are many hon. Members opposite who will never be in this House again, and I should have thought that my remarks would appeal to them, and especially to the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), whose majority is a very slight one. I should have thought she especially would have been glad to agree to our modest request that the number of Supply days should be increased from 26 to 28. By her manner she seems to suggest that any modest caveat of mine which she might endeavour—
Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member is saying. He seems to be addressing his remarks to the other end of the Chamber, and I have not heard a single word.
Mr. McKie: I was merely suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there were some hon. Members on the Government Benches who would do well to consider this modest Amendment sympathetically; and I was pointing out that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division in particular should have been prepared to agree to this quite modest Amendment. However, she seems not to be prepared to do so, thus my words apparently fell upon deaf ears. I hope that even now the Home Secretary—who seems by his manner to be in a yielding mood—will be prepared to get up and say that after due consideration, and the many pleas which have been addressed to him from this side, and having listened to the persuasive arguments which have been put forward in no partisan spirit, but simply that the business of Supply and the redress of grievances shall be carried on in the same efficient manner, that he will increase the number of days from 26 to 28.
Question put, "That 'Twenty-six' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 116.

Division No. 14.]

AYES.

[9.51 p.m.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Grey, C. F.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Alpass, J. H.

Grierson, E.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Attewell, H. C.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Austin, H. Lewis

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Oldfield, W. H.

Awbery, S. S.

Gunter, R. J.

Oliver, G. H.

Ayles, W. H.

Guy, W. H

Orbach, M.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Hall, Rt. Hun. Glenvil

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Bacon, Miss A.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Baird, J.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Parker, J.

Balfour, A.

Hardy, E. A.

Parkin, B. T

Barstow, P. G.

Hastings, Dr Somerville

Pearson, A

Barton, C.

Haworth, J

Perrins, W.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Herbison, Miss M.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Benson, G.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Berry, H.

Hobson, C. R.

Popplewell, E.

Beswick, F.

Holman, P.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Binns, J

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hoy, J.

Pritt, D. N.

Blyton, W. R.

Hubbard, T.

Proctor, W T.

Boardman, H.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Pryde, D. J

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hutchinson, H L (Rusholme)

Randall, H. E.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

Ranger, J.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Rankin, J.

Bramall, E A.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Reeves, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

Janner, B.

Richards, R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Jay, D. P. T.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Bruce, Maj. D W. T.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Robens, A.

Buchanan, G.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Callaghan, James

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Chamberlain, R A

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Royle, C.

Chater, D.

Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

Sargood, R.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Keenan, W.

Scollan, T.

Cobb, F. A.

Kenyon, C.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Coldrick, W

Key, C. W.

Segal, Dr. S.

Collick, P.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Collindridge, F.

Kinley, J.

Sharp, Granville

Colman, Miss G. M.

Kirkwood, D.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Shurmer, P.

Corlett, Dr J

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Corvedale, Viscount

Leslie, J. R.

Simmons, C. J.

Crawley, A.

Levy, B. W.

Skeffington, A M.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Daggar, G

Lindgren, G. S.

Skinnard, F W

Daines, P

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Logan, D G

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Deer, G.

Longden, F.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Delargy, H. J

Lyne, A. W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Diamond, J.

McAdam, W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Dobbie, W.

McAllister, G.

Sparks, J. A

Dodds, N. N

McEntee, V La T

Stamford, W.

Donovan, T

McGhee, H. G.

Steele, T.

Dumpleton, C W

Mack, J D.

Stross, Dr. B

Dye, S.

McKinlay, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Maclean, N (Govan)

Swingler, S.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

Sylvester, G. O

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Symonds, A. L.

Evans, A (Islington, W.)

Mann, Mrs J.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Ewart, R

Marquand, H. A.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Fairhurst, F

Medland, H. M.

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

Farthing, W J

Messer, F

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Fernyhough, E.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Follick, M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mitchison, G. R.

Thurtle, Ernest

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Monslow, W.

Tiffany, S.

Gallacher, W

Moody, A. S

Timmons, J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Titterington, M. F.

Gibbins, J

Morley, R.

Tolley, L.

Gibson, C. W

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Gilzean, A

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Turner-Samuels, M

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mort, D L

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Gooch, E. G.

Murray, J D

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Nally, W.

Viant, S. P

Grenfell, D. R.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Walker, G. H

1674

1675

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Whiteley, Rt Hon. W

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wigg, George

Wise, Major F J

Warbey, W. N.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A B

Woods, G. S

Watkins, T. E.

Wilkes, L

Wyatt, W.

Watson, W. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Younger, Hon Kenneth

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Zilliacus, K

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

Wells, W T. (Walsall)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

West, D. G.

Williamson, T.

Mr. Snow and

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Willis, E.

Mr. Richard Adams

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Howard, Hon. A.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ)

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Barlow, Sir J

Hurd, A

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Jarvis, Sir J.

Renton, D.

Bossom, A. C

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Bowen, R.

Jennings, R.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bower, N.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ropner, Col. L

Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sanderson, Sir F

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Butcher, H. W.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Byers, Frank

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Snadden, W. M.

Carson, E.

Low, A. R. W.

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Channon, H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Studholme, H. G.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

McCallum, Maj D.

Sutcliffe, H.

Cooper-Key, E. M

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F. C

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Crowder, Capt. John E

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Thorp. Lt.-Col. R A F

De la Bère, R.

Marples, A. E.

Touche, G. C.

Digby, S. W.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Donner, P. W.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Vane, W. M. F

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Medlicott, F.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Mellor, Sir J

Walker-Smith, D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Morrison, Maj J G. (Salisbury)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Erroll, F J

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Fox, Sir G

Nicholson, G.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P M

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gage, C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Osborne, C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

York, C.

Grimston, R. V.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pickthorn, K.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Mr. Drewe and

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Major Conant.

Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

Raikes, H. V

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), in line 74 to leave out from "day," to "That," and insert: "a motion is moved."
I had some hesitation in selecting it. To start with I thought I would not select it because it was covered, but it just shows how difficult it is at short notice to discover the actual meaning of an Amendment. I believe there is something behind this which I had not discovered, although I did my best this morning to look at all the Amendments. That must mean, therefore, that I really cannot consider manuscript Amendments which I have not had the opportunity of considering, and I will not do so.
10.2 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: I beg to move in line 74, to leave out from "day," to "That," and to insert "a motion is moved."
The Select Committee did not recommend any increase in the four days which have customarily been devoted for moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair when first going into Committee of Supply, but the Government, when they announced their decision on 17th March, said:
"There should be no limitation on the number of occasions when debate may arise on the Motion: 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 31.]
Taken on its face value hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House

1677
would welcome that pronouncement. We thought it would be all to the good that on Supply days the scope of our Debates should be enlarged—and they can be enlarged on the Motion: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"—and that there should be the possibility of moving Amendments on more occasions than there have been in the past and for making, at least, oblique reference on Supply days to legislation.
I am afraid that the Government have not implemented the proposal of 17th March, for when we read the new Standing Order No. 16 which the Government propose to ask this House to accept we find these words:
"Whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into committee other than a committee on a bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such committee. …."—
these are the important words—
"unless on a day on which the committee of supply stands as the first order of the day a Minister of the Crown moves, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,' for the purpose of enabling a motion on going into committee of supply to be moved as an amendment to that question."
We on this side of the House think that it is a very different thing to say that opportunity will be given to range over a rather wide debate on the Motion: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" only when moved by a Minister of the Crown. That is quite different from the statement of the Lord President of the Council which the House has approved this evening, that there shall be no limitation on the number of occasions when Debate may arise on the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." In order to give the Government this opportunity of accepting fully the statement—I think I can say the assurances—which the Lord President gave on 17th March, I move this Amendment.
Sir G. MacAndrew: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.6 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I did not know until just now—I am making no complaint whatever about it—that this Amendment was to be moved. The issue is quite clear and simple, and has been stated by the hon. and gallant Member. We propose that this change, which I will describe, should be conditional upon the Motion being moved by a Minister of the Crown. There would, of course, be
1678
discussion through the usual channels, and we should not wish to be unreasonable in discussing such a matter with the Opposition. We feel that it is right that the last word should rest with the Government of the day.
It must be remembered that the real, early reasons for Supply was to control expenditure, as well as for the expression of grievances. I remember in my young days, when I was not a Member of this House and never expected to be, there were very considerable figures in Parliament who really did make speeches on Supply, and who really did deal with expenditure. Many a Minister suffered from the stinging rebuke and analysis of Sir Thomas Gibson Bowles, as a result of what that gentleman regarded as bad and lax administration. As time has gone on, nearly all that has gone. Practically every discussion about Supply is now about policy, and criticises the Government for doing this or not doing something else, whichever Government it may be. I see the point. Grievances have taken the place of financial analysis, so to speak. I am bound to say that in some respects I regret the change. I wish the House were examining expenditure in greater detail on the Floor of the House than it does at the present time.
We propose to go a step further than was at first suggested, in response to various requests which we thought were not unreasonable. Apart from the four days when the motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair is taken upon going into Committee of Supply on the Navy, Army, Air or Civil Estimates, we propose that there should be other days with the assent of the Government, after discussion through the usual channels, upon which a Minister can move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." In that case there would not be a ballot as there would on the other four days, and the subject would be chosen by the Opposition, as they do now on Supply days, which I think is quite right.
If the thing gets out of hand and there are too many of these days when Mr. Speaker is moved out of the Chair, we get still further away from what I think is the normal function of Supply, the fundamental one and the biggest single element of Supply, namely, control and criticism of expenditure. On those days

1679
when the Government assent to a Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," apart from the four days, it will be agreeable and within the limits of paragraph 2 of the Standing Order, that, within those limits, Mr. Speaker do permit incidental references to legislation. That is likely to take us still further away from the sheer financial issues of the Debate.
The Committee recommended, I think, that there should be eight days. We thought that that was reasonable, but if there is to be elasticity, we thought that the Motion should be moved by a Minister of the Crown. It may be said that this is a shocking innovation, but there are many Motions, including procedural Motions, which can only be moved by a Minister of the Crown. We shall try to discuss, as reasonable men, through the usual channels, with the Opposition, the use of this facility. We shall try not to be unreasonable, and I hope and believe that the Opposition, too, will try not to be unreasonable. While I see the hon. and gallant Member's point, I think it is best to leave the matter in this way so that we may have proper and responsible consideration as to the extent to which this new facility should be used. In all the circumstances, I should be glad if the House would be good enough to agree with the Government on this point.
10.11 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: This is a rather complicated and novel point, and I would like to explain to the House—as, no doubt, the Lord President did not have time to do it—how this proposal came to be made. At present, there are four occasions when you are moved out of the Chair, Mr. Speaker—on the three Service Estimates and the Civil Estimates. If Members will look at the Report of the Committee they will see that what we tried to do was to find some way in which we could get over the age long complaint—perhaps "age long" is going a little too far—that it has been impossible to make even the slightest allusion to legislation in a Debate on a Supply day. In a Debate dealing, say, with the administration of housing an incidental reference to a difficulty or something that could be put right only by action involving legislation was ruled out of Order on the ground that it involved legislation. That was the prob-
1680
lem which we were trying to meet. The device was put up that it might be possible to deal with it by a Motion arising as an Amendment to the proposal that you should leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, on certain other occasions during the Supply season.
But the Select Committee recognised that this would be experimental; they could not tell whether it could be done, and the words which appear in the new Standing Order give some guidance as to how far one might go in referring to legislation. They state that there may be such incidental reference to legislation as the Chair may consider relevant to any matter of administration. That is relevant to the point made by the Lord President. We suggested that there should be four days as an experiment. For some reason the right hon. Gentleman proposed that this Motion should be moved on any of the days and, therefore, carried to the extreme on any one of the days, or none. The right hon. Gentleman says, "That will not do. We cannot run that risk, because if we have this Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on too many days we shall get further away from the real business of Supply." With due deference, I do not think that is so. It was merely intended to deal with the case of allusions to legislation, and with the other case mentioned in paragraph 22 of the Report, that it is desirable to take together a whole group of Votes in order to deal with one subject.
Under present Standing Orders that is very difficult. Nowadays, if one wants to deal with the provision of baths for new housing estates in rural areas one has to bring in probably the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Works, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the corresponding Scottish Estimates. Seven or eight Estimates have to be put down before one can deal with one specific matter. It was to get over that difficulty, as well as the legislation difficulty, that this Amendment was put down. I do not think there is any risk of its going to the length the right hon. Gentleman fears. If he fears that, why does he not stick to the experimental period of four times a year to see how that works? It is unfair of him to extend the scope over the whole 20 days—for which we did not ask—and say that it is a risk.

1681
The second point which is important in view of this Amendment is that it should be not within the sole power of a Minister to move that the Speaker leave the Chair. For that reason, the Committee admitted that there should be consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the occasions on which this should take place. It was also suggested—there is no doubt about this—that the right to frame the Amendment should be exercised by the Opposition, so that this device is by no means a plan to take away any of the rights and prerogatives of the Opposition to select and suggest subjects for Supply days.
If that is so, and if the rights of the Opposition are to be safeguarded, it is not right for the Government to be in a position to say when the Opposition have selected a certain subject and want the Motion down, that they will not accept a particular debate because they have had too many of the Motions in a particular Session and that the Opposition can have an ordinary Supply day but not the kind of Supply day for which they have applied. That is taking away from existing rights of the Opposition which, subject to drafting advice, would not have happened if the Amendment were accepted. That is the gist of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and it is what the Government said on page 98 of the Report:
"they consider that debates should take place on this motion only if the Government agreed and not at the sole option of the Opposition."
That was the Government's considered view at that time and apparently it still is. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman with all seriousness, that if there has to be a decision by the Government as to whether or not this form of Motion is to be debated or whether it is to be an ordinary Supply day as we know it, to that extent they are taking away something of the prerogative of choice which now rests with the Opposition. I am not talking about this Opposition, but any Opposition. For all I know, the right hon. Gentleman may be here where I am next year, and when the Session opens next year Standing Orders may again be looked at. If he reflects he will agree that his proposal takes away—
Mr. H. Morrison: If I am adding to the facilities of the House, including the Opposition, how can I be taking anything away?
Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman is not adding because the proposal is that there should be a new form of Motion, but he retains the right of deciding whether on any occasion that Motion should be moved.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Is it not a matter of who wants to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair?
Captain Crookshank: It is quite immaterial who wants to get the Speaker out of the Chair; the point is that it is a new form of Debate in order to make it possible either to discuss group subjects or to make allusions to legislation, and I do not think the Government should in any way come in on the business which is to be selected or how it is to be handled, whether in one way or another on a Supply day, because that has been a time-honoured prerogative of the Opposition.
Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, does he not see that when these Amendments are moved they are bound to define, and somewhat to limit, the scope of the Debate? Somebody has to look after the interests not only of the Opposition, but of the whole of the back bench Members; and if the Opposition Front Bench is to have the complete right to have these days when it likes, and thereby perhaps to limit the debating field of the hon. Members on the back benches on both sides without any check by this Front Bench, I think it is wrong. Therefore, I think this is a reasonable proposal.
Captain Crookshank: Really the right hon. Gentleman enlarges the subject very much because that is not an issue at all at present. What is to be the subject for Debate on a Supply day is decided by the Opposition—whether by Front Bench or back bench Members of the Opposition is a mystery wrapped in the arrangements of any party which happens to be in Opposition at the time. It is no good saying it is the Front Bench and trying to make that point. That is not in play. The point is that it rests with the Opposition what subject will be debated on a Supply day, and I say it follows logically that, if you give an alternative possibility of Debate, still the choice of subject will rest with the Opposition. It

1683
is merely whether it will do it on a Supply day, when it has to be on a narrow front, when it cannot make any allusion to legislation, or when it cannot properly group the subjects—those are all internal matters for the Opposition to represent to the Government as their wishes for the Debate on that day. It has nothing more to do, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, with the back benches behind the Government of the day than it has in fact now. The back benches on the Government side of the House have nothing in the world to do with the choice of subjects on Supply days now.
Mr. Morrison: Excuse me, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really see that if you have an ordinary Supply day, in which everybody is free to say anything they like about the administrative work of the Department or Departments concerned, any Member is free to debate the whole sphere—except on those days when there is agreement that a certain phase will be taken—but that ordinarily any Member can touch on any of the administrative work of the Department at any rate within the ambit of Vote? I agree with this new facility within proper limits, but directly you get an Amendment to the Motion that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," it must tend to circumscribe the field of the Debate as compared with an ordinary, open Supply day, and I think the rights of back bench Members have to be looked after in that respect.
Captain Crookshank: Ail I can say is that I disagree. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should assume that a Motion on that occasion should be a circumscribing Motion—it might just as well be an amplifying Motion. There is no reason at all to take that view.
Mr. Morrison: It might be a defining Motion.
Captain Crookshank: It does not necessarily restrict the field at all.
Mr. Morrison: It might do.
Captain Crookshank: It might or it might not; it does not follow one way or the other. However, my argument still remains that it has always been a preroga-
1684
tive of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to take that away. To the extent that he brings the Government into the decision, he is to that extent removing it from the Opposition. These are perhaps new points which have not leapt to the minds of hon. Members. I agree these things are very complicated, and I have already complained about the way in which they have been put to the House as a Schedule. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the exchanges which have taken place and which I think will be continued, would not keep his mind open about this particular one and not press it tonight? He must admit that what he is suggesting is entirely different from what the Select Committee recommended. Whatever merits it has or has not, it is not the same thing, because we merely suggested four days as an experiment. I still think it would be much wiser to go slowly into this new field, particularly in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Government interference.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I think the whole House will agree, at any rate, with the remark of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that this is complicated and obscure, but I do not think that relieves the House of the necessity of trying to understand what is involved in the Motion on the Order Paper as affected by the Amendment. I was for the latter part of the time, but only for the latter part of the time, a Member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and the object which it was designed to secure by the recommendation in the Select Committee's Report was that on Supply days there should be a limited and restricted right, to be controlled by you, Sir, to refer to incidental matters of legislation. I think the Government were perfectly right in saying that that right should be limited and restricted, because the whole object of Supply is to discuss administration and grievances, and it would detract from the right and duty of the House on Supply to discuss administration if it were to wander to any large extent into the field of legislation.
What troubles me, and what I do not think the Lord President of the Council has really dealt with, is that his proposal on the Order Paper has the result of

1685
seriously affecting the existing rights of private Members. As the Standing Order is worded at present, Private Members whose time and facilities in this House have been substantially curtailed, have at any rate the right on the first four Supply days when the Motion is moved to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, to put down Amendments, and very often not merely one Amendment, but more than one.
Mr. Ede: It is still there.
Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend says it is still there. It was in Standing Order 16. The existing Standing Order 16 ensures to all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker shall be moved out of the Chair on four occasions when going into Supply on the Navy, Army, Air and Civil Estimates respectively, and it is on those occasions that Private Members have the opportunity of raising various matters by ballot. We have already decided to cancel Standing Order 16, and to substitute for it a new Standing Order and we are discussing the new Standing Order. The first question I want to ask the Lord President is, what steps are going to be taken in future to ensure that Amendments can be put down and selected by ballot on the first four occasions when the Motion is made for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair? In opening the Debate, the Lord President said that it was proposed to arrange in future that there should be a ballot on those occasions.
Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is right. There is no intention to interfere with the right of hon. Members to ballot on the four days. Where I think he is misled is that he is looking in the Standing Order for that provision, but there is no provision in the Standing Order for that. It is a matter of practice. It is one of those cases which one has to expect in this House where there is a lot of practice and not much Standing Order—but we shall continue that practice in accordance with custom.
Mr. Fletcher: I am very much obliged for that assurance. The second point I wish to put is what would be the practice of the House if the House agrees to the new Standing Order as now suggested. As I understand, in addition to the first four days when the Motion is made that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, there will be other occasions. The Select
1686
Committee suggests four other occasions. The Government suggest that this number should be unlimited either way, without a minimum or a maximum, but the number and occasion should be under the control of the Government. As I understand it, the effect of the new Standing Order will be that when a Minister of the Crown, after the first Order, puts down the Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" there will be opportunities for, it is said, the Opposition to move an Amendment to that Motion. Presumably it will be equally open to back benchers on either side to move other Amendments to that Motion, as is the practice at present. If that is not the intention of the Government, it does seem to me to be desirable that the matter should be dealt with and provided for. As things stand at present, hon. Members on both sides of the House have the right to put down an Amendment whenever there is a Motion on the Order Paper. It is difficult to say why, under the new Standing Orders, that right should be restricted to the first four days.
The other matter which I think is relevant arose in the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee. It is this. The occasions on which the House may wish to make incidental or specific reference to legislation are not very likely to arise in discussing Service Estimates. Hon. Members who have more experience than I can claim to have, will agree with the evidence given to the Select Committee, that only when you are discussing Civil Estimates is there a general desire to refer to matters involving legislation and that in practice, there are not many occasions for referring to legislation when Service Estimates are being discussed. Therefore, I would ask the Lord President, when he considers this matter, to see if matters cannot be so arranged that, instead of limiting the opportunities to make reference to legislation to the first four occasions when the Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair is put, use can be made of the second part of the new Standing Order 16 on occasions when Civil Estimates are likely to be considered.
10.34 p.m.
Sir Ronald Ross: This is an occasion when we are not discussing things in a party spirit. In view of the mutability in human affairs, by which the people on one side may find themselves

1687
on the other side, the machinery that governs our Debates and regulates our affairs is of extreme importance to us. Nothing is more dear to us in the traditions of Parliament than the rights of the Opposition. That, I think, is what distinguishes our Parliament from the Parliaments of other countries, and one of the great rights of the Opposition is the choice of subjects for Supply days.
It has been suggested by the Select Committee that an experimental procedure should be adopted for four days in the year to get over what I think has been admitted by all of us to be a handicap when speaking on Supply days—when even a most experienced debater will find himself terribly handicapped in putting his case properly and adequately to the Government by the fact that any allusion involving legislation is out of Order. Therefore, the Select Committee, recognising this difficulty, have suggested this experimental period and this device of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair to enable legislation to be alluded to.
I admit that I see one difficulty about the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, which is, that there might be a lot of duplication of Amendments tabled. But I see grave disadvantage in the suggestion that the Government should be the arbiters of what is done on a Supply day—that the Government alone should have the power to adopt this new procedure of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair.
The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, has said, with his cunning, in the way he would wheedle a bird out of a bush, that he was only thinking of back benchers' rights. I have not noticed the same solicitude for back benchers at other times, though that is probably my fault. But the right hon. Gentleman envisages a war on two fronts. Now it is always a Parliamentary fiction that the Opposition dislike the Government's doings more than anyone else. Yet apparently the Leader of the House envisages that his own back benchers will want to make complaints, because Supply days have ceased to be occasions for dealing with financial matters, and are largely occasions for complaints against the Administration. Therefore, he thinks that the Opposition will not secure the proper field on which his back benchers can sling
1688
him from behind and, in the kindness of his heart, and to let the boys have fun, he must select the occasion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. To us it seems that this is rather a grave invasion of the rights of the official Opposition, because it may be that the Leader of the House will decide that the Government are to have an offensive on the Eastern front and that he wishes to have the back benchers come into the open, and have a really good party scrimmage on the floor of the House. That, surely, is contrary to the principle on which we have always understood Supply days to be run.
The Supply day has been the opportunity for the official Opposition, of whatever political flavour it might be, to draw attention to what it considered to be the defects of the Administration; and this device suggested by the Select Committee was merely to make that debate more real and to widen its compass; instead of which it is now suggested that it should only be done at the instance of the Front Bench. Parliament throughout the ages has always fought the Executive, whether it was the King or the Government, as the Executive tried to become more and more powerful. Here we have an instance. If an unscrupulous Government—not that I am suggesting that the Leader of the House is unscrupulous; I am merely taking an imaginative situation—were in power, it would say, "You must not hit me where it hurts." The Government are in a perfectly sound position to achieve that. They could prevent any occasion when a wide debate on a Supply day, involving allusions to legislation, could occur. They could avoid it easily, because no one but the Executive would be able, under this Order, to propose the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. Therefore, I see very serious drawbacks in the proposed rule. I think the Amendment would improve it, although I still see some little difficulty about it.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the House is entitled to a fuller answer than it has yet received on the point put forward by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) with regard to the last six lines of Standing Order 16 as they now stand. These lines are the basis on which the whole custom of the House with regard to this matter rests

1689
Those last six lines are not repeated in the new Order upon the Paper.
Mr. Speaker: The last six lines of what?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Standing Order 16, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: But is that in this Amendment?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member was asking about that in the course of his speech and the Lord President interrupted in regard to that, and I think that in the new Standing Order those words do not appear. We are entitled, surely, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this to find out what the significance of the words used by a Minister of the Crown really is and to determine what the effect of these words are with regard to the ballot. That is what the hon. Member was ascertaining when he was interrupted by the Lord President who says, quite correctly, that there is nothing in Standing Orders about the ballot—
Mr. H. Morrison: There is nothing here about it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: But there are these words in the old Standing Order 16 which appears to be the basis on which the ballot operates. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is, as there appears to be, some doubt as to whether the intervention of the Minister may affect the rights on the ballot, whether he would not, on that ground, consider looking at this part of the Order again.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Minister must intervene.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is the point which I am putting to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but if the Financial Secretary wishes to give some explanation we shall be only too glad to oblige him.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Gentleman has invited me, I would remind him that when the House goes into Committee of Supply, the Motion made is that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and it is always moved by the Chief Whip. It is to the Government's advantage to get into Committee of Supply and it is the Opposition's job to prevent it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That may well be an accurate description of the
1690
old practice, but as I understand it, it will not be the practice under the new Standing Order, and this is a matter of such importance that it ought to be looked at again. It is quite clear that the Government have changed their position completely. In the Minister's evidence on page 98 of the third Report, the Government are saying quite clearly that the debate could take place on the Motion only if the Government agree, and not at the sole option of the Opposition. That is quite contrary to what was said on 17th March. There does appear to be some confusion on this and I would ask the Lord President, in order to save time, whether he will not say that he will look at the matter again. If, in fact, it does not mean very much, as he seemed to indicate in his speech, it would be possible to have a form of words which would not be objectionable and which would not be open to the interpretation of these words now, that Ministers of the Government are seeking to limit the powers and rights of the Opposition. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, as there is not much between us, as would appear from his speech, to have one further look at this Standing Order.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Renton: As a comparatively new Member of the House, there is one thing that has perplexed me very much in the course of this interesting and complicated discussion. I am unable to reconcile the assurances of the Lord President, with regard to the unwritten custom that there will be four Supply days allotted to Private Members, with the statement in his proposed new Standing Order that it shall be a Minister of the Crown who moves Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. There is no doubt a simple explanation, but to one who is not so familiar with procedure as are some of the more senior right hon. and hon. Members, this is a matter which seems to call for an explanation so that the less experienced Members may understand what is the real purport of this Debate. That point seems to go to the very root of our whole discussion, and I do hope a Member of the Government may yet be able to explain how these two matters can be reconciled; because if a Supply day is allotted to a Private Member in the sense that he suggests the subject for

1691
discussion, he must have the right to open the debate, and unless he has the right to open the debate, he cannot move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. There may be some paradox hidden in this, but may we have an explanation?
10.46 p.m.
Mr. C. Williams: It seems that on the four Supply days back benchers will be able to speak about legislation; that appears to be the main object of this new move. But I would refer to what the hon. Member below the Gangway who spoke just now had to say. He put it very clearly that this gift of four days by right will really mean only one. The three Service days, for all practical purposes, mean that legislation cannot be mentioned, and on the fourth, the Government will move this particular form of Amendment in consultation with the Opposition. I have spent a good many years as a back bencher, and I have known hon. Members collaborating on various subjects; but what constitutes conversation through the various channels
between the Government and the Opposition does not, perhaps, suit the back bencher. What I want the ordinary back bencher not connected with the Opposition or the Government to have is a definite right to talk in a wider sense on certain Supply days and not only on those four days which, as I have said, really have only the value of one day. Could they not have at least three or four other days? Although it was well meant in the way it was put down, the ordinary Supply days do not give a real chance to suggest legislation and develop it. Several hon. Members have asked the Leader of the House to consider this again to see if they cannot make an amendment so that there may be a definite right of Private Members to mention legislation on days of which the Service days do not form part.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 100.

Division No. 15.]

AYES.

[10.49 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Delargy, H. J

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Diamond, J.

Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)

Alpass, J H

Dobbie, W.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Dodds, N. N.

Irving W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Attewell, H. C.

Dye, S.

Janner, B.

Austin, H. Lewis

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Jay, D. P. T.

Awbery, S. S.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Baird, J.

Evans, A (Islington, W.)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Barstow, P. G.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Barton, C.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Fairhurst, F.

Jones, J H (Bolton)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Farthing, W. J

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Berry, H.

Fernyhough, E.

Keenan, W.

Beswick, F

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Kenyon, C.

Binns, J.

Follick, M.

Key, C. W.

Blackburn, A R

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Blenkinsop, A

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Kinley, J.

Blyton, W. R.

Ganley, Mrs C. S

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Boardman, H.

Gibbins, J.

Levy, B. W.

Bottomley, A. G.

Gibson, C. W

Lewis A. W. J. (Upton)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Grizean, A.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Lindgren, G. S.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Logan, D. G.

Brown, T J (Ince)

Grenfell, D. R.

Longden, F.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Grey, C. F.

Lyne, A. W.

Buchanan, G.

Grierson, E.

McAdam, W

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

McAllister, G.

Callaghan, James

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

McGhee, H. G.

Carmichael, James

Gunter, R. J.

Mack, J. D.

Coldrick, W.

Guy, W. H.

McKinlay, A. S.

Collindridge, F.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Cook, T. F.

Hardy, E. A.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Medland, H. M.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Middleton, Mrs L.

Corvedale, Viscount

Hobson, C. R.

Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

Crossman, R. H. S

Holman, P.

Mitchison, G. R.

Daggar, G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Monslow, W.

Daines, P.

Hoy, J.

Moody, A. S.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hubbard, T.

Morley, R.

Deer, G.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Nally, W.

Shurmer, P.

Viant, S. P.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Walker, G. H

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Simmons, C. J.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Skeffington, A. M.

Warbey, W. N.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Skinnard, F W.

Watkins, T. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Watson, W. M.

Orbach, M.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

Snow, J. W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Parker, J.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Parkin, B. T.

Sparks, J. A.

West, D. G.

Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

Stamford, W.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Steele, T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Proctor, W. T.

Stokes, R. R

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Pryde, D. J.

Stross, Dr. B

Wilkes, L

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Stubbs, A. E

Wilkins, W. A.

Randall, H. E.

Swingler, S.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Ranger, J.

Sylvester, G. O

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Rankin, J.

Symonds, A. L.

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Reeves, J.

Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Richards, R.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Williamson, T.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Willis, E.

Robens, A.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wise, Major F J.

Rogers, G. H. R

Thurtle, Ernest

Woodburn, A

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Tiffany, S.

Woods, G. S

Royle, C.

Timmons, J.

Wyatt, W.

Sargood, R.

Titterington, M. F.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Scollan, T.

Tolley, L.

Zilliacus, K.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Turner-Samuels, M

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Sharp, Granville

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell.

NOES.

Barlow, Sir J.

Grimston, R. V.

Osborne, C.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Birch, Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Pickthorn, K.

Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bossom, A. C

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Bowen, R.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Bower, N.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

Howard, Hon. A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

Hurd, A.

Renton, D.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Butcher, H. W

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Byers, Frank

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Ropner, Col. L.

Carson, E.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Channon, H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Low, A. R. W.

Studholme, H G.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

Crowder, Capt. John E.

McCallum, Maj D.

Touche, G. C.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Turton, R. H.

De la Bère, R.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vane, W. M. F.

Digby, S. W.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Walker-Smith, D.

Donner, P. W.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Marples, A. E.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Drewe, C

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Medlicott, F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Erroll, F. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C.

Fox, Sir G.

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Gage, C.

Nicholson, G.

Commander Agnew and

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Major Ramsay.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

10.55 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in line 91, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 101.
We now come to a very important point in our discussion of these new Standing Orders because this touches
1694
upon the procedure for dealing with the finances of the year. My Amendment is to negative this new Standing Order. To put it as simply as I can, what we had to discuss in the Select Committee was this: there is a Government proposal based upon the theory which some

1695
Members of the Government have, and Which the Lord President apparently shares, that there is a great deal, to use his own words, of tedious repetition in the various stages of the Budget from the time it is opened till it is closed. I happen to have dealt with more Budgets than, I think, anyone in this House from the Front Bench itself, from this side or the other side, and I dare say the view of whether there is tedious repetition varies according to the part of the House in which one is sitting. But the Select Committee investigated this and did not come to that conclusion. Having taken a very great deal of evidence—and this is a part in which there was no dispute although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out that some part of the Report was not unanimous; but this is in the part which was agreed—they said:
"The duplication involved in the present procedure is more apparent than real. The clauses of the Finance Bill do not by any means repeat the phraseology of the Budget Resolutions nor is the debate necessarily similar in character."
May I very briefly explain this to the House, because owing to this extraordinary procedure which the Government have adopted it seems to fall to me to explain their proposals? What the Government suggested to the Select Committee was that the Committee would cut down the time taken on the Budget. In point of fact, as I said earlier, all the time taken only amounts in all the stages to an average of 15 days, or the whole of the financial arrangements of the Session amounts to about 10 per cent. of the time of the House. The Government say in their Memorandum, page 100:
"The present procedure involves duplication"—
which begs the question, but let that pass—
"of debate at two points: the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions is duplicated in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and the Report stage of the Resolutions in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. It would, therefore, seem logical to formalise"—
not a very nice word that—
"one or other part of each pair of stages. There are formidable difficulties in the way of formalising either the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions or the Second Reading of the Finance Bill."
Therefore, in the view of the Government, the least difficult thing to do is to pro-
1696
vide that on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions the Question should be put without Amendment or debate, any points of detail to be left over for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. That was the suggestion they made, but this is the very curious part of the affair—they went on in the next paragraph of their Memorandum to discuss another idea, which they said would result in time in general being saved, namely, if the Report stage of all Bills was curtailed, and only Government Amendments or points left over from the Committee stage, or new points arising between the Committee and the Report stage were considered. Having thought of that they bargained with the Committee. They said they did not really mind very much which, but having first told us that the best thing was to cut out the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, two paragraphs later in their Memorandum they say they would not do that but instead they would make new changes about the Report stage of all Bills, including the Finance Bill, and in that event they would drop the other proposal altogether.
It was a sort of bargaining basis. In the first instance, the Government said there was a misuse of time by having a Report stage on the Budget Resolutions. Either that is so or not, irrespective of what one does do or does not do on the Report stage of the Finance Bill. That is the first point I want to put, because here the right hon. Gentleman is discussing repetitive speeches. If the Government found that that was what had occurred they should, to use a colloquialism, have plumped for that solution. But they had a second idea of very much narrowing all Report stages, and said, "If you like to do that, never mind about all the repetition on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions." It seems to me to make rather nonsense of the argument that they put before us, and that the Committee disagreed with.
I do not want to go into this at any great length, because others of my hon. Friends, no doubt, wish to speak on it. But I do want to make this comment on something the right hon. Gentleman said in his earlier speech, because what he meant was not at all clear to me. He said all this new procedure, of course, depended—I think I have his words

1697
aright, and I do want to know what he had in mind—on continuing the custom of not dividing on the Budget Resolutions on the first day, and of not moving any Amendments at that stage. I am sorry, but I do not understand that proposition. How in the world could it be possible for anybody to move Amendments to the Resolutions which are read out after the Budget speech, when no one has even seen them? It does not make sense. It is impossible to move an Amendment to a thing like that in those circumstances, and I do not know really what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he made that statement. They are completely unknown. The normal procedure nowadays is that they all go through without a Division; and, of course, without Amendment. We cannot have an Amendment because it is literally impossible for hon. Members of this House to appreciate what the Clerk is reading out immediately after a Budget speech. It would be all nonsense, therefore. So I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he referred to Amendments at that stage.
The two points I should like the House to bear in mind—quite apart from the fact that the Select Committee rejected this proposal—are, first of all, that there is an essential difference, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman tells us, between the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and it is this: that the Resolutions, when they are reported—and that is the stage we are discussing—are all separately put, and, therefore, any hon. Gentleman who wants to speak upon one has an opportunity to do so, or to propose Amendments. That opportunity is at the only time at which one can be quite certain that one can have it, because the Resolutions are separately called. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on the Finance Bill in Committee and on the Report stage, one is always in the hands of the Chair in regard to the selection of Amendments, and what can be debated; whereas at that stage it is possible for each individual Resolution and its effect to be discussed.
That is the first point. The second point is this. Whatever may be the theory about this repetition, and so on, the fact remains that there have been three Budgets for which the present
1698
Chancellor of the Exchequer has been responsible, the autumn Budget of 1945, the Budget of 1946, and the Budget of 1947. On each one of those occasions, on the Report stage, the value of the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions was amply demonstrated by concessions which the right hon. Gentleman made each time. That, it seems to me, is a very important argument. On the October, 1945, Budget the Chancellor promised reductions in the Purchase Tax on certain commodities, at that stage. Presumably, since he had come to that conclusion, having heard the weight of the argument, it was important to carry it out as soon as possible, because, of course, with the Purchase Tax there is always its application to traders' stocks, and so on to be considered; and once the decision has been taken, it is all important to everybody concerned to know it has been taken. That decision was taken at that stage in the Chancellor's first Budget. In the second one, in 1946, exactly the same thing happened on the Purchase Tax. The right hon. Gentleman made concessions there on the Report stage with regard to various household goods—these were afterwards implemented in the Finance Act—and with regard to instruments for the deaf. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the problem of gifts made five years before death, a matter very much argued, discussed and debated, and he took his decision then that that new tax should not operate in any sense retrospectively.
This year we had perhaps the most notable case of all—the proposal for a kerosene tax, and it was suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that the duty of 1d. was removed. It was then that he promised to do it. The right hon. Gentleman made certain concessions for women's sports in the Purchase Tax, and, most important of all, it was at that stage he agreed to look at the question of making concessions for old age pensioners with regard to the high incidence of the tobacco tax he had imposed. It was then that he said he would look at it. It was not until the Report stage of the Finance Bill that he was able to introduce any Clause at all. On the Committee stage he had still not put it right, and it was only just the other day, long after anything to do with the Finance Act was in progress, as far

1699
as this House was concerned, that the Orders were published under which it was to be done.
That is an accurate statement of what happened with regard to the old age pensioners' tobacco. If there had been no Budget Resolution stage it would have been postponed so much longer. The right hon. Gentleman would not have heard the arguments, and made his public announcement in the House—unless it was to come, like so many announcements of Ministers today, at Transport House. The House of Commons is the right place, and the proper occasions are the right stages of the Finance Bill. In spite of that it took the right hon. Gentleman weeks and months to translate his decision through an Act of Parliament and into Orders. This new Standing Order is throwing over a vital part of our finance procedure.
I have made the point repeatedly that when there is all this talk about tedious repetition and possible obstruction, one always comes back to the fact that this House has endowed the Chair—Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Standing Committees—with powers to deal with that problem. If there has been a straying beyond the proper limits, it is not right to put it down to wrong Standing Orders. It could be that the spokesman was being too much indulged by whatever chairman was in authority. The powers of the Chair are great—sometimes I think they are too great—but as long as they are as great as they are today it is a mistake to put all the blame of repetition on the long thought out method of dealing with finance. It is a criticism in recent years that the House has given insufficient attention to this problem, and at the height of the greatest financial and economic crisis we have ever had, and to take that opportunity to deal with that problem, a week before a Budget, by cutting out a whole section of the Budget discussions, is playing with the problem—a not infrequent occurrence in this Government.
11.15 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I hope the House will see the force of the arguments that have been advanced by my right hon. and gallant Friend. Those of us on this side can see the attractions of this suggested alteration
1700
to a Government which apparently introduces two Budgets every Session. If the Budget introduced in April is in ruins the following autumn, and another has to be introduced, there must be a great attraction in cutting short the procedure and discussion.
May I reinforce what has been said about the value of the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions? The Financial Secretary will recall how, at that stage in April, hon. Members—not only on this side, but among his own supporters—focused attention on the tobacco tax and its impact on the old age pensioners, how the debate showed universal hostility to the proposal, and how his right hon. Friend said that he would see what could be done when we got on to the Finance Bill. When we did get to the Second Reading of that Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to explain that he had not yet devised the necessary apparatus to give effect to the concession, and said that he would introduce it in the Committee stage. When we reached that stage he still was not ready—it was a very complicated matter—and it had to go forward to the Report stage.
I am sure the Financial Secretary will admit that the Report stage in April did produce two extremely valuable concessions which were later embodied in the Finance Act. The concession on tobacco was one, and the other was the removal of the Purchase Tax on electric cookers. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will recall that discussion: how he was assailed from behind, how the cookers were switched on and switched off, with the Minister of Fuel and Power intervening, as they say in the divorce courts, and how the carefully laid plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the President of the Board of Trade were destroyed. All these things had to be tidied up as we went along. The Lord President of the Council emphasised earlier his desire that the House should spend more time on financial matters. It seems to me that it would be most unwise to remove this Report stage. In paragraph 35, I think it is, the Committee set forth their views for its retention, and I think they are almost unanswerable.
I would put to the Home Secretary, who is now leading the House this proposition: this is a domestic matter affecting our proceedings, and should be left to a free

1701
vote of the House. It is a matter that we should decide for ourselves, rather than that the Government Whips should be put on. This is a very big matter of precedent. All of us, when we irst come to this House, and particularly when we arrive as one of a triumphant majority, as most of us do at different times, find all this procedure somewhat irksome. We are all "majority minded" when we come here after a General Election in which our party has been successful, and these things which hold up the progress of Government Bills are irksome to us. But we find, after we have been here only a very short time, that our forefathers in their wisdom devised all these things for the protection of minorities. Many of us remember 1931, when we arrived here in overwhelming numbers, and how James Maxton and his small band of supporters in the I.L.P. held matters up night after night. It was very tiresome, but as time went on we found that the procedure of the House provided just for that sort of thing.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) referred just now to the mutability of affairs and he added that we were not discussing this matter in any party atmosphere. We ought to consider what we ought to do in the light of the future events. Let us take a purely hypothetical, imaginary Government, elected with a great majority, say, in 1955. They are majority-minded like all those that have gone before, and they take exception to anything that holds up the progress of the governmental juggernaut car. But the day comes when the Juggernaut car exhausts its basic ration. In 1957, some municipal elections take place and these elections reveal without a peradventure that something like one-third of the gentlemen supporting the Government no longer enjoy the confidence of their constituents. They are sitting in an ephemeral position and from that time onwards, if they are really to represent those who elected them they would have to vote with the Opposition of the day. All these things may happen. It would be necessary for such a Government to become minority-minded. Those who survived the General Election of 1958 would have to get over here and from that moment they would welcome the wisdom of their forefathers in seeing to it that they had this procedure for minorities. They would regret
1702
when they became the Opposition if such a Government, instead of protecting the age-long procedure of minorities, started jockeying and tampering with the procedure, interfering, for instance, with the powers of another place, or altering the franchise so that those who were likely to vote against them no longer have the opportunity of doing so—business voters or University representatives might be spirited away.
There might be a great temptation in 1957 to the Government of the day, having once started on the slippery slope, to endeavour to curtail procedure and discussion of Finance Bills. One has only to take that peep into the future to see what might be done to rend our procedure. But there might be a "Black Saturday," in which the electors would turn and rend the Government of the day on the municipal front and those Members sitting for constituencies where that happened, would be wise to see that their number might be sitting across here or not sitting in the House at all. With that in view, one has only to transpose the situation round to see how wise it would be for Members opposite, on the back benches in particular, to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend. That is why I urge on the Home Secretary to allow this matter to go to a free vote of the House, so that Members opposite might safeguard their not far distant future.
11.24 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the deletion of this new Standing Order did himself an injustice. Normally when he speaks in this House, he has, according to his political outlook, a very good reason for the point of view he puts forward, but tonight I think it must be agreed that he rather overstrained our credulity when he said that, by moving this new Standing Order, the Government were throwing over a vital part of the work of Parliament in dealing with financial legislation.
What are we proposing to do? May I say with emphasis that what we are proposing to do will not only help hon. Members on this side of the House, but hon. Members on the other side also. The proposal is that after the opening of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day in Committee of Ways

1703
and Means, all Resolutions, apart from the last one, which must be kept open so that the Debate may continue the next day, should be put from the Chair, one by one. This is actually the present practice. It is no innovation, and the new Standing Order will simply crystallise what is now done. The present practice has, I understand, subsisted for many years without complaint from any quarter of the House, certainly never from the Party opposite. By the new proposals no one will be robbed of his or her right to vote against these Resolutions when they are put from the Chair, nor will he or she be robbed of his or her right to continue the Debate and to talk about them on the following day.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point—and it was a perfectly valid one—that when the Resolutions are put, very few hon. Members in any part of the House, apart from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and perhaps myself, will know what they contain, because they will not have seen them. But they will see them the next morning in HANSARD, "The Times," or their favourite newspaper. Having digested them, they will, be able to discuss them in all their bearings on the next day, and on the day after, and for so long as the Debate on the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolutions continues. The point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), I think, that if we had not had a Report stage, it would have been impossible for hon. Members to raise questions on the Tobacco Duty and the incidence of that tax upon old age pensioners at the time of the last Finance Bill. All these points could have been raised on the Committee stage, and it will be perfectly competent in the future for all points arising from the Budget Resolutions and the opening Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be raised by hon. Members in Committee of Ways and Means. In fact, they may raise almost any other point which they think should be raised. What I am saying is solid fact. I am not merely making a debating point. I am stating what it is competent for any hon. Member to do in Committee of Ways and Means when the Budget has been opened.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that
1704
the general debate on the Budget Resolutions covers an extremely wide front—that the whole economic position of the country is generally more or less in order? Is it not important that these particular matters should be pin-pointed, discussed in detail, and a vote taken upon them in detail, so that the Government may know, and so that their supporters may know, as happened in the case of the old age pensioners and the Tobacco Duty, and they can be put right in the Finance Bill when it comes to be read?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be true, and I have no desire at this late hour to argue it. All I will do, by way of comment on what the hon. and gallant Member has said, is to say to him that it is possible to do all that he now suggests should be possible, by accepting the new procedure. These things can be raised in Committee on the Ways and Means Resolutions. Later the vote can be taken, and undoubtedly would be taken, on the Report stage.
The second thing that this Resolution proposes is that when the Report stage from the Committee of Ways and Means is taken in the House, each Resolution shall be put one by one and, if necessary, divided upon, without amendment or debate. Ample opportunity to begin with—on the general debate—has already occurred and will occur again when we reach the Finance Bill. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) forgot to tell the House was this: that whereas with an ordinary Bill it is essential to have both a Committee and Report stage and, if necessary, an opportunity for a fairly full and free debate on both occasions, a Finance Bill and the Budget Resolutions upon which it is based have two Report stages and two Committee stages. We are satisfied that this is excessive.
Mr. H. Macmillan: What about the Financial Resolution of a Bill? Is it not a fact that in an ordinary Bill which involves finance there is also a Committee and a Report stage?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not two Committee stages, not two Report stages; only one of each. When we come to the Finance Bill we find duplication at almost every stage and we ask the House to share our view that the time has come when some

1705
of these stages should be made quite formal. They would be voted upon in the usual way, but not made the subject of debate.
Sir J. Mellon: Does not the Minister think that some account should be taken of the fact that this House has exclusive authority in questions of financial legislation?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think that anything I have said denies that, and I think that everyone in every quarter of the House would accept what the hon. Baronet has said. We do not wish to deny the House its exclusive right over finance. We are asking the House to consider whether the time has not come to "formalise" some of the stages of the procedure.
Mr. Frank Byers rose—
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally I am quite willing to give way. [Interruption.] I think that it rests with me whether I will give way or not. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that the hour is getting late and if I am continually interrupted, these proceedings will be prolonged. I am trying to put the argument as the Government see it, and I think it is a good argument.
Mr. Byers: What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he was not in fact suggesting—because I am not quite clear—that the House should vote upon these matters before they debate them? Is that it?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I have said anything to the House indicating that that is my view and the view of the Government, I am sorry. There will be an opportunity for a general debate including detailed reference to the Budget Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means following the opening of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A vote can take place then, and a vote on each Resolution can take place again when we reach the Report stage. It is, therefore, our suggestion that the House should agree to allow the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions to go through without Debate, on the grounds that a debate could have—and probably has—taken place on the Committee stage, and that further long
1706
debates will take place later. That being realised, ample opportunity will have been given to the House to debate the financial proposals from every angle and from every point of view. This is what this new Standing Order proposes, and what I have put to the House tonight. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted at some length from the part of the Memorandum put in by the Government to the Select Committee which dealt with this matter, and we are now proposing broadly what we proposed to the Select Committee.
Mr. H. Macmillan: They rejected it.
Mr. S. Silverman: It was rejected by a casting vote.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is right. I am not complaining. The facts are well known. The Select Committee decided, for reasons set forth in its Report, and which have been repeated tonight, not to accept our recommendation. But in spite of that, and because we feel so strongly about the matter, we have come to ask the House to accept this new Standing Order. The reasons for it, I think, are overwhelming. Many of us can remember our first entry into this House, and I for one can recollect how shocked I was at the repetition and waste of time I found when we came to deal with the Budget Resolutions and the Finance Bill. This procedure dates back to the time of Charles I, and was not instituted, as the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has said, in order to protect minorities—not even Mr. James Maxton's minority. It was instituted in order to protect this House from the King, and I think that the House will agree with me when I say that the circumstances which existed then were different. Things then could be put through with some speed. That position no longer obtains today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Constant repetition should be done away with.
It is possible to make a speech in Committee of Ways and Means on a topic referred to in the Financial Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget. The same speech can be made again on the Report to the House of the Budget Resolutions. One can make the same speech yet again on

1707
the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. One can follow that up by making it for the fourth time on the individual Clause in the Committee on the Bill. One can make it again on the Report stage, and yet again for the sixth time on the Third Reading. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had been dealing with this matter tonight, could have told the House that he has, in fact, made the same speech six times in the course of the passage of the Finance Bill. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to be protected from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the best ways of achieving that is to go into the Lobby with us tonight and accept what we are now proposing.
In opposing this proposal, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that the Clauses of the Finance Bill do not repeat the phraseology of the Budget Resolutions, nor is the Debate necessarily similar in character. This same point is made in the Select Committee Report. While this is true, I would suggest that it is begging the question. Whether the phraseology is the same or not is quite irrelevant and completely immaterial. It is not phrasing that matters; it is whether the content is the same and there is not the slightest doubt about that. The facts bear out that what is contained in the Budget Resolutions is the same as appears in different phraseology in the Finance Bill. There is, therefore, in my submission, no point at all in that argument and the contention is not valid.
The right hon. and gallant Member also said that the Report stage provides the first opportunity on which hon. Members can express an opinion by a vote on each separate proposal. I have already dealt with that: I have shown that these proposals can be debated on the Committee stage, and opportunities occur again for similar debate later on. Both the right hon. and gallant Member and the Select Committee in their report have pointed out that the time spent upon taxation, including the Report stage, is only about 15 days—or 10 per cent. of a Session at the present time.
Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. How much longer is this repetition to go on?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am trying to answer the arguments put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He did attach weight to the argument that a relatively small space of time was devoted to discussing matters of taxation during a Session. I think he said it amounted to something like 10 per cent. Again, this may be true, but, surely, it is not the time that is spent on a particular matter that should count, but whether that time is usefully spent. I, therefore, ask the House to accept the Government's recommendation. It will assist the House to carry through its financial proceedings with greater despatch and, I hope, less boredom than at present.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. C. Williams: The long and short of the speech which we have just heard, and the only thing which was at all in interesting and novel in the speech was that the real reason for this proposal is that at some time and somewhere, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the same speech six times over and that the Government are so bored with his speeches that they have to put down a special Resolution to protect themselves against their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the reason why I object to this Resolution is this, and it is a very, simple one. It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to say that Financial Resolutions can be discussed in the Budget debate. Of course, some of them can but they cannot be dealt with in detail and the ordinary private Member has a very small chance of getting in on that debate compared with what he would have on the Report stage, a very small chance indeed. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Committee stage was completely and utterly in keeping with the type of argument which is put forward by a certain hatter in "Alice in Wonderland." There was nothing nearer to it in anything I have ever come across in literature. But when we come to the Report stage, this is the first time during which we can get down to the small details, of individual taxes and the ordinary back bench Member has a chance of putting the ordinary person's point of view.
This is not the point of view of the big financial experts. It is not the point of view which hon. Members or right hon. Members put from the back benches

1709
on the Government side, wishing to make a show on behalf of the Government. It is the point of view of the ordinary men on both sides who wish to put their point of view of what is happening. Through various phases of bad temper shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the year—this year and last—it is quite clear that he was seeking for every excuse to try to cut down the discussion on this subject and it is also clear that he hates the idea of the public outside knowing more about what is really being done in taxing them. If any hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read through these debates, he will realise why I and certain other hon. Members, are not in the least surprised that this opportunity is being taken to prevent a full discussion of the taxation of the people of this country. The Government are afraid; they are definitely afraid of greater discussions. We shall have to face in a short time an autumn Budget with new taxes. You are asking people to make great sacrifices and are laying down that these taxes on the people of the country are not to be properly discussed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is laying all this to my account. At least he appears to be doing so.
Mr. Williams: I am very sorry. The only point which I wish to emphasise—and I think it is a fair one—is that under the Resolutions as we now have them the Government are cutting down possibilities of discussion and taking away something which was for the purpose of protecting the Members of the House of Commons from the full brunt of the blame for the taxation which falls on their constituents. Members on all sides of this House should be very careful before they accept a Motion of this sort and they should remember that, although this Government are in power today, although they can pass this by the force of the majority which they have, and they have passed many things by force in this country, they cannot go on ruling in that way. Therefore, the more they curtail discussion in this House and the more they refuse to allow grievances to be properly ventilated, the more certain it is that the hatred which is falling on their shoulders will overcome them and beat them down.
11.51 p.m.
Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to bring this discussion back from the atmosphere of Government and Opposition to the point of view of the House of Commons as such. That is what we are considering in all these procedural Motions and Amendments. After all, what is the object of the inquiry into our procedure if not to save the time of the House, not for the benefit of the Government or for the Opposition, but for the House as a whole. I was a member of the Select Committee and I was in favour of the proposal which is now being made. I think every Labour Member of that Committee was in favour of it, and this was the only occasion on which a division in the Committee fell on party lines. That was an accident and we happened to look at it on different lines. Because of an act of inadvertence at an earlier stage we seemed to agree on what we did not. What is the point here?
Mr. Oliver Poole: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that this should be discussed from the point of view of all Members and not on party lines. If that is so, surely he must admit that it is quite wrong of the Government to come down here and put on the Government Whips and force a majority to support them on this issue.
Mr. Silverman: I said in the only other speech that I made on this matter today that I agreed. I think procedural matters are better dealt with without Whips; that does not apply to this proposal, but to all proposals. I do not think that that is a special point to be made at this particular time. The Government rightly or wrongly, and I suppose the Opposition, too, have decided that they will have the Whips on, and unfortunately we have to have our discussions on that basis. There is no good going back on to that argument.
Let us assume that, in fact, we do save a day on these financial proposals. I am not asking whether we ought to or whether we ought not to. Supposing we do save one day of Parliamentary time, that is one more day to use on other things. It does not necessarily-follow that it will be the Government which will use it. It might be used on another Supply day or for the general Adjournment Motion

1711
to deal with some matter that the Opposition want to discuss. If we do save a day from these proposals we do not at any rate lose that day; we gain it. We have another day for other matters, and the question is whether we can on this procedure properly save one day out of these proceedings and use it better on some other matter.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The point which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is making is very interesting, but how can he assume or imagine that the House will save one day on this? Surely, if on a later stage we are debarred from putting the details of the case, we will take the opportunity of putting those details at some earlier stage, so that the saving is nil.
Mr. Silverman: I can assure the hon. Member that I am not shirking that issue. Obviously, we must say whether a day can be properly saved here or not. That is what we are looking at, and there may be other days saved. Budget Resolutions, debated and voted upon one by one, have on many occasions taken up far more than one day; and so an important saving of time is involved. I am not discussing the question whether we can legitimately save it. I am coming to that point in a moment. What I am pointing out is that, if we do save time on what we agree is a wasteful expenditure of time, we have so much more time to devote to other things, and it is so much gained That is the whole object we have in view; that is what the whole of this question of the Procedure of the House is about.
I have read in my time, certainly since I became a Member of this Committee, a good deal of literature about proposals for the reform of the House of Commons. A great many people inside and outside the House have devoted themselves to inquiries into this for a great many years. I have not come across one of them who does not point to the waste of time, and does not select the time devoted to the finance procedure as a mine of time to be saved. They all do that. I am perfectly certain that if the Opposition had won the last General Election instead of losing it, and that if they had devoted themselves, or any part of their time—as I think they would have done—to considering the Procedure of the House of
1712
Commons, this proposal would inevitably have been one they would have made.
It is said that we ought to be able to debate the Budget Resolutions separately because it is more convenient to deal with a particular point that arises on a particular Resolution if only that Resolution is before the Committee. That is a perfectly valid point. Of course, it is better to do it that way—if we can. The question is not whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but whether, if it is a good thing, we could not do a better thing. We have a general debate on the Budget Resolutions. That is the Budget Debate. The Budget is merely a series of Resolutions which are moved together by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget day. There is a general debate on all of them after that. Anybody, if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of whoever is presiding at the moment, can raise any point that he likes, and if there are points which would lead him to vote against any one or all of the Budget Resolutions he can do so—and can still do so under this proposal, as soon as the Budget Resolutions are put, because they are put separately, There really seems to me to be a great mistake in supposing that we add anything to an argument by repeating it the next day.
There has been a good deal of fun poked against the Chancellor and his repetition of speeches. What else can one do? The same points are raised; the same arguments are raised; and if one remains of the same opinion the only way one can deal with those arguments is by putting again the argument that seems to defeat them. When the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) talked about the bad temper of the Chancellor in these Debates I thought he was particularly unfair. I have never known a better humoured debater all the time I have been in the House of Commons than the Chancellor, nor a more yielding one if a point is made. On the last occasion a very small point affecting a small number of people—I am talking of the Stamp Duty on articled clerks—was accepted, and, indeed, at the very last stage, when most people thought it was out of Order and could not be done at all. To say of the present Chancellor that he is bad tempered about these Debates seems to me to be shockingly unfair.

1713
We have every opportunity during the Budget Debate to raise any point we like on any of the Resolutions. The next day we can carry those arguments into the Division Lobby if we wish—certainly, on this proposal, after Debate at that stage. But we have not exhausted all the opportunities then. We can do it all again when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill comes up; we can do it all again on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; we can do it all again on the Report stage; and, if an offending proposal still remains in the Bill, we can do it all again on the Third Reading of the Bill. If the House is seriously considering the question whether we can save a day or two days to devote to other matters by amending a procedure that allows the House or the Committee to debate the same points with the same arguments on six different occasions, and reducing the number to five, we are not doing very much harm to the Constitution. I really cannot see why anyone should lose his temper about that and regard it as a great constitutional innovation, or as making great inroads into the rights of the House of Commons.
It seems to me, looking at it calmly and reasonably, that this argument goes really all one way unless one is going to say that we prize so highly our present procedure that we do not want any improvements. I do not think hon. Members in this House take that view. If one is going to save time at all, one must save it where it is most wasted. If one saves it, one does a service to the House of Commons.
12.2 a.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) had all the tortuous irrelevance typical of the provincial solicitor worth seven and sixpence a time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap!"] It may be that hon. Members think that the hon. Member may be cheap at seven and sixpence. [Interruption.] I am prepared to wait all night. I am in no hurry.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: You are a cad.
Mr. Frank Byers: It is absolutely shocking.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. C. Williams: On a point of order. Is the Financial Secretary in order in stating that another Member is a cad in such a way that it is clearly heard in this House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If it be so, I think it is half a dozen of one and six of the other. I think the original remark was certainly in very bad taste.
Colonel Ropner: On a point of Order. Hon. Members on this side of the House quite definitely heard the Financial Secretary say "You are a cad." He may or may not have had provocation, but I hope you will ask him to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will most certainly withdraw the remark I made. I would like to feel that the hon. Gentleman will do the same.
Mr. Birch: I accused the hon. Member of tortuous irrelevance, and I think that is perfectly in Order. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
Mr. S. Silverman: May I assist the House? If it will enable it to get on with its business I do not mind in the least what the hon. Member says.
Mr. Birch: The first point I would like to deal with is the idea that we cannot deal with the detailed points which come up under the Budget Resolution on the main Budget Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very often made the same speech six times. Surely that is absolutely wrong. What we are trying to deal with in the original debate on the Budget are the main points. Again and again during the Report stage we have been fobbed off with the details, and have not had the main issues. That is precisely what should not be done. We must deal with the main issues and not details on the first debate.
The second point surely is this, that the Budget is rather different from an ordinary Bill. The Budget Resolutions have the force of law at once. It is all very well to say you can vote against them in Committee, but a vote without debate is surely not a very democratic procedure. What we want to be able to do as soon as possible is to debate the

1715
main issue and throw it out if the general Sense of the House is against it. Under the procedure of the Finance Bill that cannot be done until two months afterwards. It may be said that we might have another Supply day. We might, but nine times out of ten it will be taken for Government business, and will not be available for the general criticism of Government policy and administration.
12.7 a.m.
Mr. Butcher: I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) were perfectly proper and right, that this matter should be considered from the point of view of the House of Commons and not from the point of view of the Government or the Opposition, but there has been little said about the constituents whom we have a duty to represent. The Financial Secretary made great play with this question of repetition. But what is the position? When the Budget is opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the first time all these matters are exposed to the Committee, and afterwards to the country. Hon. Members in the Committee have no opportunity of consulting with their constituents. The debate on the Budget proposals continues for several days, during which hon. Members are detained here by their Parliamentary duties.
Under the proposal which the Financial Secretary is now recommending to the House, the Committee stage having been disposed of, a vote will be taken on each matter separately, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of registering their opinions in the Lobbies—whether they are for or against the Chancellor's proposals—but without giving any reason why they are opposed to a particular Resolution. The result is going to be a spatch-cock arrangement in which great questions such as inflation and borrowing from foreign Powers will be mixed up with questions whether the duty on tea should be a halfpenny more. Surely these small and detailed matters should be focused, as they are at present, on the Report stage of the Resolutions. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are apprised of the thoughts of hon. Members on these particular items. After all, if it is not done and members have not an opportunity of directing their
1716
minds on this matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be besieged by resolutions from the bodies affected and by letters in the newspapers without having heard in the House of Commons the views of members elected to represent the people.
There is another point I should like to put to the Government for their consideration. Finance Bills are special Bills, not subject to review in another place. Therefore, it is all the more important that this House should take time to do its work thoroughly on all of them. We had Bills—the Transport Bill, the Bill to nationalise the mines, the Town and Country Planning Bill—on which this House did a hurried and rather a bungling job. They were sent up to another place, where there were substantial amendments made, and they came back here. Finance Bills do not proceed in that way. They come into law as they leave this House—
Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is a small point, but they are considered in another place.
Mr. Butcher: I am quite sure we are at one. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying they are considered, while I am right in saying that the incidence of taxation cannot be varied. Therefore, it is right that this House should spend ample time on Bills not subject to revision in another place. I think the right hon. Gentleman did himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer less than justice. I never felt as I listened to the Budget Resolutions that the Chancellor and he were repeating themselves. There is a contrast between the performances of the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I can say is that I listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary with more and more pleasure every time he rises and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with less and less pleasure. I have not noticed any particular repetition in any of the argument. We are doing a wrong thing in making this, change and, even if it was necessary on some future occasion, we are choosing a wrong time. The financial affairs of this country are in bad shape at this time. That is why a further Budget is being introduced in the very near future. At a time when the balance sheet is not going to be as good as we hoped, is there any

1717
reason for choosing that moment to give it less consideration than we have given to any other national balance sheet in the past 250 years?
12.13 a.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Earlier in the evening I mentioned, on this aspect of the Government's policy, that in my opinion they were dealing with the whole problem as though this House and this House alone were affected. In fact, they are trying to deal with the problem in a water-tight compartment, as if it were a matter of business only and did not affect anybody outside. We know the reverse is the case. Everything we do and discuss in relation to the Budget and Finance Bill affects every one of our constituents and everybody in the country for good or ill. I should like to remind the Financial Secretary of the concession accorded by himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the debates in reducing the duty on kerosene. That was raised by myself on the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, and there was a little consecutive debate in which matters of detail were extracted by this side and some by the Government side, too. As a result of this information, representations were made to the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary as regards the effect of the incidence of tax and what would happen when the tax was removed. I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree that was the first opportunity of a consecutive debate on what was an important issue to the agricultural community.
How does the Financial Secretary propose to replace the opportunity which was used on that occasion, and was of great value? He will agree that it must have been of great value or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have accepted the Amendment. The whole moral of the story lies in this: that the moment the points of the proposal were fully disclosed, those outside the House who were as much, if not more, affected than hon. Members, became aware of the rights and wrongs of the case, and they made their representations. That, I submit, is what this House is for. Hon. Members are not here merely to carry through legislation, whether they like it or not, at the dictate of the Government, but to arouse the public to the meaning of the proposals of the Government, to arouse, it may be,
1718
opposition, so that the feelings of the public may be made known to the Government.
To remove an opportunity for the public being made aware of what may be proposed and expressing its feelings is a dangerous proceeding. This sort of proposal really does make one disheartened. It makes one very suspicious whether the Government are not trying to devise a machinery within this House which will segregate this House from popular feeling. It makes one wonder whether the Government are deliberately adopting the attitude of all dictators, which is, "We are going through, whatever the people may say," and which is one example of how you can kill Parliament. I hope the Government do not propose to proceed with this proposal.
Colonel Ropner: I hope that before this Debate is concluded we shall have another speech from the Government Front Bench. I listened with great interest to the words of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and I do not think there was any ambiguity in the remarks which he made, or any chance that he could have been genuinely misunderstood. I am bound to say that when the Financial Secretary replied I had to conclude that the right hon. Gentleman had understood very little of what my right hon. and gallant Friend said, or had not grasped the procedure—which surely the right hon. Gentleman knows by now—which is followed in the financial proceedings of this House. In any case, he dealt very inadequately with the criticism levelled against the proposals of the Government. What we object to, and what I would like now to make plain to the right hon. Gentleman, or to whoever may reply—if we are to be favoured with a reply—is that if this proposal is adopted, the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions will be purely formal. There was no need for the Financial Secretary to devote a large part of his reply to describing what is at present the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions and which, so far as I understand the new Standing Order, the Government do not propose to alter in any way.
The memorandum which the Government submitted for the consideration of the Select Committee suggested that in Committee of Ways and Means on the

1719
Budget Resolutions, all the Resolutions except one should be taken immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Speech, and that in the Report stage, the Question should be put without amendment or debate. It is the latter suggestion which has been embodied in the new Standing Order which the Government ask the House to accept and to which we object. It has been pointed out already that the Select Committee gave this proposal very close attention and rejected it. I know the Committee rejected it once, and I think I am right in saying that it rejected it twice. The reasons for rejection are clearly set out on pages 12 and 13 of the Third Report,' and I do not think I need weary the House at this hour of the night in recapitulating the weighty arguments of the Select Committee.
I will only draw attention to what the Committee consider to be the most weighty objection. They said:
"… Fifteen days, approximately ten per cent. of the Session, does not seem to your Committee to be an excessive amount of time to devote to so important a subject "—
That is to say to the control of taxation—
"It may be that some of this time is wasted on repetitive arguments …".
I would say in parenthesis that there is some justification for that remark. I do think that there is needless, or sometimes needless, repetition during the various stages of the Budget, but I agree entirely with what the Select Committee go on to say about that:
"… If so, that is less a criticism of the procedure than of the use made of it by the House …".
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that the repetition, if there is repetition, is necessarily by the same hon. Members. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech six times on one occasion, but he made it, I should imagine to six different hon. members in this House, it may be three of them on this side of the House and three on his own side. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that the formalising of the Budget Resolutions was throwing over a vital part of our financial procedure, and the Financial Secretary rather taunted him with making that remark. There are a very large number of hon. Members in
1720
this House who genuinely believe that if we formalise the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions we are really depriving this House of an important stage in our financial procedure.
The Committee go on to say:
"… It might be said with equal force that it would also limit the opportunity of raising new points …"
Of course it would.
"Your Committee do not feel that they can recommend to the House a proposal which beside having certain practical inconveniences would still further curtail the opportunities of Members for taking part in one of the most important Debates of the year."
I commend that weighty recommendation to the consideration of right hon. Gentlemen opposite and, indeed, to all who will take part in the Division which I presume we shall have shortly. It seems to me on reading the Report of the Select Committee that the evidence given in this connection by the Lord President of the Council and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was very unconvincing and I was not in the least surprised when I read on to find that the Committee rejected the recommendations which the two right hon. Gentlemen made. It is a fact that we spend on an average only 15 days, or less than 10 per cent. of the total time of the Session in considering the Budget, and I do submit that that is a quite small enough proportion of our time.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) seemed to assume—I do not know how he managed to jump to this assumption—that if we saved one or two or three days on one stage of the Budget, the days, which we lose in one stage will be made up at another. But there is nothing in the new Standing Order which will guarantee that that is so. It is beyond a shadow of doubt that, if we lose the one, two, three or four days by being denied discussion on the Report stage of the Resolutions, we are, in fact, cutting down the already short period which this House devotes to financial matters.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. McKie: I should like to add my plea to that made by the hon. and gallant Member. I plead that, before we proceed to a decision, there should be a further reply from the Gov-

1721
ernment Front Bench. I have listened, as indeed I always do, with care to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on this proposal, but with the best will in the world—and I have always, if I may put it in that way, a "soft corner" in my heart for him—I was completely unconvinced by what he had to say about this very modest proposal. To me, he seemed to be completely confused with regard to the different financial functions of this House. To begin with, I would refer to the Committee of Ways and Means. After all, so far as I understand it—and I admit that I am not a great pundit in these matters but I have watched financial matters in this House for 16 years—the Committee of Ways and Means is an advisory committee. Upon its deliberations are founded the decisions which pass into law in the shape of the Finance Act.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be confusing those two functions. He said one can agree to the first stage of the Budget Resolutions, and be confined to one motion being discussed when the Budget Resolutions are first presented in Ways and Means, and that when the Report stage is taken, one can quite easily agree to that being taken as a mere formality because one has the various stages of the Finance Bill following. The right hon. Gentleman is surely overlooking the vital importance of the Committee of Ways and Means, because if it cannot first deliberate as a Committee, we shall have no Resolutions on which to found the Finance Bill. If the deliberations of the Committee of Ways and Means are not to be the subject of Debate, how is the House to be advised by the Committee? How is Mr. Speaker to be moved from the Chair, and how is Mr. Speaker to come back to the Chair for the Report stage? I think that the right hon. Gentleman should inform himself more closely and more clearly as to the functions of this Committee of Ways and Means which he has so lightly sought to brush aside tonight. He says, "Agree to this one Debate on the motion of the Committee of Ways and Means, and all will be well; we shall have ample opportunity when the Finance Bill comes up, to deliberate on its various stages." To my mind, although I did not, perhaps, come to the House so early as did the right hon. Gentleman, even though I may have
1722
watched these topics more closely than he, that is very unsatisfactory. It does not satisfy me.
The speech by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) disappointed me. I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment. I thought that he came as best he could to the rescue of his chief. But his argument, in trying to persuade the House why it should agree to this important Motion, seemed to be self-contradictory because, at an earlier stage of our deliberations tonight he advocated the fullest opportunity being given to the Private Member. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne with his keen legalistic mind comes down here and says he can agree to this Motion forgoing the rights of Private Members as easily as he indicated, I am sorry that he should have argued as he did tonight.
I am particularly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit, up to now, to consider this important Motion in the way I think it ought to be considered. I hope he will give us the benefit of his advice in this matter, which concerns the Private Member very closely. If we are to forgo our opportunities in the Committee of Ways and Means and also the opportunities when the deliberations of the Committee of Ways and Means come to be considered on Report stage, in the way that the Government Motion invites us to do, there will be ever fewer opportunities for Private Members to be heard than was the case before. Increasingly it has been the custom on Budget day to prolong the discussion and that has been a great opportunity for the Private Member, and I welcome it. I only wish my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. G. Davies) had been in the House tonight. I am sure that with his keen desire to see financial rectitude preserved in the House on the true Gladstonian principle he would support us.
12.33 a.m.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I would venture to make an appeal to the Front Bench to consider very carefully the points raised in this Debate and to see whether in the interests of the House as a whole they would decide not to press their view. It has been said all through this Debate that these are really much more House of Commons matters than matters of the division

1723
between the parties—as between who, for the moment, holds office and who, for the moment, is in Opposition. But in the mutability of human affairs we must take into account that we may find ourselves in a different position. Right through the Debate this has been discussed as a House of Commons question—as to what is to the benefit of the House of Commons in doing it work and whether the procedure now proposed will gain a little time for the Government. This was one occasion, it is true, on which the Committee was divided—and it was the only occasion when it was divided by chance on party lines. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can rely very much on that because the Government equally reject the conclusion of the Committee on Procedure, whether it is unanimous or divided and, all through this Debate the Government have gone against the decisions of the Committee which they established.
Therefore, the onus of proof lies upon the Government because, broadly speaking, the inclination of hon. Members will be to follow the views given to them by their Committee. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider it from the point of view of the convenience of the House. I cast my mind back over a fairly long number of years surely it has always been the practice that on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolutions there is a broad Debate on the Budget as a whole. The Debate is upon the general financial statement which the Chancellor has unfolded—the balancing, or unbalancing of the Budget and the whole broad financial and economic situation, that is revealed in the Budget. Of course, it is quite true, as the Financial Secretary has said, that the Debate can be based on the particular Resolutions which are included in the Budget. It can be a very detailed Debate, but it would be inconvenient and it would not be what the House and the nation expect. What to expect on the first stage of the Budget is a broad discussion upon the whole financial situation which is revealed in the Budget itself.
If we do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that debate will change its character because it will be the only
1724
occasion, in addition to the Finance Bill, that any Member would have, except to vote, to mention detailed proposals which are included in the Budget. Let us apply it to the situation which we shall be in in perhaps a week or two. A second Finance Bill this year obviously is a fairly important occasion. It is not usual to have two Budgets in a year. Therefore, quite rightly, the Chancellor will give us a broad review of the financial reasons why a new Budget is required—inflationary pressure and the situation that has developed during the last six months and so forth, and there will, I hope, be a broad discussion upon that subject. I do not know the actual proposals that will be in the Budget, but I would venture to prophesy that there will be a host of detailed proposals of new taxation of various kinds mostly designed to deal with the inflationary pressure. It is commonly rumoured, for instance, that there will be an increase of Purchase Tax and that a large number of articles now excluded from the range of Purchase Tax will be brought within the range and that perhaps the rate of tax on other articles will be raised. I only throw that out as a possibility. In that event there are a number of questions which hon. Members would wish to raise, and which it is in the interest of the public should be raised. It is also in the interest of the Chancellor that they should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor made the same speech six times. I will do him the credit to say that each time he reached a different conclusion. He was most helpful in making concessions as a result of arguments put before him. It is much to the convenience of the House and to the trading and commercial community that if concessions on points of detail are going to be made, particularly in things like Purchase Tax, they should be made at the first possible opportunity because there is an infinity of trouble caused to everyone, including the Revenue itself, if taxes are imposed and then, as a result of something in the later stages of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor yields to persuasion or argument and decides to alter it. There is a terrible amount of claiming back and trouble to everybody concerned. It would be far better, therefore, that this matter should be dealt with at the earliest possible

1725
opportunity. That is what the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions is for, in contrast to the Committee stage where there is a broad general Debate upon the finance of the country as a whole.
I know we shall be voted down because, though this is a House of Commons matter, it has not been left to the House of Commons. Not a single question since we started at three o'clock this afternoon has been left to a free vote. The Whips have been put on. Before we vote I would ask the Leader of the House to consider this again in the interests of the Chancellor, the Treasury and of the Inland Revenue, which have to collect the taxes which may be introduced as a result of the changes which are made. If he will not reconsider it I hope he will at least promise us that he will watch this change carefully in the course of the Debates during the next few weeks, because we shall not have
those broad financial Debates that ought to take place on the Committee stage and which have such a bearing upon ourselves as Members and on our constituents because they are concerned with actual increases of taxation over a whole range of commodities. Therefore, I hope the Leader of the House will promise us that he will watch carefully what is the result of this proposal, and, if my hon. Friends and I are proved right, that he will be broadminded about it despite the block vote by which it will be carried, and that it will be reconsidered from the point of view of making an alteration for the third, fourth or fifth Budget of this financial year.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 77.

Division No. 16.]

AYES.

[12.42 a.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Orbach, M.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Hardy, E. A.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Herbison, Miss M.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Attewell, H. C.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Popplewell, E.

Austin, H. Lewis

Holman, P.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Barton, C

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Proctor, W. T.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Hoy, J.

Pryde, D. J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Randall, H. E.

Beswick, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ranger, J

Bing, G. H. C.

Hutchinson, H L (Rusholme)

Rankin, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Blyton, W. R.

Hynd, J B (Attercliffe)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Bottomley, A. G.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Robens, A.

Braddook, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Janner, B.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Jay, D. P. T.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Brown, T. J (Ince)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Rogers, G. H R.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Royle, C.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Scollan, T.

Coldrick, W

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Collindridge, F.

Keenan, W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Kenyon, C.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Cook, T. F

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Shurmer, P.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Kinley, J.

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lewis A. W. J. (Upton)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Daggar, G

Lindgren, G. S.

Simmons, C. J.

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G

Skeffington, A. M.

Delargy, H. J.

Longden, F

Skinnard, F W

Diamond, J.

Lyne, A. W

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Dobbie, W.

McAllister, G.

Snow, J W

Dodds, N. N.

Mack, J. D.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Dumpleton, C. W.

McKinlay, A. S.

Steele, T

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

Stokes, R R

Edelman, M.

Mann, Mrs J.

Stross, Dr B

Evans, A (Islington, W.)

Mayhew, C. P.

Stubbs, A E

Fairhurst, F

Medland, H. M.

Swingler, S

Farthing, W J

Middleton, Mrs L

Symonds, A. L.

Fernyhough, E

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Gibbins, J.

Monslow, W.

Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

Gibson, C. W

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Gilzean, A

Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Thomas, I O (Wrekin)

Glanville, J E. (Consett)

Nally, W.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Grierson, E.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)

Tiffany, S

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Timmons, J

Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Tolley, L.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Oliver, G. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Wilson, Rt Hon. J. H.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wilkes, L

Woodburn, A

Watkins, T. E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Woods, G S

Watson, W M.

Willey, O. G (Cleveland)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Zilliacus, K

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

West, D. G

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Willis, E.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

Wigg, George

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr P. G

Head, Brig. A. H

Price-White, Lt -Col. D

Barlow, Sir J.

Howard, Hon. A.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H V

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W)

Ramsay, Maj S

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bossom, A. C.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Bowen, R.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ropner, Col. L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Butcher, H. W.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

Carson, E.

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Strauss, H G (English Universities)

Channon, H.

Low, A. R. W

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, G. C.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Vane, W M F

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Digby, S. W.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

White, J B. (Canterbury)

Duthie, W. S.

Mellor, Sir J

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fox, Sir G.

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gage, C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

York, C

Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

Osborne, C.

Grimston, R. V.

Peto, Brig. C H. M

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pickthorn, K.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)

12.50 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I would like to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he intends to go on very much further, or whether there is any particular stage he has in mind to reach this evening? I cannot say we have had any tedious repetition in the Debate this evening, whatever he may have thought about other Debates. The points have been argued in the way in which their importance deserves. We are touching the Standing Orders of the House which are not reviewed every month or year, and in view of the progress in getting two or three of the most important points, as well as the general discussion on the Report of the Select Committee, I propose that the Debate be adjourned.
Mr. H. Morrison: I make no complaint of what has been happening. For example, the last point raised an issue of substance, but to be frank, in some of the other discussions the time might have been more economically used. I really do think so. Some of the arguments might have been rather more serious. We are now at about one o'clock in the morning. There are only two issues of any sub-
1728
tance remaining, and I think it would be wise for the House to continue and dispose of the business before it. Otherwise, we shall have to find another day, and it might mean quite a long amount of talk. We had a long Debate on the first chapter, the so-called Second Reading Debate, and now at one o'clock I think we should go on.
Captain Crookshank: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says there are only two points of substance left. I am sorry to say so, but he will find he is wrong when I move my next Amendment.
Question put and negatived.
12.53 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in line 102, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 119.
Here is a case where the Committee had before it certain suggestions of the Government with regard to Business Committees which were intended and are intended amicably to settle the arrangements for Committee or other stage of a Bill where there is an allocation of time order. Certain recommendations were made in the first Report, and tried as a result of a

1729
Sessional Order, but one of the Government proposals was that there should be a Business Committee to deal with matters if there was a case for an allocation of time order for a Bill to be kept on the Floor of the House.
That was considered by the Committee in its first Report in October, 1945. The Committee considered, and I quote from page 8:
"that the central emergency business committee is unnecessary, and if an allocation of time is necessary…."
Because the Government said they only proposed to keep major Bills of constitutional importance as well as financial Bills on the Floor of the House:
"…for the Committee stage, for any of the few Bills which under the scheme may be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and for the Report stage, details should be embodied in the guillotine motion as hereto for."
That was the considered view of the Committee. The Government came back with the document dated 21st March, and asked the Committee to reconsider the proposal and to allow a central business committee to be set up. There was some argument—I have not been able to trace exactly where it ended—from my noble Friend about whether it was constitutionally proper for the Government to ask a Select Committee to reconsider its decision, and we were promised that the precedents should be looked up, but I do not remember that anything further occurred about that. I mention the fact to show that the Committee thought it very unusual that, having come to a decision on a Government proposal after taking evidence on it, they should be asked to reconsider it. Whether my noble Friend was putting it too high in questioning its constitutional propriety is another matter. The result of that is to be found on page xix of the Report, par. 60:
"The representatives of the Government asked your Committee to reconsider the recommendations in their First Report relating to two proposals: (a) a business committee to settle the detailed allocation of time for Bills in Committee of the whole House."
The Committee's conclusion was:
"Your Committee are not aware of any new point that has arisen to justify them in reopening these questions."
The right hon. Gentleman was asked about this very point, whether or not there were any new arguments or new
1730
considerations which he wished the Committee to consider. He had to admit that there were not, but he thought it would be a good idea if the Committee looked at it again and we had a pleasant talk about it. That is really the gist of his evidence on the suggestion that the matter should be reconsidered. That is the history of this affair. Twice the Government put it to the Committee, and twice the Committee rejected it. Now, relying on their big battalions, the Government come to the House and ask their majority to carry it through.
As to the merits of this proposal, and what is involved. The idea of having a central Business Committee is, according to the proposed Standing Order, that it should consist of the members of the Chairmen's Panel, and five other members nominated by Mr. Speaker; and that its purpose should be to allot the time for the Committee stage of any Bill which is to be kept on the Floor of the House, and, secondly—and quite another matter—to allocate the time, in the circumstances of an allocation of time order having been made, for the Report stage of any Bills which have been under a timetable upstairs. The committee is thus to consist of 17 persons, and I should have thought that would be far too large a committee. It is to be set up, presumably, at the beginning of the Session so that if these circumstances arose the committee would be there to deal with the matter.
I want hon. Members to bear in mind the difference in comparison with the Business Sub-Committee which was tried last Session for dealing with what happens in Standing Committees. In the second case the Members of the Business Sub-Committee are taken from the membership of the Standing Committee. That is the whole idea. The Members of the Business Sub-Committee allocate time for different parts of a Bill which they, as members of the Standing Committee, have studied. They know the Bill. Perhaps they were specially put on the Committee because of their knowledge of the Bill. The Chairman will certainly have had to study the Bill, as he has to preside over its deliberations. Therefore, these members are well versed and can be reasonably expected to know the important parts that ought to be discussed.

1731
In this proposal we have something quite different. We have the Chairman's Panel dealing with any Bill that comes along which might be the subject of the Business Committee's deliberations and five other members appointed by Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of the Session neither Mr. Speaker nor the Chairmen's Panel nor anybody else can know either how a Bill is to be worked under the allocation of time Standing Order or what the Bill will be. Members will be appointed who know nothing about the Bill. All members are supposed to know something about a Bill that has had a Second Reading, but that is different from a study by those sitting on the Standing Committee on a particular Bill. In this case the Business Committee will not be by the nature of the case made up of members who know a lot about the Bill, and that is not the kind of committee that is expected. I think that is a very serious fault in this proposal, and for that reason I think it is a bad proposal.
I still am of the opinion, as was the Select Committee, that it is better on the rare occasions when there is likely to. be an allocation of time order for a Bill kept downstairs, if you are going to have a committee at all, to have it an ad hoc committee and not, to set up this body on which, of course, the Government will have the majority and whose decision—and this is the third serious point I would put—will come before the House and have to be accepted or rejected by the House without any debate at all. That is to say, we are to put the matter entirely in the hands of the central Business Committee, and the House, who after all should have some control over its order of business, will have to accept the timetable for a Bill to be kept downstairs. The House should have an opportunity of saying if it thinks there are mistakes in the allocation of time by the Business Committee. But under this allocation of time Standing Order the question has to be put without discussion.
We have very strong objections. First, this matter was twice before the Select Committee, twice discussed and evidence twice taken and refused. Secondly, the Committee itself would be a body of 17 members, who cannot have the intimate knowledge of every Bill about which they will have to settle the timetable. Thirdly,
1732
their decision on the timetable will come before the House for acceptance or rejection and no possibility of amendment. These are our serious objections to the timetable committee before us.
There is another proposal to which 1 object, that this body should be set up to divide up the time on Report stage—I think I have it clear, though I agree the language is slightly obscure—of any Bill which has had a timetable on Standing Committee. That is a very serious innovation, because, of course, there have been timetables before. Erskine May, from page 455 onwards, explains exactly what, the procedure in the past has been. That explanation amounts to saying that the Report stage is not a stage at which it is convenient to make an allocation of time; it is difficult. It has been done, and at the bottom of Page 455 it says:
"On some occasions a number of days have been allocated to the Report stage, but the distribution of the various parts of the Bill among them has been left to be determined subsequently by the House by means of a motion."
We have to remember that there is this very great difficulty about the allocation of time for any Report stage, that to that extent it does withdraw something from the discretion of Mr. Speaker, whose function, if I may respectfully say so—I hope I do not use language unseemly in a matter of this kind—on the Report stage of Bills is to make sure that any point which there has not been opportunity to discuss upstairs is given opportunity for discussion in the House. This general Business Committee has had nothing to do with the Bill, because ex hypothesi, its members, except the Chairman himself, are not likely to have been on the Standing Committee. The whole difficulty is for them to decide the actual sub-division on the Report stage, and at the same time leave to Mr. Speaker some liberty of action. I hope it will be always our desire to leave the maximum amount of latitude to Mr. Speaker in the selection of Amendments so as to see that the points which have not been debated upstairs are debated on the Floor of the House, and also to fulfil his other great function, which is the protection of minorities.
So I think that the point that this Committee should deal with the Report stage also fails on merits. I cannot amplify further. I can only repeat to the

1733
House that the Committee went thoroughly into this. It was quite unanimous. It is not a question of casting votes or things of that sort. It was evidence twice taken, and I think it is monstrous for the Government to come with its big battalions and throw over the advice of the Select Committee which had gone so thoroughly into a matter of this kind.
1.9 a.m.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I would like to say a word about this Business Committee, because I am one of the few hon. Members who have had experience of the Business Sub-Committee we have been working with on the Standing Committees upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in thinking that one of the Chairmen would be responsible for the Bill was mistaken. This refers to a Bill which is coming downstairs, and none of the Chairman's Panel will be associated with it. It will be taken in Committee of the whole House, not a Standing Committee. It is a Committee of the whole House.
Captain Crookshank: This committee consists of the Chairmen of Committees, so whoever has been Chairman of the Committee upstairs must be a member of the panel.
Sir C. MacAndrew: This Bill will be coming downstairs.
Captain Crookshank: But it is the Committee which is going to decide the allocation of time. It is important that we should be right about this.
Sir C. MacAndrew: As I understand it, the committee consists of the 12 Chairmen. Therefore, in fact one of these 12 must be the Chairman of the Standing Committee because there is nowhere else from which you get your chairmen of Standing Committees except the panel, so that a particular member of this committee will have acquired knowledge of the Bill in question by being Chairman of the Committee upstairs. If I am wrong, perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me afterwards.
Mr. Ede: I only want to be helpful at this stage. As I understand it, what the
1734
right hon. and gallant Gentleman said is a correct statement as regards the Bills upstairs. But I am informed that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means are members of the Chairman's Panel and will be on this Business Committee and, therefore, so far as the argument applies to Bills taken on the Floor of the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Floor of the House will be a member of the Business Committee.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg your pardon. I missed that point. I was thinking of temporary chairman like myself. But in any case, this is only one matter. My fear of this new procedure is based on the experience we had last Session when we had Business Sub-Committees working on two Bills, the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill. There we had the committee composed of Members from Standing Committee. We had been working for some time before the allocation of time order was set up, and on that particular Standing Committee the Member in charge of the Bill, the Minister of Transport—we are all very sorry that he is laid up, and we hope that he will recover soon—is a most conciliatory and delightful fellow to work with, as everyone knows who has had any dealings with him. On the Opposition side the right hon. Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) are also very easy to work with. I know because I was Chairman of the sub-committee.
We did our very best to try to make a fair allocation of the various Clauses. The result was really not a success on the Transport Bill. Thirty-seven of the Clauses were never discussed at all upstairs; six we guillotined when they were not fully discussed; and of the 15 Schedules, seven were not discussed at all. To my mind that is a far more efficient body to set up a timetable than we are suggesting now, and I would suggest to the Leader of the House or the Home Secretary that instead of putting this completely untried and I do not think satisfactory scheme into force, let us try to index a Sessional Order and see how it will work. I think that we are taking a big gamble on it.
1.14 a.m.
Mr. Ede: It is true that this proposal was twice put by the Government to the Select Committee and on both occasions the proposal was rejected by the Committee. It has been made quite clear this evening that the Select Committee cannot finally settle these matters. The Government believe that this was a reasonable proposal and one that the House ought to try. I did imagine that this would be regarded as a concession to the Opposition in the setting up of the allocation of time procedure. When what are called Guillotine Motions are in front of the House in my experience tempers are apt to get a little frayed. The Opposition, no matter what side happens to be in opposition, rather resents any Measure being placed under the Guillotine procedure, and on the days when the allocation of time is before the House, it is sometimes difficult to get the matter considered in the kind of atmosphere in which it ought to be considered, remembering the very detailed subjects which come before us on such an occasion.
The proposal which the Government put forward allows for the allocation of time for Guillotine Motions to be made by a committee of 17 people. They will be meeting apart from the heated atmosphere of the House. I gather from what the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) has said, no matter what the result of the work may have been, that a highly controversial Bill was considered in an atmosphere about which no complaint could be made, and hon. Members of both sides tried—it was a first experiment—to arrive at some way in which the best possible use could be made of the time available. The number of Clauses not discussed in a particular case may mean that not a sufficient number of days was allowed for discussion. That may be the case on any Bill. The advantage of having the time allocated in that way means that an effort is made that the essential points in a Bill shall be so placed that all given points come on sufficiently early.
Going back in my memory to older Guillotine Motions, I have sometimes suspected that hon. Members supporting a particular Government were encouraged
1736
to talk on some Clauses so that an "awkward" Clause, say the fourth or fifth, should not be reached, and I have heard Opposition complaints that a form of making speeches—I will not call it obstruction—was used by Government supporters to prevent the Opposition from dealing with some point on which they had keen feeling. They were Guillotine Motions drawn up by the Government of the day and placed on the Order Paper for debate and for Amendments to be moved, but the Government of the day relied on what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman called the "big battalions" to ensure that that Guillotine Motion went through.
The proposals which we put before the House ensure that Members of the Opposition will have the opportunity in the Committee room of stating their views as to the points which ought to be discussed and to make arrangements whereby these points can be watched at one or other stage of the Bill. That seems to me to be a substantial concession to the Opposition. If they do not want it, I can only say I do not understand what their opposition to such a proposal could be. Would they prefer the matter to be left as it is?
Captain Crookshank: I have just moved to reject it.
Mr. Ede: It has been suggested that there should be an ad hoc committee for each Bill. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prefer that to the rejection of the Motion, or does he put that as something he would like to have if he must have an alteration? Which of these two positions does he want to occupy?
Captain Crookshank: I rely on the arguments adduced by the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Mr. Ede: Then I understand that the reference to preferring an ad hoc committee really had no substance in it. The Government are rather desirous that when the Guillotine procedure has to be followed, both sides should have an opportunity of making an effective contribution towards setting up the Guillotine which is to be operated. I hope the House will feel that this is a reasonable proposal and one which is not without its advantages to the Opposition. If the House takes that view I hope that they will support the

1737
Government in the Lobby and that we shall be able to make an experiment with this way of dealing with a Guillotine Motion the next time that such a Motion has to be set up.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear in his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute that the Chairman of Committee upstairs will be on the committee which will deal with the allocation of time on the Report stage. I should have thought that it was very desirable that in dealing with the allocation of time on the Report stage there should be somebody with first-hand knowledge of the points which may have escaped discussion upstairs. An effort should be made in setting the Guillotine for the Report stage to ensure that these points are considered on the Report stage.
I think the main criticism of the Guillotine procedure lay in the fact that on the Report stage there was no internal allocation of time. The time allotted to the Report stage of a Bill was in one block: the House proceeded to discuss the Report stage up to a certain point, and then the whole of the rest of the Bill went through under the Guillotine proposal. That will never be repeated, apart from what might be possible through this machinery, which will ensure that some correction should be given to any failure to discuss a Bill on the Committee stage upstairs.
1.24 a.m.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The right hon. Gentleman has put the case with his usual moderation and reasonableness, but I think there are two or three matters on which the House should have further satisfaction. He has commended this Business Committee to us as being a better machinery for the allocation of time than the old-fashioned Guillotine Motion which we used to debate on the Floor and to which Amendments were moved, and which led frequently to scenes of some heat when the Opposition resented that kind of procedure. The Business Committee will also contain a Government majority: it will not be a round-table conference in any sense of the word as between the Government and the Opposition. That did not happen with the Transport Bill and there will be no more guarantee that a Government will not put
1738
up its back benchers to prevent some awkward stages of a Bill being reached or debated upon by the fall of the Guillotine than there is now—because the Business Committee will still retain that majority.
What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Two or three times in his speech he reiterated that this new procedure was experimental. I do not think anyone can quarrel with that, and I would, therefore, suggest to him that it is totally unsuitable to be embodied at this stage in a new Standing Order. If it is an experiment, we ought to try it out by means of a Sessional Order. If that were done, it would be the duty of the House to give it as good a trial as possible and see how it works. I cannot believe I am alone in thinking it would be wrong to put it into Standing Orders. I am one who believes that Standing Orders should be examined and amended at intervals. I suggest to the Home Secretary that this experiment has not yet reached the stage where it can be embodied in Standing Orders.
I have one other objection to the embodiment of this new proposal as a Standing Order. This is an Opposition objection, which any Opposition in its turn, would raise. This fairly envisages the constant, if not invariable, use of the Guillotine. Here is a new Standing Order, establishing a Business Committee to set up timetables, and, although the Lord President may shake his head, we have behind us a vivid recollection of what happened last Session when two Bills of the highest importance went through the new Guillotine procedure. He was not with us through his illness, but had he been here, he would have seen some of the consequences of that and the effect which it had. To create at this stage a new Standing Order is an invitation to the Government to say. "Why not the Guillotine?" on every Measure, certainly every major Measure, to override and gag the House of Commons.
1.28 a.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: No words of the Home Secretary can really disguise the fact that this is yet another occasion on which the House is being invited to ignore, and the Government are ignoring, the findings of the Select Committee which considered this matter twice. The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government

1739
were grateful to the Committee. I must say that they do not show their gratitude by accepting many of the Committee's decisions. The Home Secretary invited the House to make this experiment, to set up a Business Committee, to deal with Bills on the Committee stage on the Floor of this House. If it is an experiment, why not a Sessional Order? I really think that if we are invited to make an experiment we should have been invited to make it in that form and not in this.
What is the case for ignoring the present recommendation of the Select Committee and the case for this new Standing Order? The Government have a right, under certain limitations, on occasion of moving the Closure, and now we are being asked and invited by the right hon. Gentleman to assist in setting up a Guillotine to operate upon ourselves. The function of this committee, as I see it, will be similar in many respects to the function of the Business Committee which was appointed last Session under the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) spoke of the operation of the committee on Transport. All of us on that Business Committee knew pretty well beforehand and before we tried to allocate the short time at our disposal, what were the main points in that Measure. We did our best, but in spite of that the Bill did not receive proper consideration in the Committee stage because the time allowed was not enough.
What is going to be the position here? A committee is to be set up consisting of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman and five other members. Do the committee know the details of the particular Bills which they have to consider? Will they on their own initiative be the best people to decide how the time allotted should be divided? If they were going to do their task properly, I should have thought they would require to hear evidence from both the Government and the Opposition as to what they regarded as being the major points to warrant the most careful consideration. This Committee will operate on all these Measures, and if it makes a
1740
mistake, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is a mistake that cannot be rectified. It will operate in a further stage than the Business Committees appointed to deal with Bills upstairs—the allocation on the Report stage. I must say I am wondering what is the purpose of that? There was no allocation of time for the Report stages of the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill, other than the fixed time for the Report stage, and surely that is all the Government require. It can be left to Mr. Speaker to exercise his discretion as to what happens on the Report stage and to consider what Amendments are proper for consideration, but I do not see how this committee which is to be appointed if this Standing Order passes, is to determine how the time can be best utilised on the Report stage in ignorance of the Amendments which Mr. Speaker will call.
The right hon. Gentleman further referred to instances he recollected in the past where there had been a Guillotine in operation and there was something amounting to obstruction of the Government by Government supporters. I fear if we pass this that we shall find it happening here, so that the time for the Opposition to state the opposition to the Government's proposals will be further reduced. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the astonishing proposal that this Standing Order would ensure that the Opposition would have an opportunity of putting forward their views. How he can say that having regard to experience of those who served on the Committee upstairs astonishes me. It may well be that the timetable will have to be so divided as to give time for adequate consideration of two Clauses, and as a result the Committee will have to ignore whole sections of the Bill if there is going to be the allotted time to enable those Clauses to be properly discussed.
I fear if this Standing Order is passed it will mean that many more Bills will leave this House with Clauses undiscussed, because it will be agreed on both sides of the House that the Government's view of what is proper time for discussion of Measures which they introduce is seldom accepted by either their own supporters or their opponents. In support of that contention I would remind the

1741
right hon. Gentleman of the time taken in discussing the National Service Bill, the greater part of which, if my recollection be accurate, was taken up by the speeches of the Government's own supporters. Here we are again being invited to alter the procedure of this House of Commons in a radical fashion. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman has made out no case for this Standing Order, no case for ignoring the work done by the Select Committee, and no case for appointing a
committee of this kind. If any provision for a Business Committee is to be made, it would be better to have on it people who are to be engaged, on one side or the other, in the Debate on Committee stage than have a committee of the kind indicated in this Motion.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 60.

Division No. 17.]

AYES.

[1.36 a.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Hoy, J.

Scollan, T

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Shackleton, E. A. A

Anderson, A (Motherwell)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Attewell, H. C.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Shurmer, P.

Austin, H. Lewis

Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Barton, C.

Jay, D. P. T.

Simmons, C. J.

Bechervaise, A. E

Jeger, Dr S W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Beswick, F.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Skinnard, F. W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Blackburn, A R

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Snow, J. W

Blenkinsop, A.

Keenan, W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Blyton, W R.

Kenyon, C.

Steele, T.

Bottomley, A. G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Stress, Dr. B

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Kinley, J.

Stubbs, A E.

Braddock, T (Mitcham)

Logan, D. G

Swingler, S.

Brown, T. J (Ince)

Longden, F.

Symonds, A. L.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Lyne, A W

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Buchanan, G.

Mack, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

McKinlay, A. S.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Coldrick, W.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Collindridge, F.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Mayhew, C. P.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W.)

Medland, H. M.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Middleton, Mrs L.

Tiffany, S.

Daggar, G.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

Timmons, J.

Deer, G.

Mitchison, G. R.

Tolley, L.

Delargy, H. J

Monslow, W.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Diamond, J.

Moody, A. S.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Dobbie, W.

Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Watkins, T E.

Dodds, N. N.

Nally, W.

Watson, W. M

Dumpleton, C. W.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Evans, A (Islington, W.)

Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

West, D. G.

Fairhurst, F

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Farthing, W. J

Orbach, M.

Wigg, George

Fernyhough, E.

Pearson, A

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Gibbins, J.

Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

Wilkes, L.

Gibson, C. W

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Gilzean, A.

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, D J. (Neath)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Pryde, D. J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Randall, H. E.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Grierson, E.

Ranger, J.

Willis, E.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Woodburn, A

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Robens, A.

Woods, G. S.

Hardy, E. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

younger, Hon. Kenneth

Herbison, Miss M.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Zilliacus, K

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Rogers, G. H R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Holman, P.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Royle, C.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Birch, Nigel

Digby, S. W.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Bossom, A C

Drewe, C.

Lambert, Hon. G

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Duthie, W. S.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

Fox, Sir G.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Butcher, H. W

Gage, C.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Carson, E.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Grimston, R. V.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Raikes, H. V.

Touche, G. C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Vane, W. M. F.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Ropner, Col. L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Willoughby de Er sby, Lord

Osborne, C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

York, C.

Pickthorn, K.

Studholme, H G.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

Major Ramsay and Major Conant.

1.45 a.m.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, in line 120, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 127.
We have now come down to something really simple after the complicated things we have been considering. The idea of the new Standing Order is that it will be at the option of the Chairman not to have any Debate on the Motion he is bound to put to the effect that the Clause, or the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I suppose the idea of giving him this option is that it will save time. I do not think it will. Apart from that, I think it is taking away a right to which hon. Members have been long accustomed, of speaking, if they so wish, on the Motion that the Clause stand part. If there is any suggestion that the principle of a Clause is going to be talked about on Amendments, then automatically the Debate must be widened. I do not see how the Chairman is going to keep it in order if hon. Members have at the back of their minds the idea that they might not have a chance to speak on the Clause standing part and, therefore, they will try to get in what they want to say on the Amendments. Another difficulty is that while the Clause has not been completed hon. Members would be making speeches not knowing what the Clause was going to be like after discussion.
I cannot see any merit in this proposal. I do not think it will save time. In any event, if there should be any obstruction on the Clause standing part, the Closure is there for the Chairman's use. Another point is this. Often hon. Members come to me with Amendments they want to suggest to Bills which are in the Committee of which I am Chairman, and I often say to them, "That is a small point, raise it on the Motion that the Clause stand part." Under the new proposal when it comes to the point of putting the Question that the Clause stand part without discussion, I may have forgotten
1744
all about the hon. Member's point and so unwittingly tricked him out of his opportunity. I cannot understand whose idea this is. I have spoken to many people I know in this line of country and cannot find anyone who is willing to accept responsibility for what is a really foolish suggestion.
This proposal will give more responsibility to the Chairman. One does not mind that. If one takes on the duties of a chairman one has to accept that. There is much talk about obstruction in the House of Commons. My experience is that there is very little. Very often indeed I have seen obstruction by people one would have thought were trying to get a Bill through—[Laughter.] Yes, seriously. One could give examples of that. There are other people, of course, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) whom I sat on heavily in the Transport Committee because I thought he was putting his head above water. Nevertheless, seriously, I think this idea of obstruction is very much exaggerated. Most of us here take far too long to say too little.
1.49 a.m.
Mr. C. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
Possibly I can look at the powers of the Chair from the point of view of the occupant of the Chair and also that of the poacher. Over and over again, one has heard the occupant of the Chair say to an hon. Member, "That Amendment is not being called, you can raise it on the Motion that the Clause stand part." That is a fair position for the Chair to take up.
There have been many occasions when a few speeches on the Motion that the Clause stand part—the Home Secretary will bear me out on the Education Bill—have enabled us to clear up difficulties which arose in going through Amendments to the Clause. The whole thing can then be passed together and in all proba-

1745
bility a lot of trouble can be saved, if it is skilfully handled, as the Education Bill was, if I may say so without committing myself too much. At any rate, you can do something at that stage which will ease the Report stage enormously. These are the two reasons why it is valuable from the point of view of the Committee and the House and also from the point of view of the Government.
There is a further point I would like to take up. I am convinced at the present time that though the Chair has a sufficiently difficult task, it has sufficient powers. It has very considerable powers of closure and of selection. I should not like, and I believe other Members who have occupied the Chair from time to time would not like to have this additional power of having to rule out anything being said on the Motion that the Clause stand part. If it were accepted, it would undoubtedly be used fairly, but frankly I do not think there is the least necessity to give this further power to the Chair, and I do not believe it would really assist the Government or improve legislation.
I do not wish to be too political on this occasion, but I would remind the House that during the last two years we have not suffered from over-discussion. On the main Bills the Government have been perfectly thankful for another place to amend them and put mistakes right. In other words, it has been clearly shown there have not been too many stages but hardly an adequate number. The Government have made no concessions today to the Opposition and it is not unusual to do so on a matter which affects the whole House. It is not only a matter of Government, and I ask the Government to look at this and see if they could not take the point of view that this was something which was not going to do them a great deal of good and might easily be a disadvantage in any legislation they might have to pass.
1.54 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: We have heard a present Chairman and an ex-Chairman who can speak from the depths of their personal experiences of how the new Standing Order, if passed, would affect the conduct of the Chair and I think it is important to deal with the matter in the light of this view, which turns en-
1746
tirely on whether the Chairman thinks it is a good or a bad thing in enabling him to carry out the wishes of the House. We should pause and consider their remarks. I should also like to ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether the Chairman's Panel have been consulted, because if we pass this it rests on them to carry it out. I would also ask if the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means have been consulted, because they, too, will be concerned with the Committee stage of the whole House. Their views should be considered before a decision is taken.
I rose not only to deal with that point—because I have not been in the Chair, except for a short period as Temporary Chairman—but to give to Members, in case they did not know it, the history of this proposal. This, again, is a proposal which was put by the Government to the Select Committee. It was rejected by the Select Committee. The Government then put it to the Select Committee a second time, and the Committee rejected it unanimously a second time. That is the history of this proposal. If hon. Members like to look at the First Report they will find in paragraph 19. Page 8, that
"the principle on which this suggestion is opposed appears to apply with equal force to those occasions where, though the Clause has not been amended, the main points have been discussed and Amendments proposed. Your Committee do not, however, consider the proposal either desirable or necessary."
It goes on to say that under the existing Standing Orders the Chairman already possesses adequate power to check repetition. Then the Government, in March, 1946–the document has already been quoted—again asked the Committee whether it would reconsider the matter. Evidence was taken and the Lord President, who was speaking for the Government at that time, made it quite clear that he had suffered from a sense of injury ever since 1930 because of what happened on the Road Traffic Bill of that year, with which, apparently, he had some difficulty in Standing Committee. This had rankled ever since, as was quite clear in the evidence which he gave before the Select Committee, because he was there prepared to admit that the Chair has full power to deal with the problem of repetition and desultory debate, and so on, and he was asked by the Committee upon

1747
what grounds he had asked the Committee to reconsider the matter. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put it to him in Question 5689, when he said:
"I do not know whether it is suggested that there is something here which was not advanced before—any new argument which was not advanced before when we considered this the last time. One is wondering whether there is anything which the Lord President thinks we have not fully considered."
The hon. Member thought we ought to know the reasons why we had been asked to consider this a second time. All that the Lord President could say was:
"No; I thought it would be well to have the matter up again and have another talk about it, and see whether the Committee might come to another conclusion. But I agree I do not know that I am able to prove that I have advanced any new argument."
As a result of that and further consideration by the Committee the definite decision was taken and embodied in paragraph 60 of the Report, which reads:
"Your Committee is not aware of any new point which has arisen to justify them in reopening this question."
Therefore, we have this situation, that on the Committee we had no great number of Chairmen and ex-Chairmen, except that the Chairman was an ex-Chairman of Ways and Means. Apart from his knowledge and experience we were not a body of Chairmen. We have had two speeches on this Amendment pointing out that it is impractical and the twice repeated views of the Select Committee, after hearing evidence. If the Government intends to drive this proposal through the House I think, that even at this hour of the night, they have lost all sense of decency.
2.0 a.m.
Colonel Ropner: The Government have been reminded within the last few minutes that they have made no concession during today's debate and I hope they will see their way to meeting our views on this occasion. I have a feeling that the Minister who replies may use the argument that if this new Standing Order is adopted, the Chairman is given power to disallow a debate, but that, in fact, he will not exercise that power. The argument may be used that you are granting discretion to a responsible Member and he may well consider that on most occasions a debate should be allowed on the Question that
1748
the Clause stand part. That might be so, but the Members of a Committee when discussing an Amendment to a Clause will not know, nor will the Chairman himself know, what his ultimate decision is going to be. Therefore, all the discussion on the Clause and the question of deciding whether it is advisable to discuss an Amendment or whether it is right to leave the matter for debate on the Clause standing part—all these matters must be considered on the assumption that the Chairman is going to rule that there must be no discussion on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may not use that argument at all—I do not know—but if he does, I hope that I have done something to discount it in advance.
In my view, and I speak as one who has had a limited experience of taking the Chair in Standing Committee, it is wrong to put the onus on the Chairman of deciding whether the Clause as a whole, as distinct from discussion of parts of it on Amendments, has been adequately discussed. It is a very wrong decision for a Chairman to have to make. The Chairman of a Standing Committee already possesses adequate powers of checking repetition. That will not be denied, and under the present arrangements it is for the Committee itself on a Closure Motion to decide whether the Clause has been adequately discussed or not. I hold the view very strongly that this is a matter which should be decided by the Committee and hot by the Chairman.
There is just one other point that I would like to make and it is this, that however conversant a Chairman may be—and he should be very conversant with the provisions of the Bill under discussion—he would be very ill-advised to imagine that he could foretell whether or not there was any new point that could be raised as a matter of principle on the Question that the Clause stand part. I have often thought when a Clause is under discussion and the Question has been put that the Clause stand part, it would be impossible for any hon. Member of the Committee to raise any new point that has any bearing on the principle of the Clause, but I must confess that very often I have been wrong in thinking that to be the case. It is frequently possible for hon. Members to raise points which the

1749
Chairman could not possibly have known were going to be raised—quite legitimate points—and that illustrates the impossibility of the Chairman arriving at a fair decision whether he can allow discussion on the Question that the Clause stand part.
I think that the proposal of the Government might well have the opposite effect to what they want. It might well be found, if the proposal is adopted, that discussion on Clauses would take very much longer than they do under the present arrangements. I do not think that it is giving away any secret of the practice of Chairmen of Committees upstairs to say that very often on discussions on Amendments we rule that a particular matter had better be discussed on the Question that the Clause stand part. We are very mindful of the necessity of legislating in this House. The Government want to get legislation through and it is a device to discourage discussion on a Clause to suggest that discussion be on the Question "That the Clause stand part" and to hope that, by the time that Question is put, the Committee will be so tired that the discussion will be very brief. Often we are right in that presumption, and by using that form of persuasion in the Committee we are able to ensure that discussion is not unduly prolonged. I feel that the suggestion of the Government is ill-advised and that on this one occasion they will be well advised to accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend.
2.6 a.m.
Mr. Butcher: There is little which can be added to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), although it seems that if there is anything which should be added, one would expect something from the hon Members opposite who have been settled in solemn silence for so many hours. We shall no doubt hear much of them on another occasion. I think that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, this is not likely to facilitate proceedings in Committee upstairs at all. It is more likely to delay things. I cannot see how the Chairman of a Committee can carry in his mind three different things—to limit the scope of discussion on Amendments to the exact matter of those Amendments, and, at the same time, to turn round and say that, when all the pieces have been discussed in a "choppy" manner, the Committee has had adequate
1750
discussion and there would be no more discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part."
The present procedure is that the Chairman and the Committee work together. If there is any feeling by the Minister in charge of the Bill that progress is not what it should be, the Chairman must accept the closure under 26 and 47 of the Standing Orders, and the Committee can decide whether it shall continue or not. Therefore, it will be seen that the Chairman and the Committee work together. But if the Chairman has to decide on whether the Question "That the Clause stand part" shall be discussed or not, he is bound to offend someone—first one person, and then another, and the Committee will find that the usual harmonious atmosphere is likely to be disturbed. I believe that the observations of the Select Committee, which in this case are entirely unanimous, should be followed. The Government should withdraw this proposal and allow things to go forward until they are completely satisfied that the present arrangement has failed to work. I do not think there has been undue obstruction whatever with the working of Standing Committees upstairs.
2.10 a.m.
Mr. McKie: I do hope that the moment has arrived when, at long last we are likely to get some concession from the Government. I am emboldened to say that because of the genial expression on the face of the Leader of the House, and to the very convincing arguments put forward tonight on this point he cannot, surely, turn a deaf ear. I regard this Motion, as the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) has said, as one of the most vital to us in Opposition. It is one of the most vital in all these new Standing Orders from the point of view of the Opposition, but, after all, we have tried to put forward from this side, throughout the discussion yesterday and this morning, the point that all these Standing Orders should not be considered so much, as between Government and Opposition but from a House of Commons point of view.
If that is the case, generally speaking, how much more must it be so in regard to the specific Motion now under consideration? If this is not a House of Commons question, I should

1751
just like to know what it is. It is a matter which must concern those in Opposition more than those on the Government side. Hon. Members opposite have always said they would occupy that side of the House, but they should view the question not merely generally, but from the point of view of the other side as well. We cannot tell how events will progress and it is quite possible that those hon. Members, sooner than some Members on the other side think, may find themselves upon these benches—and then how will they view this new Standing Order for the carrying into effect of which they have been responsible?
Surely, the Home Secretary will agree that to ask us to do away with a Debate on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is to make hon. Members forgo one of their most precious rights. The Chairman, both upstairs and also when the House is sitting as a Committee of the Whole House, has very valuable powers, such as the power of selection by the "Kangaroo" Motion. It is also at the option of the Chair that the Motion that a Clause stand part of a Bill shall not be discussed, so that an hon. Member who desired to speak then would be completely ruled out.
I hope the Home Secretary will be seized of the importance of all this question, which would be a completely vital matter for the Standing Committees, and particularly the Grand Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am sure that the two new occupants of the Scottish Office, whom I wish to congratulate, will be glad because it will spare them much trouble in the future. I hope they will certainly not be prepared lightly to barter away this very valuable opportunity of the House of Commons as far as private Members are concerned. I hope whoever replies will be in a position to make some concessions because every Government, after all, has to make some concessions. Certainly in the first Parliament in which I sat, in 1931, when there was an Opposition of only some 52 members of the Socialist party, concession after concession was given to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, and, after looking at the debates and seeing that what I am saying is true, will forgo the Motion on the Order Paper.
2.15 a.m.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I want to address a word or two of what, I hope, are practical arguments to the House from the point of view of a back bencher who does endeavour to assist the work of the House occasionally in Standing Committee. I believe that the Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part" is a safety valve which is of very real assistance to the Standing Committee and the House. I believe it saves, in the long run, a great deal of time and if you possibly eliminate the opportunity of debate on the Question that the Clause stand part you are going to force Members to put down many more Amendments to the Clauses which will result in the Chairmen of Committees getting into great difficulties as to the Amendments they are to call, and what they are not to call and result in very much more diffused, widespread and elaborate Debate on the Amendment. It is going to become necessary for each Amendment to be debated in full, because Members of the Standing Committee are not going to know whether or not the Chairman is going to allow debate on the Clause stand part. If you eliminate the safety valve of debate on the Clause you are going to get as a result, a greatly increased amount of time on the various Amendments. I would further urge that occasions do arise when just because you have had a very full Debate on the Amendments to a Clause, it is the more necessary to have a Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part."
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself, in another capacity, has sought some profit from that fact quite recently with regard to the Debates which we had upstairs on Clause I of the Agriculture Bill. It will be recollected that in Standing Committee on the Agriculture Bill we had very full Debates on one or two major Amendments and because of the way in which those Debates went and the results of the Divisions which flowed from them we considered it was necessary to have still further a Debate on the Question that the Clause stand part. I have not the least doubt that had this provision then been in operation the Chairman would have been justified in considering that the Clause had already been fully debated and the Opposition in Standing Committee at that time would have failed to produce their

1753
point of view which the right hon. Gentleman has since used in other ways for the leaflet which has been distributed all over the country.
As a last point, I would pray in aid of my argument the reply of the Lord President to Question 5666, when he was asked in regard to the present procedure what his view was. He said:
"I can only say (and I say this as a member of the Government and Leader of the House of Commons with a majority behind me) that I would myself feel reluctant even to move that the question be now put, directly the question had first been proposed that the Clause stand part."
If the right hon. Gentleman himself would feel reluctant to move "That the Question be now put," how much more reluctant would a Chairman of a Committee be to accept such a Motion? I urge the House that to pass this present proposal would be to put the Chairman of Committees into an impossible position, and it would make it far more difficult for adequate and proper as well as curtailment of indiscriminatory Debate to take place upstairs and it is calculated to lengthen the Debates in Standing Committee rather than curtail them.
2.21 a.m.
Mr. Wingfield Digby: We have been discussing tonight a number of proposals by the Government which have been twice turned down by the Select Committee. It seems to me in this particular case that the arguments advanced by the Government are perhaps more flimsy than on other occasions. I have carefully read the evidence before the Select Committee and it seems to me that the Lord President of the Council based his case primarily on some experience which he had away back in 1930, nearly 20 years ago. Then he went on to say that it had been reported to him that the same kind of thing happened now. I think those of us who have sat on a number of Standing Committees in this Parliament have not had that experience, and we find it difficult to take that argument seriously unless there is substantially more to it than that.
In answer to Question 5562, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was a reasonable and sensible precautionary measure to put forward even if it were not as necessary as he made out. It seems to me from the point of view of the ordinary Member sitting on a Standing
1754
Committee that if this Amendment is accepted we are going to be left in the position of having to assume on each Clause that there will not be a Motion for the Clause to stand part, because we shall not know until it is too late whether there is going to be one or not. Therefore, the ordinary Member will have only two remedies, he will either have to try to bring in what he wants to say on some one else's Amendment and try to keep it in order although it is irrelevant, which is not going to do much good to the proceedings; or if he is more cautious still, he will put down Amendments to cover a good many of the small points which he would usually raise on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I submit to the House that either of these two alternatives would be unsatisfactory to the ordinary Member and is not going to expedite or improve the proceedings of the Standing Committees upstairs. I urge the Government to think again on this matter, because I am sure that completely practical considerations suggest that this system has the very gravest objections.
2.24 a.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to say something about what we have heard from hon. Members who are either serving now as Chairmen of Committees or who have served in that capacity in the past. My view is that they have been too modest in stating their experiences in the Chair. Most of us who have been in this House for any length of time and have served on Standing Committees can well remember different Chairmen—and they are all good Chairmen about here because if they were not they would not last long—saying, "I am going to allow the Debate to range fairly widely over this Amendment, and I hope when we come to the Debate on the Clause standing part that we shall not carry it to any undue length." That is a comparatively common practice and it is a very good, commonsense practice, too.
But it is very different from this proposal. That means the Chairman has drawn the attention of the Committee to a perfectly commonsense arrangement, saying in effect, "I shall blink my eye at what is now technically out of Order in order to carry on and facilitate business, but I shall check you when we come to debate the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part." That is a perfectly commonsense arrangement,

1755
and we all know that it works. It promotes good will between the Chairman and the Committee, and that is vitally important.
I believe that the proposal of the Government will make the position of Committee Chairman extremely difficult. The last thing we want to do is to put the Chairman in the position of being unpopular with their Committees, or to put them into an embarrassing position. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that aspect of the matter when he comes to answer, because it is very important. Unless we can retain that tradition of this House, that the Chairman of a Committee is part of the Committee, and a friend to the Committee, helping forward the business of the Committee, the business of this House simply will not go on.
I should like to draw attention to another point only lightly touched upon. For many years I served as a sort of "scullery maid," as other hon. Members have done and do, to a Minister by way of being a P.P.S., helping the Minister in his work on Standing Committees. In that way one does acquire a certain degree of ability in judging whether matters are likely to arise, and to what extent, on the Question that the Clause stand part. I should like to endorse what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), that, again and again, it happens that, although the Minister concerned and the Chairman of the Committee deem to the Clause to have been so thoroughly discussed that nothing new can arise on the Question that the Clause stand part, yet, to their surprise, and to the surprise of other Members of the Committee, new points do then arise after all, and questions are asked from new angles, and much new information thereby elicited. Moreover, questions arising at that stage have often to be discussed further on Report. By this proposal of the Government that sort of development will be whittled down. It will be a whittling down of part of the machinery of Parliament that ought not to be whittled down any further. I would ask the Minister to consider that when he replies.
Finally, I want to stress the matter of the difficulty of keeping in Order. It is not only a problem for the Chairman.
1756
Under the proposal before us now the Chairman is quite clearly placed in an absolutely impossible position. One has only to look at the wording of the proposal:
"If … the chairman is of opinion that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed…."
"Any matters arising thereon." What a terribly wide and sweeping sort of definition. If the Government want this, and are going to steamroller this proposal through, let us, at least, have it better formed than that. This proposal puts the Chairmen in a position of being prophets, or, alternatively, of having to ignore the rules of Order. By a direction like this they must make nonsense of their job. I feel very sorry for them. I do not believe we shall have the best representatives of this House prepared to join the Chairmen's panel, if we insist on having these words in the Standing Order. I do not think those who are really conscientious, and wish to see business in Committee and on the Floor of the House carried on in a fair and proper manner, will be ready to accept the position under these conditions.
Now what about the Private Member's angle? The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) has touched on that. I think he was mild on the Private Member in this matter. It will be absolutely impossible for the Member to know whether he is in order or not. At any moment the Chairman may rise and rule him out of Order. Supposing the Chairman goes on doing this to every Member who rises and raises points which are too wide, then the Chairman may say "So many Members have raised such wide points that everything has been covered, so we cannot have a Debate now." The Government must recognise that they are putting up a problem for Members and Chairmen which is quite insoluble. If they insist they will do an awful amount of harm to the rapid passage of a Bill through Committee.
2.32 a.m.
Mr. Touche: I only want to speak for a few minutes to put the point of view of one who has been a Chairman of Standing Committees. I should like to suggest to the Government before they proceed with this proposal that they might ask the Panel of Chairmen for their opinion because they have to do the job in the end. I have no doubt the people

1757
who put forward this proposal, although they may have held higher offices than that of a chairman of committees, have not had, I think, much actual contact with the duties of a Chairman of Standing Committee. I suggest that this proposal will not help the Government in any way or help the Committee in any way, and certainly will not help the Chairman in any way. If we look back, the Motion that the Clause stand part has performed a very useful purpose in our discussions upstairs. In the long run it has shortened discussion. If we have this proposal we shall have discussion more prolonged. From the Chairman's point of view, it is going to place him in a very invidious and difficult position. It is impossible, while discussion is taking place on a Clause to know whether every aspect has been exhausted. It very often occurs that entirely new aspects arise, as everyone who has spoken on this proposal tonight has related from his experience of Standing Committees, and I ask the Government to withdraw the proposal.
2.34 a.m.
Mr. Ede: We have had the advantage in these discussions of listening to the views of two ex-Deputy-Chairmen of Ways and Means, and several Chairmen of Standing Committees. I am quite sure the House would desire to give due weight to what they have said, but I suggest, at the same time, hon. Members should make allowances for their well-known modesty when they discuss their own powers and capabilities. I have had the pleasure of serving under two or three of the hon. Gentlemen who have served as Chairmen and who have spoken in this Debate, and I am sure that if the House asked them to undertake this further duty, they would be quite capable of discharging it. All the arguments we have heard tonight were advanced when it was proposed to arm Mr. Speaker, and afterwards the Chairman of Ways and Means, and later the Chairmen of Standing Committees, with the power of accepting a motion for the Closure.
Colonel Ropner: If the arguments that have been used tonight were used then, on one of the two occasions the arguments have been completely out of Order.
Mr. Ede: I have had experience of seeing those right hon. and hon. Members of the House exercising that power, and know that they discharged it with the full
1758
confidence of every hon. Member of the House. They did it without feeling any very great embarrassment when the appropriate Member of the Committee rose to move that the Question be put. The Chairman of a Standing Committee is perfectly capable of deciding on the spot whether he will or will not accept the proposal.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: But the proposal does not emanate from the Chair in that case. It comes from the Minister in charge of the Bill. That is a very different matter. The Minister exercises his discretion, and it is his responsibility. The Chair does not initiate it.
Mr. Ede: The Chairman has to make the decision whether he will accept it or not. The responsibility is his. The Chairmen have proved over a series of years that they are perfectly capable of exercising that discretion and preserving the most friendly relations with every hon. Member on the Committee concerned. I want to draw attention to the exact proposal we are making. This has been discussed tonight as if on almost every Clause this issue would arise. The Chairman has to satisfy himself that the principle of a Clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of the Debate on the Amendments proposed. If the Debate has been confined to a number of Amendments raising separate small points, the principle of the Clause will probably not have been raised by any one of the Amendments. I think myself that it would be more likely that the effect of this proposed Standing Order would be to make debates on individual Amendments rather narrower than they sometimes have been in the past.
Sir C. MacAndrew: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by that? I just do not understand it.
Mr. Ede: I said it would make the debate on the individual Amendments possibly narrower because the Member himself will be anxious that the principle of the Clause should not be raised, if it can be avoided, until the Committee gets to the question that the Clause stand part. Clearly the Chairman will not be in a position to rule that the question that the Clause stand part shall be put without debate. If, during the course of the debate on Amendments, which ought

1759
to be narrow, the wider issue of principle has been raised, Members may jeopardise that position. I should have thought the greater danger would have been that debates on individual Amendments would be narrower than they now are rather than that on a great many occasions the Chairman should have an opportunity of exercising the option this new Standing Order gives him. Members do not have to be very long in the House before meeting many occasions on which they hear on one single Amendment the whole issue of the principle of a Clause raised and debated at some length, and, when the Amendments have been disposed of, the question of principle then raised again on the Motion that the Clause stand part.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) corroborated what I said earlier in the discussion on the general issue on cases of Chairman, under the existing rules, having given warning that, if on a particular Amendment they go as wide as they appear to be going, it will restrict the opportunities for discussion on the Question that the Clause stand part.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The point I was making was that the Chairman raised that point and informed the Committee about what was going to happen—exactly the reverse of the procedure under the Government proposal now. Under the Government's proposal, nobody will know until the end what the Chairman's ruling is; and that is exactly the reverse of the present position, which works extremely well.
Mr. Ede: I should have thought, having served under various Chairmen, that the probability is that the Chairman will give the same indication now with greater assurance, because he will have this Standing Order to support him in shortening the Debate on the Question that the Clause stand part by being able to prevent it altogether. I should have thought that would have strengthened the position of Chairmen in trying to prevent undue repetition of arguments covering the same ground.
Sir C. MacAndrew: He has power now to prevent tedious repetitions. I have done it often.
Mr. Ede: I think this is in cases where repetition would hardly be regarded as tedious.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Question No. 5655.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentlemen who have argued against this Motion have, I suggest, assumed throughout that this will be a Standing Order that will be of very frequent application. I suggest to the House that it will be one that will not be of frequent application, but it will be on suitable occasions a very effective weapon in the hands of the Chairman in ensuring that the Committee stage of a Bill shall be conducted in such a way that, when the principle of a Clause has been fully debated, it will not again form the subject of Debate when the House has before it the Question that the Clause stand part. I suggest it is a very useful addition to the powers of Chairman.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is one question I would like to ask, as the right hon. Gentleman has not made the matter clear. It is not made clear whether, after debate on an Amendment which covers the principle of the Clause, an hon. Member has the right under this proposal to ask for information on the Clause, which surely he has at present.
Mr. Ede: I would have thought that in that case the hon. Member concerned would probably get the answer to which he is entitled.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The versatility of the Home Secretary has been universally admired throughout his career in this House, but I want to point out to him that one of the functions which he has never fulfilled is that of Chairman, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. Neither has the Lord President done so. Arrayed against him is a great crowd of formidable witnesses. [Interruption.] Surely hon. Members will not mock at the name of the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), who earlier today expressed himself against this proposal being incorporated in Standing Orders. He was a Chairman of Committees respected in all parts of the House, but evidently he is not respected by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I am sorry, because the rest of us do respect him.

1761
The hon. Member for Newton was followed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), another former Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and—surely most formidable of all—the four hon. Members who will have to operate this proposal if it is adopted, the four Chairmen of Committees—an expert panel. Added to this is the fact that the Select Committee has twice rejected this proposal. Hon. Members will, I think, agree that the Government have nothing in the way of expert opinion on their side; nor do they carry with them the goodwill of the hon. Members who will have to carry out this function. I think the Home Secretary has been beaten out of the water by the Chairmen of Committees, who have pointed out that frequently they have had to restrict debate on the Question that the Clause stand part because Amendments have been fully discussed.
At this point, may I say that I resent one observation by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac Andrew), who put forward the astonishing proposal that those who put their heads above water are going to be sat on. That gives a grossly unfair advantage to the Minister of Fuel and Power. The sweeping powers of selection of Amendments, the acceptance of the Closure, the fact that the Debate on the Question that the Clause stand part is restricted if a large number of Amendments have been discussed, surely do provide the most adequate machinery for dealing with this matter. On a previous Amendment, I objected to the Business Committee being incorporated in Standing Orders on the ground that it has not had sufficient trial. But this proposal
we are discussing has not been tried at all. Yet it is proposed that it should be written immediately into Standing Orders. The evidence is all against the Government in this matter. No one in any part of the House, apart from the Minister, has risen to commend this. No hon. Member opposite has thought it proper. No one, I think who has served in the Chair, or anyone else, has commended this proposal.
It surely is monstrous that a proposal of this sort should be put into our procedure at 3 o'clock in the morning. I think I heard the Leader of the House say, "Whose fault is that?" Well, whose fault is it? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is an abuse of the House that we should discuss Standing Orders? This is not the Committee stage. If the Lord President of the Council thinks that the Opposition are going to allow an entirely new set of Standing Orders to go through in four or five hours, he is entirely mistaken. I am exercising my right as a Private Member, which I propose to do without even asking the permission of the Leader of the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a little bit touchy tonight. The Socialist flag has been struck. If it were not for the fortuitous fact that there are no elections in London, he would be looking even more glum. We do not consent to be steam-rollered, and when he talks about delay, I hope that my colleagues of the Opposition will show their resistance.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 50.

Division No. 18.]

AYES.

[2.52 a.m.

Attewell, H. C.

Deer, G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Austin, H. Lewis

Delargy, H. J

Hewitson, Capt. M

Barton, C

Dobbie, W.

Holman, P.

Bechervaise, A. E

Dodds, N. N.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Beswick, F.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Hoy, J.

Bing, G. H. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Blackburn, A R

Evans, A (Islington, W.)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Fairhurst, F.

Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

Blyton, W R.

Farthing, W J

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Bottomley, A. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Gibbins, J.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gibson, C. W

Keenan, W.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Gilzean, A.

Kenyon, C.

Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Collindridge, F

Grierson, E.

Kinley, J.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Logan, D. G.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Longden, F.

Crossman, R. H S

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Lyne, A. W.

Daggar, G.

Hardy, E. A

Mack, J. D.

McKinlay, A. S.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Tolley, L.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Mayhew C. P.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Medland, H. M.

Royle, C.

Watkins, T. E.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Scollan, T.

Watson, W. M.

Milington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Milchison, G. R.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Monslow, W.

Shurmer, P.

West, D. G.

Moody, A. S.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Wigg, George

Nally, W.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wilkes, L

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Snow, J. W.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Orbach, M.

Steele, T.

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Pearson, A

Stross, Dr. B.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Stubbs, A. E

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Popplewell, E.

Swingler, S.

Willis, E.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Symonds, A. L.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Woodburn, A.

Pryde, D. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Woods, G. S.

Randall, H. E.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Ranger, J.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Zilliacus, K.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Robens, A.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Mr. Simmons and

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Tiffany, S.

Mr. Richard Adams.

NOES.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Grimston, R. V.

Raikes, H. V.

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bossom, A. C.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bowen, R.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ropner, Col L.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Butcher, H. W.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Carson, E.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Touche, G. C.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Mellor, Sir J.

Willioughby de Eresby, Lord

Digby, S. W.

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C

Drewe, C.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Duthie, W. S.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fox, Sir G.

Pickthorn, K.

Commander Agnew and

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Mr. Studholme.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders, and new Standing Orders, relating to Public Business, hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.
SCHEDULE.
Standing Order No. 47, line 1, leave out "Not more than five," and insert "As many."
Standing Order No. 47, line 2, after "appointed," insert "as may be necessary."
Standing Order No, 47, line 3, leave out "referred," and insert "committed."
Standing Order No. 47, line 15, leave out "twenty," and insert "fifteen."
Standing Order No. 48, line 2, leave out from "of," to "members," in line 3, and insert "twenty."
Standing Order No. 48, line 7, leave out from beginning, to "and."
Standing Order No. 48, line 15, leave out "less than ten nor."
Standing Order No. 48, line 16, leave out "thirty-five," and insert "thirty."
After Standing Order No. 48, insert new Standing Order (Meetings of standing committees)—
(1) A standing committee to whom a Bill has been committed shall meet to consider that Bill on such days of the week (being days on which the House sits) as may be appointed by the standing committee at half-past ten of the clock, unless the committee otherwise determine:
Provided that—

(i) the first meeting of a standing committee to consider a Bill shall be on a day and at a time to be named by the chairman of the committee:

(ii) no standing committee shall sit between the hours of one of the clock and half-past three of the clock.

(2) If a standing committee is not previously adjourned, the chairman shall adjourn the committee without question put at one of the clock:
Provided that—

(i) if, in the opinion of the chairman, the proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion by a short extension of

1765
the sitting, he may defer adjourning the committee until a quarter past one of the clock.

(ii) if proceedings under the standing order "Closure of debate" be in progress at the time when the chairman would be required to adjourn the committee under this paragraph, he shall not adjourn the committee until the questions consequent thereon and on any further motion as provided in that standing order, have been decided.

(3) Government Bills referred to a standing committee shall be considered in whatever order the Government may decide.
After the last new Standing Order, insert new Standing Order (Business sub-committee)—

(1) An allocation of time order relating, or so much thereof as relates, to the committee stage, made in respect of a Bill committed or to be committed to a standing comittee, shall, as soon as the Bill has been allocated to a standing committee, stand referred without any question being put to a sub-committee of that standing committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order.

(2) (a) There shall be a sub-committee of every standing committee, to be designated the business sub-committee, for the consideration of any allocation of time order or part thereof made in respect of any Bill allocated to that standing committee, and to report to that committee upon—

(i) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill;

(ii) the hours of any additional sittings;

(iii) the allocation of the proceedings to be taken at each sitting; and

(iv) the time at which proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be concluded."

(b) As soon as may be after an allocation of time order relating to a bill committed to a standing committee has been made, Mr. Speaker shall nominate the chairman of the standing committee in respect of that bill and seven members of the standing committee as constituted in respect of that bill to be members of the business sub-committee to consider that order and those members shall be discharged from the subcommittee when that bill has been reported to the House by the standing committee; the chairman of the committee shall be the chairman of the sub-committee; the quorum of the sub-committee shall be four; and the sub-committee shall have power to report from time to time to the standing committee.
(c) All resolutions of a business subcommittee shall be printed and circulated with the Votes. If, when any such resolutions have been reported to the standing committee, a motion "That this committee doth agree with the resolution (or resolutions) of the business sub-committee," is moved by the member at the time in charge of the bill, such a motion shall not require
1766
notice, and shall be moved at the commencement of proceedings at any sitting of the standing committee; and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate, and, if resolved in the affirmative, the said resolution (or resolutions) shall operate as though included in the allocation of time order made by the House; but, if resolved in the negative, the resolution shall be referred back to the business subcommittee.
After the last new Standing Order, insert now Standing Order (Attendance of Law Officers in standing committees),—
Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being members of this House, or any of them, though not members of a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or form part of the quorum.
After the last new Standing Order, insert new Standing Order (Adjournment of House to facilitate business of standing committees),—
In order to facilitate the business of standing committees a motion may, after two days' notice, be made by a minister of the crown at the commencement of public business, in either of the following forms:—

(a) "That this House do now adjourn" in which case, if the question thereon be not previously agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall put the question half an hour after it has been proposed), or

(b) "That this House do now adjourn till seven of the clock this day" in which case the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate):

Provided that if, on a day on which a motion in the terms of paragraph (a) of this order stands on the paper, leave has been given to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or opposed private business has been set down by direction of the chairman of ways and means, the motion shall be moved in the terms and subject to the procedure prescribed by paragraph (b) of this standing order.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
3.0 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, to leave out line 13.
I think it might be convenient to take the following two Amendments together because they are on the same point. The Amendments are: in line 14, leave out "thirty," and insert "fifty."; in line 14, at beginning, insert, "Standing Order No. 48, line 15, leave out 'ten,' and insert 'thirty.'"
The point which now arises is that we have left the third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure and we are embodying into Standing Orders various Sessional Orders passed previously and

1767
employed in previous Sessions. The first question for consideration is whether the present method of appointing and manning Standing Committees is right. The Government have suggested that instead of there being only five Standing Committees and a Scottish Grand Committee, as many as are necessary should be set up and that, of course, will mean there may be a larger number than five. In order to get over that possible difficulty, the Amendment which the Government have carried previously and which they propose to incorporate now represents a change, not only in the membership of the permanent nucleus of Standing Committees, but also the number of members who are added.
The difference between the point of view I want to express and the Government point of view is this. They wish the permanent nucleus to be fixed at 20 and, over and above that, that there should be power to add not more than thirty, but they do not make any provision for adding any at all. Under their present scheme, the Government could keep a Standing Committee of 20 within the wording of this Standing Order. In the past one had to add somebody. The existing Standing Order proposes that one has to add not more than 35, or less than 10. It was incumbent to add some. It is not so any more, and that is my first objection. It is quite possible to have a Standing Committee of 20 under the Government plan, but the total number who can be added is 30, thus making a Standing Committee of 50.
The proposal I make is to leave the permanent nucleus of 20 but to say that the Committee of Selection should add not less than 30 or more than 50–that is, that a Standing Committee would be at least 50 strong and, in some cases, where it was thought necessary, it could go up to 70. This is based on practical experience. During the last two years since the size of the Standing Committees has been reduced—and I make no complaint about that, because it was a step which the House thought fit to take—experience has shown that when we consider the proportionate membership of the House and the manning of the official Oppositions, every Opposition on Standing Committees is very small. I put it to the Government that we are now altering the Standing Committees and adding to them at a time
1768
when the Oppositions are not numerically as small when compared with the Government side of the House as they have sometimes been and as they may well be again.
I say quite frankly in regard to the size of the Standing Committees that it has been far from easy to carry on the proper work of Opposition. The Government will probably concede that we have done our best to see that the Opposition point of view was put forward, but they would realise from the nakedness of the land on some occasions, due to illness or other unavoidable absence, that the forces arrayed against them were very small—and this out of an Opposition of a united size that we have now, in the region of 190 or 200. Suppose you have an Opposition which might well be 100 as has happened during my own lifetime, or of only just over 50. It would be absolutely impossible properly to man the committees if they were so small because the Opposition proportion would be so small. They will have only two or three members on any Standing Committee and if one of them goes sick or is absent, the Opposition will collapse because there is no-one there to carry it through. It is a danger and a consideration we ought to bear in mind. A minimum of 50 is really the lowest which you can reasonably expect the House to work even in the proportion which we are to the Government today. We have to envisage the possibility of one side—I do not say which side it might be—being even smaller. The proportion in the Standing Committee is too small and the proportion is unworkable.
It is to the interest of the Government that Bills should be opposed or criticised. No one has said that more often than the Lord President himself. If the whole Opposition in Committee is represented by three Members that would not be possible. Therefore, as we have changed the Standing Orders now and have had experience of the last two years with reduced numbers, I put it to the Government that it has not been an unqualified success. Therefore, the figures which I suggest and those which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) put before the Select Committee in 1945 have been proved by experience to be the right figures.
3.7 a.m.
Mr. Ede: In this matter we have had the experience of two Sessions. I have listened with great attention and interest to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has said. This is the first time that any intimation has been made to us that the Opposition have these feelings with regard to possible difficulty of manning these Committees. If I knew he was going to raise this point I would have been glad of an opportunity of discussing it with him before. I feel the experience we have had indicates that these Committees have proved both workmanlike and satisfactory. We think the experience that we have gained under Sessional Orders warrants us in feeling that they should now be embodied in the Standing Orders.
Captain Crookshank: Is that all the right hon. Gentleman is going to say? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thought I ought to have come and dis-
cussed with him the Amendment on the Order Paper. It was perfectly clear what this meant and I have had no suggestion from him that I should discuss this matter. I do not know what my answer would have been if he had extended an invitation.
Mr. Pickthorn: Am I to understand that the suggestion now is that, although the Government paid no attention to the recommendations of the Select Committee, if there is a conference between one Gentleman from the Treasury Bench and one from the Opposition side of the House, that would make a difference to the way these things are done? Is that the suggestion?
Mr. Ede: I think it is not an unreasonable suggestion.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 42.

Division No. 19.]

AYES.

[3.10 a.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Attewell, H. C.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Shurmer, P.

Austin, H. Lewis

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Barton, C.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Simmons, C. J.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Skeffington, A. M.

Beswick, F.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Skinnard, F W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Blackburn, A. R

Keenan, W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Blenkinsop, A.

Kenyon, C.

Steele, T.

Blyton, W. R

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Stross, Dr. B

Bottomley, A. G.

Kinley, J.

Stubbs, A. E

Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Logan, D. G.

Swingler, S.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Longden, F.

Symonds, A. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Lyne, A. W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Mack, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

McKinlay, A. S.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Collindridge, F.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Mayhew, C. P.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Medland, H. M.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Middleton, Mrs L

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Daggar, G.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R.

Tiffany, S.

Deer, G.

Mitchison, G. R.

Tolley, L.

Delargy, H. J

Monslow, W.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Dobbie, W.

Moody, A. S

Watkins, T. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Watson, W. M.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Nally, W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

West, D. G.

Fairhurst, F.

Orbach, M

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Farthing, W J.

Pearson, A

Wigg, George

Fernyhough, E.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Wilkes, L.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Popplewell, E.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gibbins, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Gibson, C. W

Pryde, D. J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Gilzean, A.

Randall, H. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Ranger, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Grierson, E.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Willis, E.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Robens, A.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Woodburn, A

Hardy, E. A.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Woods, G. S.

Herbison, Miss M.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Zilliacus, K

Holman, P.

Royle, C.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Scollan, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hoy, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Mr. Snow and Mr C Wallace.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Duthie, W S.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Birch, Nigel

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ropner, Col L

Bottom, A C.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Bowen, R.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Studholme, H. G.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, G. C.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Butcher, H. W.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Carson, E.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Mellor, Sir J

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Digby, S. W.

Pickthorn, K.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Drewe, C.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Major Conant and

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Captain Crookshank—the Amendment to line 39.
Captain Crookshank: Not the Amendment to line 37, to leave out Section (3)?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.
3.16 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am sorry about that, because the Government are taking powers which they have not got at present.
I beg to move, in line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 75.
This raises a point which, again, I ask the House to consider very carefully. It is not much good asking Ministers to consider it very carefuly, because they are treating us very cavalierly at the moment; but others may treat it very carefully. Our view is that it is premature to make this Standing Order out of a Sessional Order of last year; that is, the Sessional Order which set up the Business Sub-Committees to deal with the allocation of time in Standing Committees. It was an experiment. It was a proposal which was made by the Select Committee, and I take no exception to it at all; but I do not think it is wise, when we have something so novel as this, and only a very small amount of experience of it, to make it part of the permanent arrangements.
I have not myself been on one of those Standing Committees which has suffered under an allocation of time order, but no doubt some of my hon. Friends who have will be able to tell the rest of the House how the experiment has worked. I have been more fortunate. I have been a Member of Committees which have dealt with long Bills during this Parliament—the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill and
1772
the Agriculture Bill—on which there was no timetable, on which the relations were very friendly between the two sides of the Committee, under the guidance of an admirable Chairman, so that we were able to get both those Bills, after discussion of all points to the satisfaction, so far as I know, of both sides of the Committee, in the period which, unofficially, I happen to know was the period which the Government was aiming at, and by the end of which they wanted the Bills to be through the Standing Committee.
We have always taken the view, on this allocation of time order, that it is far better to try and see how far the Committee can get before it is threatened with a time table. The Government have not accepted that view. They want to start with it straight away. Erskine May points out, on page 455, that it has been unusual up to now for an allocation of time order to be moved until the rate of progress has provided an argument for its necessity. I think it is much wiser that that should be the practice in future. I suppose we have not had one for the Debate tonight because the Government did not think about it in time.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be surprised what we think about.
Captain Crookshank: I thought I had expressed my surprise fairly adequately earlier today, and now I wish to express my disgust that we should be discussing important matters without the Government paying regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is entirely the fault of the Government that anything of this sort should have occurred. I do not want to be carried away by the right hon. Gentleman. I am getting tired of his accusations, and I will make some attack of my own one of these days. I have

1773
plenty in my locker when I choose to open it.
It would be far better, more harmonious, and much more likely to get business discussed shortly if the Government had prided themselves on managing our affairs in a democratic way. It would also be better if the Government prided themselves on Bills passed through this House under an allocation of time order being adequately discussed, but the experience last Session does not make it possible to claim that. If they will look at what happened to Bills on which there was not an allocation of time order, they will see they were discussed to the satisfaction of both sides. The word "satisfaction" is perhaps not fair, because we did not approve the Bills. Actually the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Electricity Bill did not have timetables put upon them, and I gather that they were adequately discussed by those whose duty it was to discuss them.
On the other hand, those which had a timetable were not adequately discussed, and part of the reason for that was that the Business Committee, in spite of all its good intentions to make the most successful allocation of time, could not do so. I think that must be the deduction. Whatever the reasons, the time has not yet come to make this a permanent Standing Order. I think it should continue this Session, at any rate, as a Sessional Order, and see how we get along. But the only way we have of protesting is to move the total rejection of this proposal. I am against the total rejection because I want this experiment to continue and the Business Committee to try this still further, but I do not want it to become a permanent feature as a Standing Order.
3.25 a.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: It is difficult to please the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), despite all our efforts. He and his friends have been complaining vigorously for the many hours we have been debating these Standing Orders that we have ventured to disagree—which we have, with regret, but nevertheless with conviction—with the Select Committee, especially when it has re-affirmed a decision and refused to reconsider it. Here is a case where a Select
1774
Committee in 1945 made the recommendation embodied in this Standing Order. They did not entirely approve of the Government's proposals on the point, because they suggested modifications; and we accepted the view of the Committee, embodied it in a Sessional Order in 1945–46, continued it in the Session 1946–47, and are now proposing to embody in a Standing Order, what the Select Committee recommended. Now that is wrong. We are wrong when we do not agree with the Select Committee. We are wrong if we do. There is no pleasing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
He has been arguing about the merits of an allocation of time order. But that is not before the House now. What is before the House is the question, assuming there is such an Order, of what is the best way to operate it? Is it best to let the representatives of the Committee settle it for themselves, or is it best to impose a method on them? We, being a tolerant and conciliatory type of Government, think it better that a small committee representing the various elements should get together and, within the overall limit, settle it themselves. I do not like allocation of time orders any more than anybody else. It is the kind of thing we should do only in cases of real necessity, when you cannot get agreement with the Opposition on the approximate time when a Committee should finish, and especially when the Opposition have been breathing fire and slaughter. I do not like Guillotines, whether in Government or Opposition, but if you are going to avoid them people on both sides have to be reasonable.
But we are not on that question. The question we are discussing is, assuming that we have them, what is the best way to operate them? The Government have been very forbearing. We did not use the Guillotine in 1945–46. We did in the case of two Bills in 1946–47. We did it with regret, but circumstances, including the attitude of the Opposition, made it necessary. I am sorry that was so, and the Government were sorry to do it.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not referring to the Transport Bill?
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
Sir C. MacAndrew: There was no opposition there.
Mr. Morrison: I know, because I conducted the negotiations for the first Session. The spirit, the possibility of reaching accommodation with the Opposition about the handling of these things, was better in the first Session of this Parliament than in the second. I am not grumbling. The Opposition have a perfect right to act as they choose; but in so far as it has been necessary, it has been tried out, and it has worked. I hope it will not be necessary to have any more Guillotines in this Parliament, but I cannot promise it. It may be that it will be necessary, but nobody will be happier than I shall be if it proves not necessary. It is in the nature of the case that the amount of experience you get of the proposed Standing Order is going to be limited unless either the Opposition goes haywire or the Government goes haywire, or both go haywire, in which case we will have an awful lot of these Guillotines. That is unlikely. I should be sorry if it occurred. So far as it has been operated, I would suggest to the House that it has worked, and I think that as it has been recommended by the Select Committee and as it has been in Sessional Orders for two Sessions, it is not unreasonable to add it to Standing Orders.
If we find it is not working, if we find as we go along that it is imperfect, even if it is a Standing Order, we could still consider its amendment. My own opinion is that it works, and there is no reason why it should not work. Either the Government impose their own will on Committees upstairs or a body representing the Committee get together and work out for both sides what is mutually convenient to both majority and minority. I have always said—I said it in giving evidence before the Select Committee, and I say it now—that if I were serving on a Business Committee my bias would be to let the Opposition have their own way in using their time within the over-all allocation. That would be better than the majority forcing its own tactics on the Opposition. They should have the balance in the matter so far as possible.
3.33 a.m.
Mr. Butcher: The House has listened to an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure the vast majority of Members have found it as unsatisfactory as I have. What we are being asked to
1776
do is to add to the Standing Orders governing the future business of the House this experimental measure which, as he says, was introduced on the recommendation of the Select Committee, but which was not used for the first 12 months after its introduction. It was used during the last Session and as a result of it, Bills left this House to go to another place in a condition in which no self-respecting legislative body would have allowed them to pass. The Bills would have been complete and utter nonsense if it had not been for the self-sacrificing service of another place. In trying to introduce this kind of alteration in the Standing Orders at this time of the morning, the right hon. Gentleman is doing all he possibly can to bring this House into contempt.
3.35 a.m.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to add to what has been said by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). The right hon. Gentleman comes before the House at this hour of the morning purporting to be a fairy godmother conferring joy on the House. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not look like a fairy godmother. If I am not guilty of using unparliamentary language, I would say he does not appear to us to be one either. Rather, I would say that the Minister of Fuel and Power seems to have influenced the right hon. Gentleman to some considerable extent, because even the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman will not wash.
What does all this come to? It boils down to this, that an experiment was tried two Sessions ago. It was found that it was not needed. Last Session it was tried again, and was found to be of use twice. The effect of that use has been clearly and succinctly demonstrated by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston—namely, that Bills, when they left the House, were in a condition of chaos. It is now proposed to reintroduce this experiment in permanent form. There cannot be any advantage to the procedure of the House, or to the consideration of these Bills, in perpetuating this form of treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman wants it again, let him try it as a Sessional Order. He may find that he does not need it again. What is the good of going to the trouble of amending Standing Orders, which the House realises is not an easy matter, by

1777
accepting a Standing Order which may never be needed again; and particularly what is the good of inserting in Standing Orders an Order which has by no means proved to be an unadulterated advantage to the House? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be to his advantage, if not to the advantage of the Standing Committees, to try this proposal again as the Session goes on.
Mr. C. Williams: The Leader of the House, in remarks of a sort to which we have become accustomed, said that the Opposition accepted a report if that report suited them; if the Government refused to accept a Committee's report, the Opposition maintained that they ought to accept it, and if they accepted a report, as in this case, the Opposition disagreed with them. That is precisely what the Government have been doing during the whole of the day. They have been taking advantage of everything in the report of the Committee which helped them with power to dragoon Parliament, but when the Committee was sensible, the Government refused to have anything to do with those sections of the report.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman always lives in his world of 1930 and the Transport Bill. He cannot get over the time when upstairs in Committee he had to conduct a Bill through Committee, and was not very happy. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not going to take this matter further than that; but he always seems to have it in his mind that somehow or other the Opposition are always going to make things difficult for him. There is this extraordinary proposal today, this long Amendment brought forward, which will make permanent for the House, and for the Committees upstairs, a thing which was only experimental 12 months ago. There have been Bills which went through with consent between the various parties. Those Bills were in a fairly reasonable state of order. Under this system which it is proposed shall be laid down, I think the words which most appeal to the Leader of the House are,
"the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate."
That has been a prevailing idea of his throughout today—to cut down debate
1778
as much as possible. Where that was done in the Committee upstairs, there was complete and utter chaos in Bills which, in another place, were found to be unworkable and had to be amended. It is little use the right hon. Gentleman protesting to the House that he does not like the Closure, and that sort of thing. He is always telling us that, but there has never been a Leader of the House who cut down the time of hon. Members so much. There has never been a Leader of the House—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I presume that the hon. Member realises that he is getting quite out of Order.
Mr. Williams: I accept everything which you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman was saying at some length how much he deprecated having to do these things, and I was merely saying that however much he deprecated doing these things, he goes on doing them; and it is very hard on us, who are always having our time cut short on these matters, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not like doing it. It is a curious state of affairs, and it is still more curious that we should be forced into dealing with these important matters at this time of the morning. All the Leader of the House does is to make the sort of statement he made just now and in no way does he show any desire whatever to preserve either the amenities of the House from the point of view of discussion or the freedom of the people's representatives here.
Mr. Pickthorn: I should not have spoken on this Motion were it not for the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to say something more? I do not know how many of the hon. Gentlemen who make a practice of interrupting speeches of Members on this side who have been sitting here all day and who have tried very hard to understand this difficult technical question—[Interruption.] I have not been out of the Chamber for more than 40 minutes today, and I have not spoken for more than 20 minutes, and if I wish to speak now, I will go on doing so. What brought me to my feet was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman about alleged inconsistencies from this side of the House. He said that we were sometimes complaining of something being done—[Interruption.]

1779
When we are trying to debate with the right hon. Gentleman fairly, he ought to do us the courtesy of trying to listen to us. The argument he used was that when the Select Committee was not followed by him, we complained of that; and that when the Select Committee was followed by him, we complained of that too. But there was a distinction here of which he must have been perfectly well aware—complaints, if that is the right word, were about not following the third Report where it was unanimous and where its recommendations had been referred back to it by the Government, and it had stuck to them.
The Select Committee's approval of a point which he prayed in aid was on a point on which there was a Division and on which no one except Socialists voted for the view which he was putting, and that view in any case does not clearly bear out his argument tonight. What the Select Committee recommended was not that there should be a permanent Business Committee, but that where the Government wished to prescribe a time limit and so on, there should be a committee of this sort. The recommendation of a Business Committee was hypothetical and on condition, and it is extremely unfair to use the argument that we are inconsistent in our use of the Select Committee's Report.
I say this to the right hon. Gentleman in perfect seriousness: does he really honestly consider that it is proper, decent and consistent with the dignity of the House that we should be discussing these matters at this hour? We all think that the other chap speaks at too great length, but I do not think he would accuse the official Opposition of anything like organised obstruction. I have been here for 13 hours and I do not think that I have spoken for 20 minutes. Does he really and honestly think that there has been obstruction? How much time has been wasted? Two hours? Would he say two hours?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but that question really does not arise on this Amendment which has to do with a Business Committee. The question of wasting time does not arise.
Mr. Pickthorn: Could I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is possible to move the Adjournment of the House in order to raise that question?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 41.

Division No. 20.]

AYES.

[3.46 a.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Attewell, H. C.

Grierson, E.

Nally, W.

Austin, H. Lewis

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Barton, C.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Orbach, M.

Beswick, F.

Hardy, E. A.

Pearson, A.

Bing, G. H. C.

Herbison, Miss M.

Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

Blackburn, A. R

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Popplewell, E.

Blenkinsop, A

Holman, P.

Proctor, W. T.

Blyton, W. R.

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Pryde, D. J.

Bottomley, A G.

Hoy, J.

Randall, H. E.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Ranger, J.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Collindridge, F.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Rogers, G. H R.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Keenan, W.

Royle, C.

Daggar, G

Kenyon, C.

Scollan, T.

Deer, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Delargy, H. J.

Kinley, J.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Dobbie, W.

Logan, D. G.

Shurmer, P.

Dodds, N. N.

Longden, F

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mack, J. D.

Simmons, G. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McKinlay, A. S.

Skeffington, A. M.

Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Skinnard, F. W.

Fairhurst, F

Mayhew, C. P.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Medland, H. M.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Middleton, Mrs L.

Steele, T.

Gibbins, J

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

Stross, Dr. B

Gibson, C. W

Mitchison, G. R.

Swingler, S.

Gilzean, A

Monslow, W.

Symonds, A. L.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Watson, W. M.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Willis, E.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

West, D. G.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Woodburn, A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wigg, George

Woods, G. S

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wilkes, L

Younger, Hon Kenneth

Tiffany, S.

Wilkins, W A

Zilliacus, K.

Tolley, L.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Watkins, T. E

Williams, D J. (Neath)

Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. C. (E'b'rgh W.)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ropner, Col. L.

Birch, Nigel

Lambert, Hon. G.

Stuart, Rt Hon. J. (Moray)

Bossom, A. C

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Bowen, R.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, G. C.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Butcher, H. W.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Carson, E.

Mellor, Sir J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Pickthorn, K.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studbolme.

Digby, S. W.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

3.54 a.m.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, in line 81, to leave out from the first "or" to "form."
The object of this Amendment is to enable Law Officers on the Standing Committees to move Amendments. The present position is that they shall not vote and do not form part of the quorum; but as the Law Officer has to be there he might as well be allowed to move an Amendment. There may be some legal quibble against this, but my point is that moving a new Amendment is quite simple because someone else can do it and he can explain it; but if there is an Opposition Amendment which the Government cannot quite accept and the Law Officer wants to explain it, he cannot amend the Amendment and move it unless he is allowed to move it, and at present he is precluded from doing so. My proposal would make for simplicity of working, particularly from the Chairman's point of view.
3.55 a.m.
Mr. Butcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not need to add very much to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew). I feel that if the Law Officers had the opportunity of moving Amendments, it would facilitate the work of the Committees it it may be that with their particular skill they would be able to put an Amendment into terms which would be agreeable to the
1782
Committee. If that is the case, it seems stupid to have them draft it, and pass it to another representative of the Government, sitting in Committee with them, to move it. I hope the Government will see their way clear at last to accept some of the admirable suggestions put forward from this side of the House.
3.56 a.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to say "Thank you" to the Government even at this late hour for having put straight a defect in the original Order by clarifying the position of the Law Officers on Standing Committees. I think I raised the point on 24th April after what had happened in one of the Standing Committees when the matter was still in some doubt. I think these Standing Orders in their present form resolve that doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, when he moved that the Law Officers should attend Committees, did so on the grounds that they should be there to assist. He made the distinction that they should not in any sense or form be members of the particular Committee; that they should not vote or form any part of the quorum. In my view, while I think one should have great regard for the views of the Chairmen of Committees, the suggestion that other Members of the Government could not move Amendments themselves is not one which might perhaps be universally acceded to.
3.57 a.m.
The Solicitor-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we were anxious

1783
to clear up what was a slightly anomalous position arising out of the wording of the present Sessional Orders. We have given careful thought to it and we have taken the view, which we hope the House will accept, that it is more consistent with the position of the Law Officers that they should not move Amendments in Committee than that they should. The idea is that they should be there in a capacity to advise and assist and not in any other capacity. They cannot vote. They must not form a part of the quorom, and we feel that they should not be allowed to participate in the deliberations to the extent of moving Amendments. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Amendment to Standing Orders, and new Standing Orders, relating to Public Business, hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.
SCHEDULE
Standing Order No. 93, line 4, leave out from the first "the," to "shall" in line 5, and insert "Votes and Proceedings Office."
After Standing Order No. 93, insert new Standing Order (Presentation of statutory instruments),—
Where, under any Act of Parliament, a statutory instrument is required to be laid before Parliament, or before this House, the delivery of a copy of such instrument to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament shall be deemed to be for all purposes the laying of it before the House.
After the last new Standing Order, insert new Standing Order (Notification),—
When any communication has been received by Mr. Speaker, drawing attention to the fact that copies of any statutory instruments have yet to be laid before Parliament, and explaining why such copies have not been so laid before the instrument came into operation, Mr. Speaker shall thereupon lay such communication upon the Table of the House.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
3.58 a.m.
Sir J. Mellor: Could we have an explanation why the Votes and Proceedings Office is being substituted for the Librarian of the House of Commons as the depository of copies of Statutory Instruments?
The Solicitor-General: The first Amendment is simply to bring into line with what we propose with regard to Statutory Instruments the present practice with regard to presenting Command Papers as laid down by Standing Order No. 93. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, the object of this new schedule is twofold: first, to provide a channel of communication between the Speaker and the scrutiny committee that we promised to provide, and secondly, to enable Statutory Instruments to be laid when the House is not sitting. The object of the Amendment to Standing Order No. 93 is to bring it into line with that. Both will be presented to the Votes and Proceedings Office in order that there shall be uniformity in the procedure.
Mr. Butcher: While I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, can he give us an assurance that for the convenience of Members duplicate copies will be made available in the library?
The Solicitor-General: We will consider what the hon. Gentleman says and bear in mind what he suggests.

SESSIONAL ORDERS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders, and new Standing Orders, relating to Public Business, hereinafter stated on the Schedule, be made; and that Standing Order No. 2 be repealed.
SCHEDULE
Standing Order No. 1 (1), line 3, leave out "a quarter to three," and insert "half-past two."
Standing Order No. 1 (2), leave out whole paragraph, and insert—
(2) The House shall not be adjourned except in pursuance of a resolution: Provided that, when a substantive motion for the adjournment of the House has been proposed after ten of the clock Mr. Speaker shall, after the expiration of half an hour after that motion has been proposed, adjourn the House without question put.
Standing Order No. 1 (3), line 1, leave out "eleven," and insert "ten."
Standing Order No. 1 (3), line 3, leave out "aforesaid," and insert "hereinafter provided."
Standing Order No. 1 (5), line 2, leave out "eleven," and insert "ten of the clock."
Standing Order No. 1 (6), line 11, leave out "eleven," and insert "ten."
Standing Order No. I (8), leave out whole paragraph, and insert—
(8) A motion may be made by a minister of the crown, either with or without notice at the commencement of public business to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect either—

(a) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the standing order "Sittings of the House"; or

(b) That the proceedings on any specified business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the standing order "Sittings of the House" for a specified period after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.

Standing Order No. 1 (9), leave out whole paragraph, and insert—
(9) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to, the business so specified shall not be interrupted if it is under discussion at the hour appointed for the interruption of business, may be entered upon at any hour although opposed, and, it under discussion when the business is postponed under the provisions of any standing order, may be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business:
Provided that business exempted for a specified period shall not be entered upon, or be resumed after the expiration of that period, and, if not concluded earlier, shall be interrupted at the end of the that period, and the relevant provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this standing order shall then apply.
Standing Order No. 1, at end, add—
(10) Provided always that not more than one motion under paragraph (8) may be made at any one sitting, and that, after any business exempted from the operation of the order is disposed of after ten of the clock, the remaining business of the sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.
Insert new Standing Order No. 2–
The House shall meet on Fridays at eleven of the clock for private business, petitions, orders of the day and notices of motions. Standing order No. 1 shall apply to the sittings on Fridays with the omission of paragraph (1) thereof and with the substitution of references to four of the clock for references to ten of the clock.
Standing Order No. 6 (2), line 2, after "after," insert "a quarter to."
Standing Order No. 6 (4), line 3, leave out "half-past."
Standing Order No. 6 (5), line 3, leave out "half-past."
Standing Order No. 7 (2), line 4, after "than," insert "a quarter to."
Standing Order No. 7 (3), line 1, leave out from "after," to "of," in line 2, and insert "half-past three."
Standing Order No. 7 (4), line 5, leave out "on the day," and insert "two days (excluding Sunday.)"
Standing Order No. 7 (4), at end add—
Provided that questions received at the Table Office on Monday and Tuesday before half-past two of the clock and on Friday before eleven of the clock, may, if so desired by the Member, be put down for oral answer on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, respectively.
Standing Order No. 7 (5), line 4, leave out from "by," to "of," in line 5, and insert "half-past three."
Standing Order No. 7, insert new paragraph—
(6) Whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of questions received at the Table Office at any time not later than half-past four of the clock on either of the two last days on which the House is not sitting (excluding any Saturday or Sunday) shall be treated as if either day were a day on which the House were sitting at half-past four of the clock and the notice had been received after half-past two of the clock, and notices of questions received at the Table Office at any time not later than half-past four of the clock on a day before the penultimate day shall be treated as if they had been so received on the penultimate day.
Standing Order No. 8, line 6, after "made," insert "unless by a minister of the crown."
Standing Order No. 8, line 20, leave out from "until," to "on" in line 2r, and insert "seven of the clock."
Standing Order No. 25, line 1, after "counted," insert "on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays."
Standing Order No. 25, line 2, leave out "a quarter past eight," and insert "half-past seven."
Standing Order No. 25, line 2, leave out "a quarter past nine," and insert "half-past eight."
Standing Order No. 25, line 4, leave out "a quarter past eight," and insert "half-past seven."
Standing Order No. 25, line 4, leave out from "and," to "of" in line 5, and insert "half-past eight."
Standing Order No. 25, at end, add,—
"(2) Paragraph (1) of this standing order shall apply to sittings on Fridays, with the substitution of references to a quarter past one and a quarter past two of the clock for the references to half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock."
After Standing Order No 33, insert new Standing Order (Notices of amendments, etc.),—
(1) Whenever the House is adjourned for more than one day, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules (whether they are to be moved in committee or on report) received by the clerks at the table at any time not later than half-past four of the clock on the last day on which the House is not sitting (excluding any Saturday or Sunday) may be accepted by them as if the House was sitting.
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved in committee may be accepted by the clerks at the table before a bill has been read a second time.
Standing Order No. 69, line 1, leave out "resolution," and insert "motion."
Standing Order No. 69, line 7, leave out "resolution," and insert "motion."
Standing Order No. 69, at end, add, "and any resolution come to by such committee may, with the general agreement of the House, be reported forthwith."
Insert new Standing Order (Acceleration of meeting during adjournment),—
Whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the government business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the order paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any government order of the day and government notices of motions that may stand on the order book for any day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the chairman of ways and means, or the deputy chairman, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this standing order.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
4.1 a.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in line 20, to leave out "either with or without notice."
The object of moving this Amendment is to ask why this change is being made. Up to the present, under Standing Order No. 1 (8), the normal Motion which we see on the Order Paper in regard to the Business of the House, is
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"
and that Motion stands in the name of a Minister of the Crown, and is moved at the beginning of Public Business. Now it is proposed to add to this Standing Order that this Motion can be moved, "with or without notice." It is quite true that during the war, when we sat for such brief hours and conditions were as they were, when frequently we met with great difficulty and not always in the same place, and when there were
1788
great difficulties in regard to printing of notices and all the rest of it, it was quite a reasonable thing for the Government to be empowered to move a Motion without notice. Now we are getting back to normal times, and I think it is wrong for the Government to decide to suspend the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) so that a Motion in regard to suspension of the Rule will not appear on the Order Paper. If the Government decide to suspend the Standing. Order (Sittings of the House) it should appear on the Order Paper with proper notice so that hon. Members will be able to know in the mornings if this Question is going to be taken at 3.30, and if they anticipate a Division they can come down and protest against it in the Lobby. If there is no notice they will not be aware that anything of the kind is proposed.
I do not know why in peacetime the Government want these powers. It seems to me that they are quite unnecessary, and if we are going to put these tiresome things in the Standing Orders someone some day will want to amend the Standing Orders again. I hope that the Government will not press this, and that we will get back to a little more normal procedure. There is not today the urgency there was in wartime for suspending the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).
4.4 a.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: It is a hard life to do one's duty as Leader of the House and try to meet the convenience of everybody. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the purpose of these words "with or without notice" will be, probably, four times out of five to meet the request either of the Opposition or of back benchers for extra time. Sometimes these considerations arise at the last minute and there is an exchange across the Floor of the House as to whether or not it is possible to have one hour or two hours extra. One can, so to speak, sense the atmosphere of the House as to what it wants.
Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman does not sense the atmosphere of the House tonight.
Mr. Morrison: That is because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not a very good case tonight. One senses the atmosphere of the House, and one feels it would be for the general convenience

1789
of the House, and that everybody would be happier if the suspension were moved, and so one moves the extension right away. Therefore, this is not really a case of the Government's trying to steal some power to give them an advantage, although it is true that it may be the case on individual occasions that the Government may want to use this facility in order to get their business through. But I. should say that, in the majority of cases, this will be used for the purpose of meeting the wishes of the House generally, and especially, of Members on the back benches, and sometimes of the official Opposition.
Having said that, let me say that I agree with the spirit of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says. I agree that if the Rule is to be suspended, it is much better that the Government should put the proposal on the Order Paper, so that Members in the morning can know that that is to be done. We shall make every possible effort to do that. We shall try to get it on the Order Paper when we know we are going to do it. I should, however, like to leave it open that, on occasions, for the convenience of the House—sometimes for the convenience of the Government, but mostly for the convenience of the House—we can suspend the Rule for a period. But I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we shall not do it for fun. If we know we are going to do it, it will be our wish to put it on the Order Paper. After those few kindly, conciliatory observations, I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
4.7 a.m.
Mr. Butcher: It is all very well for the Lord President to say that this is done for the convenience of the House, but he has chosen the wrong time to make that kind remark. The whole point is that his desire to retain the words "either with or without notice," is just another example of the lack of consideration the right hon. Gentleman shows to Private Members. The House had been running long before he arrived in it, and it will continue to run long after he has departed, and in all the past years the House has had notice given it of such a Motion for suspension. Every other Leader of the House has been able to arrange through the usual channels to have notice given of a Motion for the
1790
suspension. During the war it was necessary for the Government to have power to move a Motion for suspension without notice, but in other times than those of war there is no reason why the Government should be able to do this, unless we are to regard our country as being in such danger now under a Socialist Government, under the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, as it was when we were exposed to the attacks of Hitler and his allies.
Captain Crookshank: In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not want to press this Amendment because I take his assurance that this power must be for something very exceptional. The real fact of the matter is that, though this Government claim to be a Government of planners, they cannot even decide for certain on a given day what the Business of the House is to be next afternoon. It is a poor omen for the larger matters with which they are expected to deal. But, after all that, I am prepared to let it go now, reserving my right to propose an Amendment, if necessary, on a subsequent occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Standing Orders to be printed [No. 6].

UNITED NATIONS (BRITISH POLICY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
4.10 a.m.
Mr. Zilliacus: I want to raise the question of Britain's position in the United Nations, which is the point where defence policy and foreign policy coincide. The fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter is the principle that the permanent Security Council members must always appease and never fight each other. That principle is the result on the one hand of article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter, which binds all the members of the United Nations to settle all their disputes by peaceful means, and in no circumstances to resort to force or the threat of force in their mutual relations, and, on the

1791
other, it is the result of the unanimity rule, the so-called veto power, by which the Security Council can decide to take action to coerce a peace breaker only when the Great Powers, its permanent members, are unanimously agreed. The effect of this principle of the Charter has been described by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his first report to the General Assembly, as follows:
"The fact that the Charter gave the right of veto to each of these permanent members imposes upon them an obligation to seek agreement amongst themselves. I should be failing in my duty in presenting this report if I did not emphasise the absolute necessity that the powers should seek agreement amongst themselves in a spirit of mutual understanding and a will to compromise, and should not abandon their efforts until such agreement has been reached."
This principle of mutual appeasement and non-fighting does not exclude disagreement or deadlocks arising out of disagreement. What it does exclude is the use of force or the threat of force as a means of breaking a deadlock and seeking to reach agreement.
The first question I want to ask His Majesty's Government, since they claim that our policy is based on the United Nations is, do they accept this fundamental principle in our relations, not only with the United Slates but also with the Soviet Union? As far as the Labour Party is concerned it has accepted that principle. The Party's report on The International Post-War Settlement states:
"We cannot dictate to the U.S.A. or to the U.S.S.R. nor they to us. We can only pool our ideas and hopes, and seek the widest possible measure of agreement."
So far as the declarations of the Government are concerned they also accept the principle. In particular the Foreign Secretary on 21st February last year said:
"I cannot conceive any circumstances in which Britain and the Soviet Union should go to war. I cannot see about what we have to fight. And certainly it never enters my mind and I am certain it does not any of my colleagues in the Government. I approach America in the same spirit. I would never think of, and I never could see—and I am sure no party in this House ever sees—the possibility of war between us and America. I do not think of it in the other case either. I say this very emphatically that in considering in our minds all organisations or states there can be no policy or anything else which will lead to a conflict with either of these great Allies."
1792
On 6th March I asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm that declaration, and he did so.
So far as declarations are concerned the situation is satisfactory. Most unfortunately the facts of the situation and the facts of the Government's policy point to a very different conclusion. They point to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, when he claims, as he has done on several occasions, that the policy of the Government is, in essence, the policy he first outlined at Fulton, and which as he truly says, the United States Administration has since adopted, that is, the policy of an Anglo-American bloc prepared to use the threat of war as an instrument of policy in its relations with the Soviet Union.
Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to refer to the President of the United States in language which suggests that he is desirous of promoting war?
Mr. Speaker: I did not know that the hon. Member mentioned the President of the United States. I thought he referred to the administration of the United States.
Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend did not say the President of the United States.
Mr. Zilliacus: The attempt of the hon. Member for King's Norton to emulate the noble Lord, the Member for Horsham, has fallen to the ground.
That policy has been described correctly by the Diplomatic Correspondent of the "Daily Herald," Mr. W. N. Ewer, in a pamphlet just published by the Fabian Society and entitled "Foreign Policy." It is described very ably, lucidly, and persuasively, and I will give a short quotation from it:
"The present world situation is not the result of a Soviet-American conflict in which Britain has no direct part or direct interest. On the contrary, the Soviet-American conflict is the result of a situation in which, initially, Britain has been more directly concerned than the United States.
"It is, except in the Far East, the result of Russian pressure, of suspected Russian expansionist tendencies in Europe, in the Eastern Mediterranean area, in Persia. And in the last two certainly, resistance to Russian expansion has been a canon of British policy

1793
for a century or more. Whether that policy is right or wrong is another matter. My point at the moment is that this is not a new American policy which Britain is being asked to support."
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.
House counted, and 40 Members being present—
Mr. Zilliacus: The end of this quotation by Mr. Ewer is as follows:
"It is an old British policy which the United States has decided to support. The 'Truman doctrine' is no American invention. It is, in effect, simply the announcement that the United States is prepared to support, or even to take over material responsibility for, an already existing British policy."
He then goes on to argue the necessity, in his view, for continuing a close defensive alliance between Britain and the United States, to resist Soviet alleged or hypothetical or putative aggressive and expansionist tendencies by means of armed force. That is the Fulton policy. It is a return to power politics. It is a repudiation of the fundamental principle of the Charter. The same doctrine is preached in that interesting pamphlet somewhat misleadingly called, "Cards on the Table", the origin and status of which are shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. When it was published it was announced as being an official and authoritative exposition of Labour policy, and as such it was splashed in the Press not only of this country but of the world. However, when questions were asked at the Margate conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied—if I may put it in this way—that intimacy had taken place between the Foreign Office and Transport House, and asserted that this pamphlet could not be regarded as the lawful brain child of the National Executive. Nevertheless this pamphlet is still circulating as an interpretation of the Government's foreign policy, although its central thesis is the repudiation of the Charter as the basis of relations between the Great Powers. Here is the quotation:
"Here we come to the crux of the problem. The United Nations Organisation is by its very constitution formally prevented from dealing with disagreements between the Big Three. … The Veto power does in fact commit the Big Three to appeasement of one another so long as action is confined to the United Nations—a situation which puts a premium on aggressive action."
1794
The pamphlet goes on to argue the suggestion that we should not line up with the Soviet Union in order to restrain any possible aggressive action by the United States, but that we should line up with the United States against any possible aggression by the Soviet Union. I am grateful that this first insanity of an Anglo-Soviet line-up against the U.S.A. is not proposed. But I regret that an exactly similar insanity is proposed, namely, that we should line up with the United States against the Soviet Union. That is a return to power politics. It is not the policy of the United Nations, not the policy of the Charter. It is the policy of Fulton.
I should like to know whether or not that does denote the fundamental principle of the foreign policy of the Government. I fear it does. I should be very grateful if I could, have a clear repudiation of the principle of power politics as applied to the relations between our country on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. I fear that what in fact has happened is that, as Mr. Ewer correctly pointed out in his pamphlet, when the Labour Government came in they never attempted to review the fundamental assumptions on which British foreign policy was founded. They took over unexamined the traditional Tory concepts of what are our interests throughout the world. Instead of applying Labour's view of our national interests, the Labour Government have followed the Tory policy, and as a consequence we find ourselves committed in the Middle East to what I call the Crimean War foreign policy, which assumes that Russia must be kept out of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, whereas the Labour Party is clearly and expressly pledged to the view that the U.S.S.R. as well as the U.S.A. shall be invited into partnership on the basis of the Charter, and that we should work for an international settlement of the Middle East problem, with international control of oil resources, international control of economic development, and international control of the Suez Canal as well as of the Dardanelles.
Similarly in Europe, again as Mr. Ewer points out, the Labour Government have accepted the Truman doctrine that capitalism must be restored in Europe as the basis for a revival of democracy The Labour Party believe and are officially

1795
pledged to the view that Socialism is essential as the basis for economic reconstruction and for the revival of democracy and political freedom in Europe. I think we need to go no further than this failure of the Labour Government to apply a Socialist foreign policy and their continuation of Tory foreign policy to find why it has been impossible hitherto to reach agreement with the Soviet Union. I am not suggesting that the diplomatic manners of the Soviet Union could not be improved. They could. I am not suggesting that Soviet official control of news and views is not a handicap in reaching international agreement. I believe it is. I believe our free democracy is not only superior as a system of government and a way of life, but also as a medium of international intercourse.
But I suggest there is urgent need, before we are faced with the splitting of the world into two, of abandoning this long-continued and ill-starred attempt to bash our way through with a Tory foreign policy by reverting to the methods of power politics and abandoning the Charter. On these lines we are being drawn further and further into vassalage and dependence on the United States, which today is ruled by men whose interests are not our interests, whose attitude towards civil liberties, trades unions and Socialism is certainly not our attitude, and who have made no secret of the fact that they want to make use of the threat of war as an instrument of national policy in their dealings with the Soviet Union. I hope that in the reply tonight we shall get some explicit repudiation of the principle of power politics, and a specific re-affirmation that the Labour Government base their relations with the Soviet Union, as well as with the United States, on the fundamental principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It is high time that the Labour Government tried to act on the Labour Party's election pledges and Socialist principles in world affairs, before disaster overwhelms us.
4.26 a.m.
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus)—I certainly do not describe him as my hon. Friend—has been to the Soviet Union and also to Warsaw and has represented himself throughout the world
1796
as a friend of what he calls the Eastern democracy. He is an individual, despite the fact that he is a member of the Labour Party, who has gone with his friends thousands of miles away from this country and tried to suggest that we in the Labour Party believe in a concept of democracy which includes concentration camps and the terrors of whole parties of secret police which we fought against in the war.
Mr. G. Thomas: I am quite sure, since I heard what my hon. Friend said when he was abroad, that there is not a shred of evidence to support what the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has said. Perhaps he would like to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Blackburn: May I say that I have no desire to attack the hon. Member personally, or those hon. Members who went with the hon. Member for Gateshead, but I am perfectly prepared to do so if I am challenged. All I want to say is that on the very occasion on which the Cominform was formed, and when the Prime Minister of this country and the Foreign Secretary of this country were designated as traitors by men of the highest rank in the Soviet Union, I did not hear the voice of the hon. Member for Gateshead raised in protest in Warsaw. What I read was a statement purporting to emanate from the hon. Member for Gateshead which agreed with the Soviet statement. I also heard that they were forming what they called a Socinform, this being apparently to represent those who were prepared to suck up to the Soviet Union, and who represent themselves as Socialists when really they are Communists, like the hon. Member for Gateshead and his friends. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that when M. Petkov was under sentence of death for being a friend of Britain and America and standing up for the democracies for which we have stood in this House of Commons for century after century—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who now makes a "yah"—
Mr. Platts-Mills: May I draw attention to the fact that it was a "bah" and not a "yah."
Mr. Blackburn: It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Finsbury that it

1797
should be a "bah" and not a "yah." It is entirely in accordance with his traditions of having fought so gallantly against Fascism during the war, like the rest of his friends—who showed himself so active in the cause that we had to fight against Fascism—and having as a young man fought so gallantly in the air, or wherever else it was. It is characteristic that he should now talk about "bahs" and not "yahs." Let those who fought against Fascism fight against the next form of totalitarianism which arises, if it arises.
I say that there is no reason why there should be another war. We can stop another war provided that the freedom-loving democracies make it perfectly plain that the lesson which we had so bitterly to learn last time is learned this time, and that never again do we appease totalitarianism in any form. I have no desire whatever to suggest, as some people suggested, that we could offer any form of threat to the Soviet Union. On the contrary, I still believe that we can achieve peace with the Soviet Union. I quite believe that such a state of peace is possible with the Soviet Union—but it will not be possible if hon. Members come into this House as they have this morning at 4.30 and give Stalin the impression that he has a Captain Ramsay of the Left here today, as I believe the hon. Member for Finsbury certainly is—and the hon. Member for Gateshead, and some others are. I have nothing to gain by telling the truth.
Mr. Scollan: Is it in Order to refer to any hon. Member of this House as a "Captain Ramsay"?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is out of Order, but I do not think it is a very pleasing remark.
Mr. Blackburn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Captain Ramsay has never been tried and nothing has ever been proved against him.—[Interruption.] I fought against him when you did not. I fought against the Germans when you did not.
Mr. Orbach: I think that the imputations of the hon. Member ought to be stopped at some stage.
Mr. Blackburn: I am referring to hon. Gentleman none of whom but one, fought against Fascism.
Mr. Platts-Mills: When the hon. Member indicates that he has nothing to lose in his reputation, should we worry in the least what imputations he choses to throw against others?
Mr. Blackburn: I do not consider this is the sort of case the Government ought to reply to at all. I believe that this is an occasion utterly unworthy of the House of Commons. It may be occurring at 4.30 in the morning, but that means nothing to me. I am glad at any rate that I prevented an answer being given to anyone who can put up a bogus crypto-Communist case in this House of Commons.
An Hon. Member: Totalitarian.
Mr. Blackburn: Certainly. Why did they let Petkov down? Why is Mikolaczyck our friend? Why is he in this country? Is it suggested that our Minister over there has invited these people, and had actuated them to produce a military conspiracy against their own Government? Can anyone seriously believe that nonsense? Do they believe that? They either think that or they believe these people have been either murdered or would have been murdered by judicial process. They can have it one way or the other—either my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have incited these people to war—or on the other hand these people are innocent. If you look at the history of it, if you look at Stalin, if you look at the people who were with him when he was starving, you will find that about 75 per cent. of the lot were murdered. What about Yagola, chief of the O.G.P.U. for ten years? What happened to him? Try to study the literature of Nazism itself and do not make the mistake we made with Hitler. The mistake there was that we did not study "Mein Kampf."
Mr. Tiffany: May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? Is it not the practice and courtesy of the House to allow the Government to make its own case by answering statements which have been made? Should not there be a reply from the Front Bench?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to decide. Hon. Members speak when they are called and no one else rose.
Mr. Blackburn: All these people believe in the foreign revolution, and they say the Soviet state is the model for revolution all over the world.
Mr. Zilliacus: Will the hon. Member have the courage to say outright that he is encouraging preparation for a third world war against the Soviet Union?
Mr. Blackburn: No, I do not say that. What I say is that we should refrain from making the mistake we made with Hitler. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism all use the same methods; all use the secret police and the concentration camps, and all talk of reactionaries. I suppose I shall be called a reactionary. Let us remember that the third line of the "Horst Wessel" song is, Kamarader der rote front und reaction erscheerson—the Red front and reaction, and this fight is against "reactionaries." Whether one is a Fascist or a Communist makes no difference. Nothing would be more horrifying to me than another war of any kind, and one can stop a war with this country and the freedom-loving countries by doing as the Foreign Secretary has done, by telling the truth about the terror which strikes into every home and to say that Petkov did not die in vain. I remember the last time I talked about Petkov. The hon. Gentleman in-
1800
terrupted me to say that Petkov was not in danger. Now he has been killed. One might wonder if the hon. Gentleman expects rewards if Communism should come.
Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the hon. Member should not withdraw the suggestion that my political line is dictated by expectation of reward from Communism. That is a reflection on my honour.
Mr. Speaker: I think that, early in the morning, or late in the morning, whichever it is, there is difficulty in hearing exactly what hon. Members say or mean. I do not think that the hon. Member for King's Norton intended to injure the honour of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Blackburn: Petkov's death seems to mean so little. I am surprised to see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary is smiling. Let us remember that Petkov continued to—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Five o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Pennylands Camp, Auchinleck
  Pennylands Camp, Auchinleck
  Apprentices Schools
  Apprentices Schools
  Tanks, Westcott (Removal)
  Tanks, Westcott (Removal)
  Records Office, Edinburgh
  Records Office, Edinburgh
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Employment (Government Policy)
  Employment (Government Policy)
  Exports (Materials and Labour)
  Exports (Materials and Labour)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tourist Traffic
  Tourist Traffic
  Ministers (Air Travel, Cost)
  Ministers (Air Travel, Cost)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Study Courses
  Study Courses
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Officers' Boots (Sale)
  Officers' Boots (Sale)
  Permits and Priority Dockets
  Permits and Priority Dockets
  Empire Rubber (Exports)
  Empire Rubber (Exports)
  Books and Periodicals (Imports)
  Books and Periodicals (Imports)
  Jute Industry (Working Party Report)
  Jute Industry (Working Party Report)
  Geneva Conference (Cost)
  Geneva Conference (Cost)
  Nursery Chairs and Cots
  Nursery Chairs and Cots
  Supplies and Stocks, Islay (Survey)
  Supplies and Stocks, Islay (Survey)
  Glass Marbles
  Glass Marbles
  British Film Production
  British Film Production
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotels and Restaurants (Wages Negotiations)
  Hotels and Restaurants (Wages Negotiations)
  Training Centre, Plymouth
  Training Centre, Plymouth
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Remploy Factories
  Remploy Factories
  Non-Essential Occupations
  Non-Essential Occupations
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Poles
  Poles
  Service Ministries (Civilian Employees)
  Service Ministries (Civilian Employees)
  Prisoners of War (Skilled Workers)
  Prisoners of War (Skilled Workers)
  Hostel, Kensington (Electricity Consumption)
  Hostel, Kensington (Electricity Consumption)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Wallasey
  Wallasey
  Shift System (Engineering Workers)
  Shift System (Engineering Workers)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP)
SCOTLAND
  Legislation and Administration
  Legislation and Administration
  Mid-Scotland Canal (Minister's Decision)
  Mid-Scotland Canal (Minister's Decision)
  Housing Programme
  Housing Programme
  Potato Picking (Glasgow Children)
  Potato Picking (Glasgow Children)
  Legal Aid (Scheme)
  Legal Aid (Scheme)
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Motor-Propelled Tricycles
  Motor-Propelled Tricycles
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Disability Pensions (South African War)
  Disability Pensions (South African War)
  COMMONWEALTH GIFTS TO BRITAIN
  COMMONWEALTH GIFTS TO BRITAIN
RAILWAYS
  Locomotives and Wagons
  Locomotives and Wagons
  Signalling Equipment (Fog)
  Signalling Equipment (Fog)
ROADS
  Improvement Schemes
  Improvement Schemes
  London Bus Services (Passenger Regulations)
  London Bus Services (Passenger Regulations)
  ARMED FORCES (LABOUR AND MATERIALS)
  ARMED FORCES (LABOUR AND MATERIALS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Department's Activities
  Department's Activities
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Doctors and Dentists (Armed Forces)
  Doctors and Dentists (Armed Forces)
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  Regional Advisory Water Committees
  Regional Advisory Water Committees
  Aural Aids
  Aural Aids
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, BALSHAM
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, BALSHAM
  HOUSING, NEWMARKET URBAN DISTRICT
  HOUSING, NEWMARKET URBAN DISTRICT
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYEES)
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYEES)
  SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME
  SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME
  HOP-DRYING (COAL SUPPLIES)
  HOP-DRYING (COAL SUPPLIES)
  MALAYA (TEA GROWING)
  MALAYA (TEA GROWING)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cooking Fat (Export)
  Cooking Fat (Export)
  Indian and Ceylon Tea
  Indian and Ceylon Tea
  PROPOSED BIRD SANCTUARY, CHISWICK
  PROPOSED BIRD SANCTUARY, CHISWICK
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  THE MARRIAGE OF PRINCESS ELIZABETH: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that, in accordance with the Order of the House of Wednesday, October 22, the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and myself, as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships' House, waited upon His Majesty at Buckingham Palace yesterday afternoon, and presented to him your Lordships' Address of Congratulation on the approaching marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth to Lieutenant Mountbatten. His Majesty, who was accompanied by Her Majesty the Queen, Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Mountbatten, was graciously pleased to reply as follows:
  "I thank you very sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address of congratulation on the approaching marriage of my beloved daughter Princess Elizabeth to Lieutenant Mountbatten. The Queen and I value more than words can express this further evidence of your warm and kindly interest in all that concerns the well-being of my family, and with you we pray that Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Mountbatten will be blessed with every happiness in their married life."

RIVER BOARDS BILL, [H.L.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon, I beg leave to present a Bill to provide for establishing river boards and for conferring on or transferring to such boards functions relating to land
412
drainage, fisheries and river pollution, and certain other functions, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the law relating to education in Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS.
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are now unemployed; what are the trades of those so unemployed, and whether any of those now unemployed have ceased employment as a result of an industrial dispute.]
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I also have a question down about the employment of Polish nationals.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what number of Polish Nationals now in this country remain unemployed; what proportion of such have been offered as potential workers to employers but have been impeded by any cause from taking up such employment; and whether it is believed that further numbers could be forthwith absorbed should impediments, not of their choosing, be withdrawn.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I will with your Lordships' permission answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and that standing on the Order Paper in the name of Lord Barnby, together. About 55,000 members of the Corps have been placed in employment or otherwise settled at a current rate of about 1,200 per week, and there are left about 44,000 at present in the Corps. These officers and men are not being kept in idleness while awaiting absorption in industry but are engaged on administrative and camp duties of one sort or another, or on tasks for the Services. Where necessary they are being taught English to facilitate their being placed in employment.
As to any who are in the camps following loss of employment on industrial grounds, the number is negligible. The range of employment offered is so wide that no Pole has been impeded by any cause from taking up employment. The main impediment to the absorption of Poles into employment has been the lack of accommodation for them in employment areas. This difficulty is being steadily overcome by the conversion of disused military camps into workers' hostels.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, arising out of that answer, for which I am very much obliged, do His Majesty's Government not consider that the time has come to take more energetic measures to place the Polish officers in employment?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, we are doing what we can in this matter, although I am sure the noble Viscount will realize that it is not quite as easy to find suitable occupations for the officers as it is for the men who are being absorbed into industry. I can assure the noble Viscount that what steps are necessary are being taken to see that the number is being reduced.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the reply, may I ask the noble Viscount if he will check up with his advisers as to whether he can be satisfied of the accuracy of the statement that there are no Poles in the country who have by any action been prevented from enjoying or receiving employment? That is not the actual situation and, in order that he may know to what I refer, I am able to give him an instance where the Minister of Labour is himself aware—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must ask the noble Lord to observe the rules of the House and not to make speeches.
LORD BARNBY: I appreciate the correction of the Leader of the House, which I think he was fully justified in making. My question to the noble Viscount is whether he will be good enough to satisfy himself from his advisers as to the accuracy of the statement which he makes, because I am in a position, in view of information which I have got from the Ministry of Labour, to correct the statement which he has made.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, that is a rather serious charge to make, because the statement which I have submitted to the House is a statement which was prepared for me by the Ministry of Labour. But I will certainly take up the point which the noble Lord mentions, and if there is any difference between what the Ministry officials have informed him and the statement which I have made, I certainly will make inquiries into the matter.
LORD BARNBY: I appreciate the noble Viscount's assurance.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall's first reply, may I ask if any fixed proportion of these Poles are being earmarked for employment in the agricultural industry, in view of the very large number of Germans now employed in it who will be returning shortly to their own country?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I should think, indeed I have no doubt, that if the Poles can be persuaded to accept employment in basic industries, such as the agricultural industry and the mining industry, which, I think, have first preference for labour of this kind, the Minister of Labour will see to it that they do go into either of those industries. I know that the mining industry is now accepting Poles and, indeed, it is being discovered that they are doing a very good job of work.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if I may have a second opportunity of dealing with the matter which I have raised in my question I would like to ask the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he will accept my apologies for any apparent insinuation? I would farther like to ask him whether he will satisfy himself that there are no Poles who have

415
been refused employment because of resistance arising out of trade union restrictions.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the noble Lord could not have heard exactly what I said. What I did say was: "as to any who are in the camps following loss of employment on industrial grounds, the number is negligible." I did not say "none"—I said "negligible."
LORD BARNBY: Did I not understand the noble Viscount to say, later in the reply, that there had been no preventions?
VISCOUNT HALL: There have been no preventions, because other employment was found for those men. The number which I had in mind here was ten. They very quickly found employment elsewhere.
LORD BARNBY: I must ask the indulgence of your Lordships if I appear to be embarking in a discussion, but I certainly thought that the latter part of the reply—if my memory is correct—was to the effect that there had been no resistance to employment.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, also with the indulgence of the House, may I just read again a portion of the reply to which the noble Lord refers:
"The range of employment offered is so wide that no Pole has been impeded by any cause from taking up employment."
LORD BARNBY: That is the sentence to which I was referring.
VISCOUNT HALL: That is the position. There is such a variety of employment offered to the Poles that no Pole has really lost work or is out of employment because of being impeded in this way.

ARMY'S NO. 1 DRESS.
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the issue of No. 1 Dress to the British Army and whether it is proposed, until the No. 1 Dress is issued, to make any arrangement whereby members of the Regular Army can obtain plain clothes
416
or be afforded some other alternative to battle dress.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, the introduction of No. 1 dress has been postponed owing to the economic situation. Officers and men in possession of Service dress may wear it pending the issue of No. 1 Dress. Members of the Regular Army are allocated an allowance of 30 coupons annually for the maintenance of plain clothes, with an additional bonus of five additional coupons for each complete year of service between 1941 and 1946.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that information. Arising out of the answer which he has given will he confirm that the issue of those coupons applies to every man who enlists on a Regular attestation? I hope that that is so.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I understand that 30 coupons are issued annually to members of the Regular Army and I must assume—as I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will assume also, from what I have said—that that applies to all who are members of the Regular Army.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if those coupons are available for wives as in the case of civilians?
LORD NATHAN: I think that that is a question of which the noble Lord will have to give me notice.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan's first reply, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give full publicity to the reasons which are preventing the Household Cavalry wearing full dress at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Mount-batten, in view of the fact that photographs have appeared in the Press showing the Household Cavalry wearing full dress in a forthcoming British film, and that this has given rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding?
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I must say that that does not seem to me to arise naturally out of the question which was put by the noble Viscount, but I will certainly look into the matter.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY OF NOTTINGHAM ORDER;
COUNTY BOROUGH OF BIRKENHEAD ORDER;
BOROUGH OF SANDWICH ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF CHISLEHURST AND SIDCUP ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF MARKET DRAYTON ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WHITLEY BAY ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

EMPIRE MIGRATION.
2.52 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the reported difficulties with regard to Empire migration from this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I expect that the Commonwealth Relations Office will feel that the subject raised in my Motion might well have been left alone for a. while. It was, your Lordships will remember, the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House in April of this year. On that occasion we enjoyed a notable speech from my noble
418
friend Lord Tweedsmuir, which will have impressed all who heard it and still more any of your Lordships who took the trouble, as I did on Sunday, to re-read it. It has enjoyed a remarkable width of publicity in all the Dominions. It certainly gave emphasis to the importance of this subject. Since then, both letters and articles in the Press leave little doubt that this is occupying men's minds very widely.
Empire migration means the dispersal of population throughout the Empire, and an additional reason for raising the question now is the changed attitude of the Dominions, particularly of Australia, towards this whole question. There have been notable visits from Mr. Calwell from Australia and Colonel George Drew from Ontario. It is one of the implications of the new economic policy which the Government have recently announced. I submit, too, that the feeding of the population of these islands and the strategic considerations arising from the international situation are sound reasons for its receiving further examination by your Lordships. And I would say that there is no platform from which this position may with more justice be examined than your Lordships' House for utterances here enjoy wide and impressive attention through the Press in the Dominions and the United States.
There is, I am afraid, much current sentimental confusion arising from statements that have been made on the subject, particularly one by an eminent personality which commanded great attention because of its source but which was given a wrong interpretation. In the circumstances I am glad to think that my noble friend Lord Altrincham, who possesses such a wide experience on all subjects appertaining to the Empire, is later to give some opinion on this matter from the Front Opposition Bench. The common practice by the Government of taking work to the people, which is the development areas' policy in this country, is becoming accepted. It is not unnatural to consider that taking people to the food may be a contemporary correct course. One has only to turn to the registrations for migration at the Dominion Houses in this country to realize the extent of the interest in this question. I quote only one figure—400,000 are reported to have registered at Australia House as intended migrants. This is a subject which should perhaps be dealt

419
with in detail, supported by figures; but I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with these. They are easily accessible to all who take the trouble to seek them. I will confine myself instead to dealing with general principles and try to avoid too much detail.
There are three points to which I wish to give my attention. The first is the propriety of arranging for the capitalization and transferability of economic contributions to the social service schemes in this country. This is a matter about which it has been repeatedly urged in this House that provision should be made. With the indulgence of the House, I myself have referred to it several times. During the war it was the subject of several important announcements in your Lordships' House. I will refer particularly to that by the Leader of the Opposition on May 25, 1943. On that occasion Lord Cranborne, now Lord Salisbury, supported his justification for admitting the need for arrangements by quoting the following words of an admitted authority on this subject, Lord Beveridge:
"… it will be desirable to consider the making of reciprocal arrangements between the schemes of different countries"—
that is, Empire countries—
"facilitating transfer from one to the other, that is to say, arrangements enabling men on migration to avoid forfeiting security and allowing them to carry with them some of the rights that they have acquired in their former country."
From repeated representations we found encouragement for the belief that the matter was receiving attention, but so far as I can gather there is still only a limited achievement of the then-desired object. At the same time one understands that the efforts of the Dominion Office have resulted in considerable progress being made at the Conference this summer. There are hopes, which we share to-day, that the Leader of the House will be able to give us some detailed information on the subject. This is a matter which affects the lives and financial position of many people who wish to migrate from this country to the Dominions, and it is without doubt desirable to facilitate the transfer suggested by Lord Beveridge. Indeed, if that were not done there would be reasonable ground for disappointment among ex-Service men.
The second point concerns the facilities that have been put at the service of intending migrants or the Dominions who are the prospective recipients of them. I am fully aware of the difficulties of shipping, which, doubtless, the Leader of the House will emphasize. I am not forgetful that already three ships, the "Ranchi," "Chitral" and "Ormonde" have been mentioned in connexion with Australia, and the "Winchester Castle" and the "Carnarvon Castle" in connexion with South Africa. That is a mere drop in the bucket. He may well say that the movement of troops throughout the world is the cause of the shortage of transport. Without introducing another angle, I think there will be many who feel that if this movement of population within the Empire is too long delayed that will constitute an additional factor in support of the policy of His Majesty's Government in diminishing the volume of troops overseas. I am glad to think that I am to have the privilege of support from other noble Lords, and I hope they will reinforce the plea that something more should be done.
Mr. Calwell, to whom I have referred, spoke with authority. He paid tribute to the sympathetic acceptance of the approaches made to His Majesty's Government when he gave expression in the Press to his conviction that more could have been done. Naturally, as to what could be done only His Majesty's Government are in possession of the facts, and only they can say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he give me any evidence that Mr. Calwell said that more could have been done than has been done?
LORD BARNBY: That is my interpretation of the statements made in the Press, of which there have been many. I hope the noble Viscount will not have omitted to note my reference to the tribute which Mr. Calwell paid to the sympathetic reception given to the approaches made to the Government. I have here somewhat lengthy documentation of the statements of Mr. Calwell, and his replies in detail to many queries put to him. But I will not weary the House by going through all these documents, and if I am in error I readily accept the correction of the noble Viscount. Whatever may be Mr. Calwell's assertions, there are others

421
who believe that more could have been done. He did say that he felt an aircraft carrier or two could have been used. Here I am on ground with which I am completely unfamiliar. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Strabolgi can make some comment upon it. Many high ranking officers with whom I have spoken say that it would have been possible to have mobilized a crew and made the cruise to Australia and back a part of their training; while there are others who think that the movement of emigrants to Australia might have resulted in a ship on the homeward run being transferred to India for the movement of troops home. On that point I speak with great diffidence, because it is outside my knowledge. Generally, however, considering the volume of earlier movement, it is perplexing to find that the movement now is so small.
I must here refer to the efforts of Colonel George Drew, the Premier of Ontario, whose visit had such notable results in relation to the movement of migrants to Canada. It will be well known to your Lordships that it has been done by airborne transport. I am informed that already 3,500 have been flown since August, and—this is important—that 95 per cent. of those have been successfully placed in employment. I mention that to remove any misgivings which some of your Lordships may have as to the fate of migrants when they reach their destination. I understand that a further 6,000 have been selected for transfer by air, and that over 400 a month are migrating by surface. If shipping arrangements could be made, that number might easily be increased to 1,000. Lest there should be some criticism of Ontario, I would say that these should have been moved—what is the correct term?—not in British bottoms, but—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: British tops.
LORD BARNBY: My noble friend Viscount Swinton is an admitted authority on all matters in the air. Whatever the term is, the position is that no British aircraft were available, and the transport has been carried out with American aircraft. The last point I make under this head has reference to the suggestion that housing difficulties exist in all the Dominions. The question is asked: How can you house the people who go there? Again I must refer to Mr. Calwell's asser-
422
tion that arrangements can be made for housing in, at least, Australia, and, so far as Canada is concerned, it is evident that that is being done.
I pass to the third point on which I base my Motion, which is that the moment has arrived when a long-range policy for dispersion of the population of this country throughout the Empire on a larger scale, is a matter which merits, at least, discussion and very careful analysis. I realize it may well be that the Leader of the House is not in a position at the moment to give us a definite outline of His Majesty's Government's long-range policy, but I submit that that in no way reduces the propriety of this matter being given the fullest discussion, and a detailed analysis. Rather than presume myself to base this on my own experience, I am going to quote from a letter from Sir Shenton Thomas, who, as present Chairman of the Council of the Overseas League, has great authority in these matters. The letter says:
"What will be very seriously in question in the next fifty years is the size of the population that these small islands can support under the economic conditions that now obtain and the extent to which migration should be organized in family or community groups."
Before I pass to the second quotation, I would insert there that I know it is a subject which has received the very close attention of my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, and I hope he will gratify the House by making some remarks on that question to-day. On the second point I again quote from Sir Shenton Thomas's letter:
"Is there any real prospect that the changed world of to-day will permanently need and be in a position to buy twice the volume of our exports which the world needed before the war?"
That, in language much better than I could suggest, puts to your Lordships the problem as I urge it should be considered by His Majesty's Government.
To endorse the fundamental logic of this, again I presume to quote an article, which I feel is couched in much better words than I could find to express it, from a paper which, at least, as is admitted on all sides, has always been a champion of development of the Empire. It certainly has a large circulation although its price is low. The Daily Express on August 29 said:
"Encourage the men and women of ambition and enterprise who seek their fortunes in

423
the Empire. Remove the barriers in their path. … Let Britain proudly encourage the sturdiest of her stock to go pioneering in the vast unpopulated spaces. Be glad of heart that the spirit of adventure is strong among our young people, even though we need them here. … This is not just a matter of sentiment. Alone, Britain is doomed to decline. Together, Britain and the Commonwealth are destined to climb ever upwards. No limits to their greatness."
That I think is the best emphasis of the propriety of dispersal. There is a feeling of doubt as to the timeliness of movement now.
I submit that migration built the Empire, and if it were not for the Empire at this moment we might well be in a difficulty over our food supplies. After all, who built the Empire? The most adventurous spirits through the last hundreds of
years. They may not have been the most observant of regulations and limitations at home, but they were the men of courageous enterprise and determination. I maintain that what built the Empire in the past is what we want to see continued, reinforced with the vigour of the British race dispersed through the wide lands of the Empire. It is on those grounds that I urge that any doubt about this matter should rapidly founder.
I turn for a moment to opinion in the Dominions. We know that in Australia, until relatively recent times, there was great resistance of organized labour to an inflow of population. I suppose there is no record of a greater fallacy doing so great a disservice to a continent. The result was that during the war Australia, with a population of only some 7,000,000, faced a perimeter of 450,000,000 Asiatics. It is proposed that we should remain dependent upon that strategic position for our future food supplies, as advocated by His Majesty's Government. Fortunately, there has been renunciation from eminent Dominion statesmen, particularly Mr. Calwell. But we must remember the hazard of leaving a coastline of 13,000 miles dependent upon so meagre a population. I am among those who feel that there would be advantage in achieving a transfer of considerable industrial plant, together with the technical personnel, from this country to Dominions whose industrial development is capable of being stepped up. If there is any doubt about that, I would point out that in many of our industries we have much machinery,
424
not of tender age, which should be exported if anybody will buy it. Let us run what is left in this country on two or three shifts, and let us adapt ourselves to the economic position in which we find ourselves.
I used to live in the United States before the First World War—I have mentioned this in your Lordships' House before, and I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for doing so again—and for the last three years before that War, the migrants into the United States numbered upwards of 900,000 per annum. These were quite easily transported; there was no apparent lack of transport. I know there were then more passenger liners, but let us get the picture—900,000 to the United States in one year; yet we are boggling about a few thousand to the Empire at the present moment. I will go one step further—and this again is a matter of surprise. Your Lordships are all aware that the inflow into the United States is governed by quota. It is an extraordinary thing that under the quota of 65,000 per annum in the last ten years, 600,000 more migrants from the United Kingdom could have gone into the United States.
Earlier in the proceedings of your Lordships' House, reference was made to the Poles who are in this country. I hope that more can be done to encourage their transfer because I believe that the flow from Central Europe is comprised largely of agricultural workers while the flow from the United Kingdom may be for industrial work in the Dominions. I hope the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will bear in mind the possibilities under that head. I have already referred to the strategic considerations. Naturally, no one can know what is the view of the Imperial General Staff, but there are beliefs in high quarters that the feeding of so great a population as we have in this country, in the event of another war, would be a serious problem. It may well be that that is an additional ground for giving attention now to the possibilities under this head. I have not referred to Central Africa, or to the developments there: I do not know it well enough, but all sorts of possibilities spring to mind. South Africa, with the irrigation schemes, can be a very large reception area.
It would be improper in any discussion about the population of the Empire to

425
omit saying a word with regard to the movement of juveniles, through institutions such as the Fairbridge Farm Schools, who are doing such admirable work, and the Overseas League which, even in October, sent a party of fifty-four youngsters to Australia. I hope that as grants have been given in the past to these movements, His Majesty's Government may find a way to give additional support. After all, the youngster is a desirable migrant to the Dominions. I am obliged for the indulgence which your Lordships have shown, and I hope I may have succeeded, not indeed in drawing a reply of any detail from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but at least in convincing your Lordships of the deep justification which those have who make the plea that this dispersal of our dense population under existing economic and strategic conditions is entitled to the fullest consideration. And I hope we may have a lead from the noble Viscount this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this, of course, should be a non-Party question, and all Parties should be agreed about it. I find myself in broad agreement with the thesis put before your Lordships by the noble Lord. I am very much against the growing practice in this House of attacking members of another place. It is a recent innovation which is most unwelcome, and I am not attacking a member of another place now. Nevertheless, I must point out to your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is at variance with his own Leader in another place. We have been told by the Leader
of the Conservative Party that people should not migrate but should stop here and, as he eloquently put it, "fight it out." However, I agree in broad outline in this matter with the noble Lord, and he is fortunate in having the opportunity of a reply presently from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. It is a fortunate thing, too, that we have with us to-day a former Dominions Secretary, who has visited so many of the great Dominions. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will receive a very full and detailed reply, and I shall not for one moment attempt in any way to anticipate that.
The subject is an exceedingly difficult one. We are at present in the position of
426
having to import labour from displaced persons and others from Europe to man certain industries in which we are short of labour. Secondly, the very people who would make the best emigrants to-day, the land workers, producers, skilled workers of all kinds, are those who are badly needed here in the under-manned industries. Obviously for any large-scale migration—and I think this was the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby—we must work out a long-term policy. The last White Paper on the subject, dated June, 1945, is already completely out of date; the whole situation has altered. None of the plans of His Majesty's Government, so far as I know, attempts to go beyond the end of 1949. If I am right, Sir Stafford Cripps' statements, and other statements, including those made by the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the very important economic debate which we had here last week, all stopped short at the end of 1949. It is after that date, I imagine, that a new long-range policy will have to be drawn up.
I was recently in two of our Dominions. I was in Newfoundland—if we still call Newfoundland a Dominion; at any rate all Newfoundlanders are very proud of their membership of the British Commonwealth and speak or being the oldest Dominion. There is not much scope there; it is a difficult country and what is needed there is for the splendid people of Newfoundland to be raised educationally and economically; and we should not waste any time on that side of the matter. But Canada, where I also went, has, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, suggested, very great openings. The Province of Ontario, among other Provinces, is anxious to take advantage of the number of British people who want to go to Canada. They are getting a trickle of immigrants, despite transport difficulties, by flying them in from Britain. This is an indication of great enterprise on the part of the Government of Ontario. I am sure there is a great future for these immigrants to Canada. There is practically no unemployment in the country and industry and agriculture generally are booming. But there are transport shortages—and that applies in the case of the other Dominions also.
There is another difficulty. (I am mentioning these difficulties only because they

427
will have to be overcome. They are not insuperable.) It is no use blinking our eyes; the Dominions do not want more city-dwellers. They have too many people living in cities already. They need people who will go on the land and engage in mining, lumbering and similar enterprises. In this country, as Lord Barnby mentioned, we have an unbalanced population. We have about 5,000,000 adults who are engaged in nonproductive work. They are usefully employed—in the distributive trades, transport work, entertainments, horse racing, all sorts of things. But they are not producing. That is an unbalanced population. We have too few people in the basic industries producing useful things or growing food and too many in nonproductive industries. And yet that surplus population—surplus in the economic sense for the situation we may have to face after 1949—are not the most suitable people to go to the Dominions.
There is another aspect of this situation which I think is very interesting. All over the world to-day, so far as I can see, there is a growing reluctance amongst people to go on the land and stay on the land. I heard the same thing in Canada. There is difficulty there in getting people to go on farms. The same thing is happening in Australia, in New Zealand and, curiously enough, in the South American countries—this is not a disease of English-speaking people. In Chile and even in the Argentine they are facing the same serious problem. As soon as they make enough money on the farms, people retire into the cities. This is a disease of civilization; it is going to kill our civilization unless some cure is found for it in the way of collective farms, co-operation among the farmers, greater mechanization, better amenities and so on. This is a problem which I am sure His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions have very much in mind.
I must, however, say this. I do not like all this talk about lack of houses in the Dominions. If the emigrants of the past had waited for houses to be ready for occupation there would have been no colonization at all. Certainly the North American Colonies would never have been started. I like the spirit of the over-landers who have recently started out on the long trek across the Sahara down to
428
the Rhodesias. It is not usual in your Lordships' House to mention one's ancestors, but I hope I may be allowed to mention, and I do so with pride, my own maternal grandfather who was a 'forty-niner; and my grandmother, who was the first white woman to cross the Rocky Mountains into the Californian goldfields, crossed the overland route by covered wagon with a baby in her arms and she had to fight her way through with a rifle. That was the right spirit. They were all nearly killed, but they got across. That is the spirit that built up the Americas and South Africa and all the great Dominions, and it is still in existence. It needs stimulating and encouraging. The result in the past of this pioneering spirit was to build up these great overseas white settlements.
I spoke just now of the policy after December, 1949, and I can see only three policies that are going to save this country. One, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is a large-scale emigration. There are two alternatives, though they need not necessarily be alternatives. The first is—let us face the fact—spoken of quite openly nowadays: that this country should join the United States of America, or perhaps (to save our amour propre) that the United States of America should apply to rejoin the British Empire, as in Bernard Shaw's memorable play The Apple Cart. We could then balance our economies completely, instead of incompletely as at present. That is one alternative at any rate. The second is the creation of one great economic union for Europe, beginning if necessary with Western Europe, but if possible the whole Continent. Everyone admits that that is a policy that is required, and yet we do not seem able to make very much progress. To trade on a large scale with Eastern Europe, for example, we shall have to go much further than we have done in directing and controlling the manufacture and sale of our exports, as part of a barter programme, so as to be able to engage in large-scale barter operations. That is the second policy, and as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said in his remarkable speech during the economic debate, it need not be antagonistic to the other policy of a great Customs Union within the Empire.
The third policy is to reduce our population to manageable proportions. We

429
should do that if we cannot pursue either of the other two policies, because otherwise we shall have far too many people living in these islands. There is the growth of secondary industries in overseas countries, not only in our Dominions but also in South American States and all over the world, and there is, in consequence, a drying up of markets for our manufactured goods. All these considerations point to the fact that our population may have to be reduced so that we can live on our own resources in these islands, and anything we may do in the way of trade can go towards raising our standard of living.
Those are the three policies, the third one of which is the one that has been enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, to-day. I think that the noble Lord has done a service in ventilating this vitally important question. I am sure that we ought to be, and that we are, working on very long-range plans. When we have got over the present crisis in the next two or three years, we should be prepared to shift a very large proportion of our population to the vast open spaces overseas, where they will still speak the English language, keep up our traditions and be our future friends and allies in case of trouble.
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel bound to intervene in this debate, if only for a few minutes, because I find myself in the position of President of the New Zealand Immigration and Population Association, a position that I hold with the full approval and acquiescence of His Majesty's Government in that Dominion. May I be allowed, in passing, as I could not be in this House last week, to offer on my part a sincere welcome home to the Leader of the House after his very successful mission in the two countries of the Antipodes, with both of which I am fairly familiar and which I have myself visited in the course of this year. I hear from sources in these Dominions (I am in touch with a good many) what a great success that mission of the ex-Minister of Commonwealth Relations was, and how deeply it was appreciated, for the reason which I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave. I am sorry to say that as I was in the Southern Hemisphere in April last I could not be present at the time the debate on this subject, to which the noble Lord,
430
Lord Barnby, referred, took place. The noble Lord spoke of dispersion of population—a term he used more than once—throughout the Empire. If there comes to be, under present conditions, any large emigration of suitable persons to other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire, I should like to see preference given to non-dollar countries where living conditions are satisfactory according to our social standards.
I may say, in passing, that there are only two subjects upon which I found myself at issue with the; policy of that lovable Dominion over which I had the honour and privilege to preside for live years. One of them was the subject of the free admission of Britain's pedigree livestock. I am glad to say that in recent months the embargo upon them has been definitely and permanently lifted. The other was the free admission of competent and enterprising British nationals. In that connexion, I want to say at once that, in the case of a self-governing Dominion, this is a problem predominantly for them to decide, and not for us. Great may be the needs, in our judgment, particularly the industrial needs, of other countries of the Empire. Great may be the needs—and I think these needs are growing—in regard to our own increasing population. The first step must surely be taken by any overseas country which is autonomous. I will deal with that point in a minute.
The increase of population, say, in New Zealand, as also in Australia, can result in two ways only. One way is by what I may call natural increment—the excess of births over deaths. I may remind your Lordships that, so far as New Zealand is concerned it is in the happy position of having the lowest infant death-rate in the whole of the Empire, and the lowest but one—I am talking of pre-war conditions—in the world. The first, of course, to-day is Holland. The other way, of course, is by immigration. The population of the United Kingdom is, I suppose, roughly about 47,000,000. The population of New Zealand is only 1,500,000. Of these, the Maoris twenty-five years ago numbered only 60,000. I am glad to say that, with improved health and housing conditions and the gradual reduction of the rate of mortality through tuberculosis, the Maoris number now about 80,000 and are steadily increasing. Let me say, in pass-

431
ing, what a wonderful asset the British Commonwealth and Empire possess in those dark-skinned people; a more loyal, law-abiding or courageous people are not to be found anywhere in the world. On the other hand, the white population—what is called out there the "pakeha" population—is roughly 1,500,000 only, and it is stationary, if not actually retrogressive; and that in spite of the fact which I mentioned just now, that it has the lowest infantile death rate in the whole of the Empire.
The United Kingdom is, no doubt, rich both in its soil and climate and also in its industries. I venture to think that, so far as husbandry is concerned, we can perfectly well, given the tools, raise at least one-third more food from our own land than we did in pre-war times. So far as New Zealand is concerned, her soil and climate are so extremely favourable that I say without hesitation—and I speak with some knowledge—that, with the application of more scientific methods and labour-saving plant, the food output there could be doubled.
That being so, what are the arguments which can, or should, be used in favour of a largely increased population in New Zealand? I venture to suggest—and for five years I continuously expressed this opinion openly, and was never contradicted—that within the next ten years, or perhaps it would be rather safer to say within the next fifteen years, New Zealand, with proper development, could carry not merely 1,500,000 people, but 5,000,000 people, and in another thirty years from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000. Obviously, at any rate in the light of what has happened during the last twenty-five years, the main argument in favour of a largely increased population for New Zealand is the strategic argument: that the country may be in a better position to defend itself against aggression. With the enormous and increasing population of Japan, there was a very great dread that before sufficient defence Forces could be provided from overseas, New Zealand might have been over-run by Japanese Armies. That made not only Australia but also New Zealand very much alive to this danger of aggression through lack of sufficient population. Then, of course, there remains the other argument which I have already adumbrated, the possibilities
432
of largely increased wealth output, with developing economic prosperity.
I may remind your Lordships that New Zealand is approximately of the same area as the United Kingdom, but she possesses, if I may say so, an infinitely better and more equable climate than we possess here. Except for coal, New Zealand possesses mineral wealth in far greater measure than does Great Britain, and the bulk of that mineral wealth has hardly been touched; indeed its surface has hardly been scratched. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time, but I do want to point out that that precious little jewel of a country in the Pacific, full of loyal, enterprising, pioneering people, is capable of providing the world and the Old Country with an infinitely larger quantity of wealth of a sort which the world and this country require than she has provided in the past.
That being so, one naturally asks what is the deterrent? We must leave it, as I say, to the New Zealand Government to decide her own policy in this matter, and she tells us that there are two deterrents. One is that at present she must give priority of employment to her own demobilized Service men before she provides for the requirements of those who might like to emigrate from the Old Country. The other deterrent is the lack of homes. I am bound to say that I think the New Zealand Government are a little over-anxious in this matter of house-providing for intending immigrants, while Australia, if I may venture to say so, is a little over-bold in the matter. She, at any rate, is making it quite apparent that she wants far more immigrants, preferably from the Old Country; but she does warn them that they will have to put up with some primitive accommodation, at any rate, for the next two or three years. New Zealand would, I think, prefer to house her migrants when they come along, much in the way, I was going to say, that they are being housed in their own country, but perhaps I should say, much in the way that we should like to see them housed in Great Britain—at least, as well as they were housed in pre-war days.
Those are reasons which, at any rate, we must respect, even if we do not agree with them. I, for my part, would venture to press, with all the enthusiasm and energy I can, the great importance of migration of enterprising young men and

433
women from this country into some of those fertile, rich, healthy countries which are bound to be developed economically to the advantage of, at any rate, the more enterprising of those who migrate. Let us at the same time, however, try and convince the Governments in our Overseas Dominions rather than force their hands when, at least for a time, they are reluctant to take action in this matter.
3.48 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Barnby for initiating a debate on this very important matter. In the excellent speech which he made, he referred to a debate we had last April. At that time we discussed the policy of His Majesty's Government towards emigration as a whole, and found ourselves in such close harmony of agreement that our surprise was as perceptible as it was mutual. At that time the Assisted Emigration Scheme to Australia had just come into operation. Agreement had not yet been reached with the New Zealand Government, nor had the Ontario Emigration Scheme then been announced, but the offices of the Dominions' High Commissioners and most of the shipping companies were besieged by great hosts of would-be emigrants. That siege has not abated. Last month in the week ended October 18, I understand that rather more than 4,000 people applied for interviews at Australia House.
When the migratory urge takes hold of a people, it cannot be stayed but it can be guided, and if the standard of living in this country should take a really drastic fall, this present flood, I believe, will increase in volume many times. Substantial numbers during the two years since the war ended have left this country and gone to the countries of their adoption in the Commonwealth. I think I am right m saying that by April of this year some 58,000 wives and children of Canadian ex-Servicemen had gone to Canada, and a rather smaller number had joined their husbands in Australia and New Zealand. These schemes of assisted emigration have now been in operation for a few months and a certain number of people have gone under their provisions; but it is only a fraction of those who want to go, and only a proportion of those that the Commonwealth coun-
434
tries are waiting to welcome. A certain small number have returned disgruntled Much too much publicity has been given to them. I suspect that their anatomy contains rather more wishbone than backbone.
Our present condition is this. Thousands await their turn to get transport to the countries of the Commonwealth. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, speaking last week in the debate on the economic situation, gave us some figures relating to our shipbuilding, which I jotted down. I hope I have got them correctly. He said, I understood, that 11,000,000 tons of our shipping went to the bottom as a result of enemy action during the war, but, by reason of replacements and reconditioning, we ended the war with a net deficit of only 7,000,000 tons. And at this present moment, I understand, there is more work in hand in British shipyards than at any time previously in the last quarter of a century. We are, in fact, building more ships now than all the rest of the world put together. That, of course, is eminently satisfactory. But ships take some time to build, and before they appear in sufficient numbers to ameliorate our present situation we shall have to cast around for some other expedient. Flying is a practical proposition for sending emigrants from this country to North America. Under the Ontario Scheme, emigrants are carried in American aircraft, and the system is working very well. But it does not seem likely that in the near future it will be an economic proposition to send emigrants to Australia or New Zealand by air. So, with the very depleted little fleet of shipping we have, a great many emigrants wanting to go and the Commonwealth countries anxious to receive them, there is, naturally enough, rather brisk competition for what accommodation there is.
Now the British settler is our most valued export, and he is very badly wanted. In April last, when we had the previous debate, the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, laid down the Government's policy which, in short, was to encourage migration by all practical means, balancing it, of course, against our own needs and requirements in this country. Are we giving all possible practical assistance to emigration now? I put this in the form of a question to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—I

435
have already given him notice of it. Has consideration been given to the suggestion to invite representatives of all Commonwealth Governments concerned to form a committee to tackle this problem jointly with Britain? There lies, I think, the only hope for bettering the present situation, which, be it remembered, affects the Commonwealth as a whole. I believe that we can get a start in this matter only by united endeavours, by pooling ideas, pooling resources and pooling requirements. Lord Barnby has mentioned some expedients which we might yet try. He has suggested that aircraft carriers might be used. There are, too, those eleven ships which customarily travelled on the North Atlantic run and which are now either requisitioned or laid up for refitting. Such a committee could investigate all these angles. Unless that idea can be expressed in action, I do not think we shall get along very fast.
In the latter part of his speech Lord Barnby turned to what might be called the long view of the population problem—the question of the re-deployment of our population and, of course, its inevitable eventual reduction. That is a point into which Lord Strabolgi also went in some detail. This is not a matter of universal consent, but it is an idea which is steadily gaining ground—that the populations of the English-speaking Commonwealth countries should be increased and that there should be a corresponding reduction in Great Britain over the next decade. The countries of the Commonwealth, as your Lordships know, have an aggregate area seventy-seven times the size of Britain, and they have at this moment a population amounting to not more than twice that of Greater London. The recent war has thrown certain considerations into very strong relief. There are, for instance, strategic considerations which now result in the placing of a heavy accent on the need for dispersal.
But the whole economic structure of the Commonwealth countries changed between
1939 and the present day. They then concentrated much more largely on the products of the soil; they have now found it. necessary to diversify their industry, to expand it and to extend it. But a grave disequilibrium exists in the Commonwealth between the location of raw materials and the labour and the skill
436
that might exploit them, and in this industrialization it has been inevitable, in most of the Commonwealth countries, that they have drawn on their own rural agricultural populations which, too, need replacement. With all respect, I do not agree with Lord Strabolgi when he says that these countries do not want city-dwellers. This industrialization of which I have spoken has proceeded a fair distance, and it will proceed even further. There was a time when the chief asset of an emigrant from this country, apart from determination and courage, was physical strength and experience of life close to the soil. Now, with these nascent industries, the Commonwealth countries want a much wider cross-section of our population than ever before. The population of this country ever since the industrial revolution has become progressively urbanized with an inexorable and, as many think, a tragic momentum, and we are now in a far better position to provide the cross-section of our population which those countries now require.
Now one word with regard to those who oppose emigration without qualification. They urge that by reason of the numbers who leave us there results a loss in our productive man-power in dangerous ratio to our population. They say that the result of their going will be to leave us with an unbalanced economy, that there will be fewer and fewer people to support those who cannot support themselves. A careful survey of immigration made in Canada has shown that every successful productive immigrant takes over with him from this country a minimum of two non-producers. It is, of course, clear that, in our present situation, large-scale emigration might add to our embarrassment. It would be something of a sacrifice to let so much of our man-power leave our shores. But, let it be remembered, sacrifice in this connexion is by no means one-sided. Every country of the Commonwealth now is voluntarily going short of something it needs in order that we may have it.
I would like, if I may, to end by saying one short word on the question of community emigration. There is a great deal of muddled thinking on this subject. It provides a rich field for unskilled labour for those who possess maps and pencils and lists of populations of the countries of the world. They can generally settle the whole problem in a matter of a few minutes. I think that in British history

437
there is only one example, of any significance, of community emigration from our shores, and that was the emigration which took place from the Highlands of Scotland in the 19th Century. It took place in deplorable and tragic circumstances, but it was community emigration because whole communities left their hills and their valleys as communities, they sailed as communities, and they settled as communities in the countries of their adoption. Because of the circumstances in which they went, great harm was done to the country which they left; but how vastly have they enriched the countries in which they settled!
I think that in 1947 there is only one possible kind of community emigration, and to that several noble Lords have already referred in one form or another. I mean the emigration of industries—not whole industries leaving our shores, leaving the European markets that may one day be valuable again, leaving us deprived of their services, but rather a redeployment of industries. There is a famous firm of makers of agricultural implements, whose name is known the world over, who have a factory or an assembly plant in every Commonwealth country. That is the form of migration of industry that we want to see. There they would have access to raw materials. And in that way let us rebuild those foreign investments which were the mainstay of our prosperity between the wars and which went so far to financing and winning the war. That form of community emigration will do much to benefit the whole Commonwealth and re-deploy on a better basis the man-power of this very over-crowded island.
The second question of which I have given the Leader of the House notice is: Have the Government given thought to inviting the views of the other Commonwealth countries on this problem, and if so, can any indication now be given of what those views are? My last word is this. I hope I have not fallen into the error of over-simplification. In a question of this kind the thoughtful inquirer must steer carefully between the Scylla of easy over-statement, and the Charybdis of despair in the face of formidable problems. But problems there are and they press upon us, and will not disappear by being put on one side. I hope the noble Viscount will find his way to give an answer to these two questions.
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir in his welcome to the Leader of the House, back from a very long journey of many thousands of miles; it has been, I think, a great feat of physical endurance on his part. We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for having raised this question to-day. It certainly is one of the greatest importance, and one which is exercising the minds of a great many people, not only those who wish to emigrate, but also those who, in some way or another, are affected by that wish. I desire to say at once that I am a strong supporter of emigration, especially in these times. I will commence my remarks by giving a short resume of how emigration has progressed in this country over the century. In doing so, whilst I would emphasize the strategic side, I hope it will be remembered that that side includes both men and resources.
After the Napoleonic wars for a great many years there was a period of scarcity. This gave a great impetus to emigration, to the United States especially, but also to the countries now known as the Dominions. The 1870's and 80's, the most depressing period of the Corn Laws, saw another exodus from this country to those countries where Britons had already assembled. In 1899 there came the South African War, and we had our reward from that emigration. From all over the Empire (it was known as the Empire then; the name British Commonwealth had not been coined at that time) men of British stock flocked to the support of the Mother Country and were of the greatest assistance in that war. Another decade elapsed and there came the First Great War, in which the Dominions, as they were known by that time, and then including South Africa, played a magnificent part in winning the victory over Germany, fighting as part of our own armies in support of the Mother Country. It was not only men, but also food and war resources which they brought to our help.
Shortly after the First Great War we fell on evil times and there was much unemployment and hardship. This gave another great impetus to emigration, and thousands of our best people poured into the Dominions and United States. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Barnby,

439
talk about the 900,000 going every year for three years to the United States alone. The point I now wish to ask is, did we suffer from the loss of all this good blood over a century? Momentarily we did; but in the long run, I venture to suggest, we gained, because the Second Great War was largely won, so far as our part was concerned, by the concerted efforts and operations of the British Commonwealth and Empire and not by ourselves alone. If it had not been for the Dominions, built up, as they have been, by British men and women, we might be in a very different state to-day. It is no secret now that at a certain stage in the last Great War, when things were going badly against us, all preparations had been made to shift the headquarters of our Government to Canada, to Ottawa, and to continue the fight from there. As it happened the necessity did not arise, and, though hard pressed, we held on, saved principally by the Royal Air Force in the now epic Battle of Britain.
The Second Great War is over, but the aftermath is plainly and heavily with us. We are suffering from a formidable set of circumstances such as we have never before experienced in peace time. Control is rampant and the freedom of the individual is greatly curtailed; taxation grinds everyone down. Hope for the future is gradually vanishing, due largely to the policies of the Government who, while never ceasing to beg for national unity, ceaselessly throw spanners in the works and create wider barriers of disunity through legislation and other measures—measures, moreover, which they must know will find grave opposition on the part of large sections of the population. I do not surmise; I am speaking the truth. This is largely at the bottom of this great urge for emigration to-day. It is these conditions, with many of those seeking to go overseas, which are creating the urge to emigrate. These people desire to find freedom from frustration, to be able to benefit by their efforts and to have the individual freedom which they cannot find here under the present Government, with its ideological doctrines and bureaucratic theories.
To-day I saw in one evening paper that thirty-eight people—they were described as Conservatives, I give that to the Government—chartered a big aircraft
440
and have arrived in New York, in order to find another place to live in. They cannot put up with England any longer. The fact that some people in trying to escape from here have taken dangerous, uncomfortable journeys across the deserts of Africa by motor car, through the jungle, and by sailing boats across the ocean, shows the measure of their desire to be quit of the land of their birth. Not only single men, but even whole families, including women and children, have made these journeys. We all admire their spirit of adventure—at least, I do—and I for one do not wonder at it. But there are many in high places who deprecate this mass migration, and who say that these people should stay on here and face it out. I want to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a specific question as to whether or not it is the view of the Government that these people ought not to migrate, but should stay here and face it out. Personally, I do not agree with that view. I would do all I could to help them migrate to these English-speaking places to which they wish to go. It is for that reason that I am to-day taking part in the debate which was initiated by my noble friend, as I understand it, with the object of urging the Government to do all they can to assist migration and not to prevent it.
We have heard this afternoon that in New Zealand they are not altogether ready for immigrants, but we know that in Canada, in Australia, and in South Africa, there is a tremendous demand for them. I would like to support my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir in his suggestion that possibly a committee set up with the Dominions might be very helpful in solving this question. When we look back on our history—the history which I have briefly sketched this afternoon—we find that every wave of migration has had its reward and compensation, and has proved a good investment. We have in each successive war received our reward. Is any one in your Lordships' House so foolish as to prophesy that there will never be another war; or that if war comes, owing to the new deadly form of scientific weapons, it will not be even more widespread and more devastating than the last Great War? I think the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who has just been to the Pacific, will have appreciated as much as anyone in this House that the strategy of the next war will chiefly lie in the Pacific and Indian

441
Oceans, rather than in the Atlantic, and that consequently places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa require as many immigrants as they can get. At the same time I do not altogether like the expression "dispersal of people from this country." I think emigration ought to be on a voluntary basis, and only the people who want to go should go. Perhaps that is what my noble friend meant when he used the word "dispersal." But "dispersal" has a sort of compulsory atmosphere about it that does not appeal to me.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: May I interrupt the noble Viscount, as the remark was directed to me? In using the word "dispersal" I meant that it should be on an entirely voluntary basis and not in any way compulsory.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I thought it was the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who used the word.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Lord Barnby undoubtedly did use the expression, and I took it upon myself to utter a small criticism upon it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the absence of Lord Barnby, those of us who are here all seem to be agreed upon the point. There is one other short point I want to make. Personally, I do not grudge to the Dominions that they should get the best stock, or good stock. We have in this country 45,000,000 people, and to-day, as I understand it, there are about 700,000 to 800,000 who wish to emigrate. That is about 2 per cent. of our population. I venture to believe—although it is perfectly true that 700,000 to 800,000 does represent a big cut in the population—that it will be found that a great many very good people will be left behind in this country, as has always proved to be the case in the past. I do not think that argument ought to enter into it. If the best of our people want to emigrate, I think they should be allowed to go and start on a new life. That is the policy I would urge on His Majesty's Government. Quite apart from any pronouncement of any kind that may be made in one circle or another, I sincerely hope that the Government will do all they can to meet this urge, from whatever cause it may have come—I have perhaps been a little plain spoken as to one of the principal causes to which I think it is attributable—
442
and that they will do all they can to assist it forward, in view of the necessity of a long-range policy to people our Dominions as quickly as we can.
4.7 p.m.
LORD GILFORD: My Lords, the main purpose for which I Intervene for a very few minutes this afternoon is to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice. Before I put my question, I should just like to say how much we welcome the noble Viscount back from Australia. It is a country I know very well, and one in which I have spent some of the happiest years of my life. I hope that at some time I may have an opportunity of hearing from the noble Viscount's own lips about his experiences there. Indeed we may do so to-day. The question I want to put is this. Before the war the voluntary migration societies received a grant amounting I think to 75 per cent. of the cost of running the United Kingdom end of their organizations. As a member of the committee of the Big Brother Movement I know how much more the voluntary migration organizations need this subsidy to-day than they ever did before. Before the war such societies used to receive quite large subscriptions from people who regarded migration from the point of view perhaps of helping some destitute man or woman without a job, or some destitute orphan child, to start a new life in the Dominions. Circumstances are of course quite different today, and some of the sources from which the societies used to get quite considerable sums of money have dried up. I think it is admitted on all sides that these societies are doing good work, and if they are to carry on they do need this subsidy again. I think the subsidy was jointly borne by the British and Australian Governments. I am not sure whether it was extended to other Dominions or not.
A NOBLE LORD: Yes, it was.
LORD GIFFORD: I had a long talk on this very subject with Mr. Calwell when he was in England recently. He expressed the greatest sympathy from the Australian end and said he would do his utmost to get the subsidy renewed, so far as the Australian Government was concerned. I hope we may be able to hear something from the noble Viscount on the British Government's side.

443
I would like to add only two other points. I was very impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said about community migration. As I understood it, he felt that the right type of community migration was, if I may say so, that of child industries going away from the parent industries here. I do think that is the only possible way. I do not think it pays to get fifty craftsmen of a certain type and put them in a camp somewhere and expect them to settle down. If you do not have the child industry you must have individual absorption. There is one final point. We all know that the crux of migration is shipping, but as one the whole of whose war effort was spent in aircraft carriers and adapting them to various purposes after the war, I do not think it is economically possible for either the British Navy or the Australian Navy at the present time to provide the enormous crews required for those ships. One is also apt to think that an aircraft carrier will carry an enormous number of people, but it does not do so in proportion to the effort and expenditure required to run it. I hope that that hopeful suggestion which often comes up will not be pressed too hard. That is all I have to say, but I would be glad to have an answer on that specific point which I have put to the noble Viscount.
4.22 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, winds up the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say how much I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, quoted in support of his Motion an ex-Governor of Singapore, Sir Shenton Thomas. Less than three weeks ago I was awarding prizes at Drogheda Grammar School. After my prize giving address three young Irishmen came to me and asked why they had not been supported in their proposals to equip and man a minesweeping and patrol flotilla in Singapore in about the year 1937. I told them that I had written to Sir Shenton Thomas when I was Commander-in-Chief at the Nore and had asked him to support them. I heard that they had received no support, and in fact I received a somewhat pompous letter from the Governor throwing cold water on the scheme which these young men had submitted to me,
444
knowing my interest in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and in little ships. That is not encouragement such as we have received for the formation of our R.N.V.R. units in the Dominions from an ex-Governor-General of New Zealand here with us this afternoon. I can only say how grateful I was of the support I received in Australia and South Africa. How different things might have been in Singapore if encouragement had been given to young men serving there at that time, instead of allowing them to drift away, play bridge and waste their time, when the danger of a second World War was so imminent.
There is one other thing I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who was encouraging migrants from this country to go to the cities of the Dominions. In Australia the farmers have a saying that when the grass ceases to grow on the land, it begins to grow in the cities. Those great open spaces are indeed essential for feeding the population of Europe when things have become so difficult in the Argentine and in other beef and mutton producing countries. As to permanent producers I sent a family of eight to Alberta in Canada, of which all eight were producers. Unfortunately, the farm collapsed because of the World War, when five of the eight went to war and only one returned.
4.26 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, the action of my noble friend Lord Barnby in initiating this debate has, I think, been thoroughly justified not only by his own very interesting contribution but by several other notable speakers. I would mention in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who speaks with such great authority upon the Southern Dominions and who gave a very interesting description of the possibilities of New Zealand. I would mention also my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, whose knowledge of Canada is intimate, who brings a really practical mind to these discussions and who made, incidentally, a very interesting practical proposal. I would refer also to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who speaks with personal and recent knowledge of Australia.
There is no doubt—and I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House,

445
who has just come back from Australia and New Zealand, will confirm this—that there is a profound stirring of opinion on this question of population at this moment throughout the Commonwealth. There, is a sense of urgent need felt by people who gave very little consideration to it before. I think that is the reflex in all the Dominions. There is an entirely new appreciation of the fact that Commonwealth development is now an imperative necessity to offset the loss of strength which two World Wars have brought about in Britain if the British way of life is to hold its own in the second half as it did in the first half of the twentieth century. Commonwealth conferences—one of which I think was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir—may be valuable, but I am sure the first essential at the moment is that we should revise our opinion here and get an opinion which is really approved by our people as to the contribution which we should make to the Commonwealth in this very important direction.
There is some difference of opinion here—perhaps some considerable difference of opinion—and I think there is some danger of an inadequate appreciation of the necessities of the Commonwealth—I do not mean on the part of His Majesty's Government, but on the part of great sections of public opinion. The Dominions, after all, make their own policy. Whatever they do it is not for us to advise or to criticize, but we know that they are deeply anxious upon this subject. We know now that they want our population, and it would be disastrous to appear unsympathetic, obstructive or unco-operative when they are seeking help from us. It is a difficult question in which fear and prejudice are very easily aroused, and I am sure it is the duty of everybody to clear his mind upon it and contribute what he can to a better understanding. Clearly also it is not a Party question, and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, did not really mean to import a note of Party recrimination.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I was only dealing with facts.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: If it is an Imperial question, the more Party is kept out of this discussion the better. We are all, irrespective of Party, equally devoted to the welfare of our own country and
446
to the cause of co-operation throughout the Commonwealth, Your Lordships' House, I think, is particularly well fitted to take a broad view of this problem in all its implications. What is the question? Until the opening of this century, Britain's strength, alone and single-handed, guaranteed the security of the whole Commonwealth and Empire. We sent out man-power by the million throughout the nineteenth century. We invested a vast surplus wealth for the development of the younger nations. We maintained an unassailable sea power from our own resources. All that is no longer possible for us. There has been an immense change in the distribution of power since the beginning of the century, and it is this that is making the stir of feeling throughout the Dominions.
First, Germany challenged us at sea, and now that the German menace has been overcome in two terrible wars, we find the world confronted by two new giants, the American Union and the Soviet Union. Britain has survived two world wars, not in virtue entirely of her own strength or character but because the nations of the Commonwealth made common cause with her. The contribution of the younger nations to our common victory, as many of your Lordships have said, was splendid and indispensable. And it is well for all of us nations of the British Commonwealth that we fought in alliance with the United States of America. Thus was Britain repaid for the breadth of her nineteenth-century policy. The initiative, your Lordships should be proud to remember, came from a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Durham, who first advanced the great policy of building up our civilization overseas without seeking to control it. That came from your Lordships' House; let us never forget it. We should be proud that this brotherhood in freedom grew to strength and maturity under the broad shield of the Royal Navy. Britain is now much weaker, but the strength of the younger nations more than compensates for our losses. They have gained more than we have lost, and if we stand together the Commonwealth is more powerful to-day than it was in the past, when it relied solely upon this old though powerful country.
The distribution of power Is different—the distribution of man-power, the distribution of resources; but that is no weakness in this atomic age. Dispersal is an element

447
of strength, provided that our moral unity is unimpaired. Our moral unity is unimpaired; it is absolutely undiminished; and the Commonwealth ranks equal to the two giants, the Soviet Union and the American Union, provided that it acts, lives, and serves the world as a Commonwealth. This, however, is no situation for complacency. This question of the distribution of population is one of the most serious that the Commonwealth has to face. We in this country have to renew our strength with an inadequate supply of young man-power. But we must also do our utmost to help the development of the Commonwealth countries. It is that double duty which rests upon us.
What then are our respective necessities, ours and theirs? In this country the quality of our manhood is absolutely undiminished, although the numbers are inadequate. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Barnby really meant to recommend a serious reduction in our population in these islands.
LORD BARNBY: Yes.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am bound to say that I disagree with him absolutely in that. Such a reduction would be impossible without very great suffering and a serious fall in the standard of living. It would be impossible to avoid a real weakening in the structure of the whole Commonwealth, for we, the member of the Commonwealth that is in the European Continent, will always have a special responsibility for preventing the domination of Europe by any Power unfriendly to our British ideals and way of life. We cannot, therefore, afford to export youth, enterprise and energy, unless we can make it up from other sources. It would also be dangerous to export our productive youth any further, for that would mean tilting the already precarious balance between unproductive age and productive youth. No nation can afford to carry an unproductive population disproportionate to its strength in producers and wealth-makers. The appeal of my right honourable friend Mr. Churchill to youth not to despair of this Old Country was, therefore, extremely natural.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, it was not an appeal not to despair; it was an appeal
448
not to leave this county. How can you colonize if you keep your people here?
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I was proposing to develop the argument. The noble Lord has intervened at a very early stage. I say that it was an appeal to youth not to despair of their country. Of course many of them were certain to go, as other noble Lords have said, because the situation in this country seemed unattractive to them. Mr. Churchill needs No 1nterpretation or defence from me; but no one who cares for the national insurances services can fail to understand that the uncompensated loss of youth in this country would be, from the standpoint of the whole population, a matter of the utmost gravity. Nor should we wish to condone any feeling that post-war troubles justify a sense of lack of faith in this country.
I am sure that Mr. Churchill would never suggest that youth and enterprise have no future in this country. It was natural that he should protest against any spirit of that kind getting abroad in the land. He would also be the last to misunderstand or to discourage the spirit of adventure and enterprise, for that has been one of the main sources of Britain's greatness. This country is still the breeding ground of men who can show the mettle of their pasture—young men of the pioneering type, who in the past have carried our strength across the seas and made it the strength of splendid new nations. Those nations are still developing, and we must help them. They need our men as much as we need them, and the problem is to assimilate the foreign element in the Dominions without weakening their fundamentally British character. The instinct and tradition of the British element is the basis of our brotherhood and our strength in the counsels of the nations.
In this country there is no danger whatever that foreign immigration, even if we permitted it in considerable numbers, would in any way alter our fundamental characteristics. We have gained by foreign immigration in the past, and it is my personal belief that we may stand to gain very much by it again in the future. When one thinks of the textile industry in this country, which was founded in the first instance by foreign immigrants, and of other industries that have come from those who have left their

449
own countries, either because the beacon of freedom here attracted them or because they were driven out of their own countries by the spur of persecution, we realize that those people have been of immense value in the past. And they may well be so again. We must certainly attract youth to this country if we are to be able to export it to the Dominions. To do so would, in my opinion, add but little to our own existing domestic problem, which must involve foreign immigration if it is to be solved satisfactorily.
I hope, therefore, that no Government in this country, and no movement of opinion here, will ever sanction an abandonment of the Durham ideal that it is our business to build up these young nations. We cannot default in giving any help that (hey require from us, but a fresh effort of imagination is needed here in order to adapt that policy to a new situation. Our difficulties are great. We are said to be at least half a million short in young productive labour. We are going to return the German prisoners of war, quite rightly, to Germany; but it is not clear at present how the gap in our agriculture is to be made good. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, I thought rightly, to the importance of increasing amenities on the land. If that is necessary in the Dominions, it is also necessary here. And most of us are experiencing very great difficulty in our efforts to meet those demands in different parts of the country, whether it be housing, amenities like village halls or even the extension of playing fields. All these things have become immensely difficult, and they all want close attention.
Also, in this country the trade unions are clearly going through the same process as the trade unions have been going through in Australia and New Zealand, particularly in Australia. I remember being in Australia forty years ago and making the acquaintance for the first time of Mr. Hughes (afterwards Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and then, I think, leader of the dockers in Sydney) and of Mr. Watson, who was the first Labour Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. Both those men afterwards carried great responsibilities. Both of them, even at that time, with a premonition of the future in their minds, were deeply anxious about
450
the attitude of their Party and the trade unions behind it to this question of immigration. In Australia, the unions have worked through that period of failure to understand the ultimate needs of their country. They have overcome, or largely overcome, their fears; they have seen and understood the long-term interests and necessity. I hope very much that in this country all our unions will do likewise.
I regard as a hopeful sign the fact that in the admirable speech, if I may say so, which the noble Lord, Lord Dukesten, made in this House during the debate on the gracious Speech, he referred to the importance of our devoting ourselves to the development of Canada, from which he had recently returned, and making good our needs, possible, in other direction. It is our business to share the Dominion task, and at the same time to face our own domestic problem. Our foremost duty now—and this is the main emphasis which I would like to give to this debate—is to cease thinking in terms of Britain only. Britain cannot revive and Britain cannot remain a great Power without the co-operation of the Commonwealth. That is a fact which has to be got into the mind of every man and woman, every boy and girl, in this country. Without a strong united Commonwealth and brotherhood of sovereign nations, the world's hopes—and our own hopes—of peace and stability are bound to be frustrated.
A united Commonwealth, strong in men and women as well as strong in resources and strong in the British instinct and tradition, is an indispensable element in the structure of a world moving towards a broader realization of the freedoms proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations. Without it, indeed, that Charter will never come to fruition. I hope, therefore, that the urge towards settlement overseas, which is strong in our youth to-day and which is welcome to the Dominions, will not be hampered but will be encouraged by all of us. I am dealing rather with general principles than with details, for it is difficult in opposition, with little knowledge of what has recently passed between the Dominion Governments and our own Government, to know what are the immediate conditions in which this problem is being discussed. I believe that we can rely upon His Majesty's Government not to discourage

451
this idea but to give it all possible encouragement.
An essential corollary to this—and this, I think, must be faced—is corresponding immigration of carefully chosen foreigners to our own shores. Both these things appear to me to be indispensable—I am giving only a personal opinion, of course—to our national revival and to a better balance in our economy. They are indispensable, too, to our duty as a member of a brotherhood
which constitutes the world's best and only model of easy, willing and complete cohesion between sovereign nations. This is a long-term problem, certainly requiring a long-term policy understood and approved by our people. The greatest immediate necessity—and here I hope that this debate in your Lordships' House may help, for our debates are sometimes read, and in the weekly edition of Hansard they are even reaching the railway bookstalls—is the education of the people in the implications of this whole population problem, grave for us and grave for the Commonwealth. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have an important contribution to make to that business of forming a sound opinion. I give place to him with great satisfaction that he is amongst us again, refreshed by direct contact with two great Dominions, to give us the benefit of his refreshment.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think that it is fair to say that this debate on a matter of far-reaching importance is quite in line with the discussions which your Lordships' House have initiated on many occasions during the past years. I think that the dilemma of the situation was well presented in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is a fact that this country needs men in many of our essential industries, because the demands upon our production are so great that unless they are met we shall not be able to purchase from abroad what we need for our sustenance and for our manufactures. At the same time, the demand for men in the Commonwealth is just as urgent. Those two things are both true. It is a very remarkable concatenation of circumstances, and it is the problem with which the Government have been confronted for some considerable time.
452
On that I would draw attention to the very fully considered reply which my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour gave in another place last week. That was a reply on this very issue, and he said:
"The question of immigration must not be regarded"—
and your Lordships will note the "not"—
"solely from the standpoint of our production needs, but also from that of the long-term advantages of the interchange of populations within the British Commonwealth. Nor can the natural flow of immigration, which is already limited by available transport facilities, be stopped except by the imposition of special restrictions and I do not intend to take such a course."
That was, as I have said, a considered and carefully framed statement of policy, and I am sure it is acceptable—at least I think it is—to every noble Lord who has spoken to-day. Therefore it is for this country to decide—and I think, on the whole, it is fair to say that we have decided, because this is not a Party question at all—that it is for us, so far as we can consistently with our own needs and even at some risk, to help to meet the demands of the Dominions for more people, and we are bona fide endeavouring to do so.
Now, of course, it does resolve itself into what might be called considerations of detail and ways and means. Apart from the long-term considerations, upon which I will have a word to say before I sit down, may I deal first of all with the short-term questions which have been raised? I would like to join with others in saying how much I was interested and impressed, not for the first time, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, on this subject; and on that I should like to tell him that during the past year there have been few subjects upon which there have been more frequent consultations with Dominion Ministers than this. Whether that would be advantaged by the special committee or Commonwealth group which he suggests, I am quite prepared to consider, but I do not think that the necessity for approaching it by that means has emerged. I am not saying that in any way to deprecate the suggestion, but because we have in fact by every available means been in consultation with Dominions Ministers on the question of how to deal with this problem, and as to what is the best way of tackling

453
it—and that not only from the short-term point of view either.
Dealing with one or two other points of detail raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I am afraid I do not accept his statement that the contribution we have already made by way of shipping is, to use his words, "the merest drop in the bucket." Really the noble Lord ought to have regard to the demands on the Minister of Transport. They are just prodigious. Also we are still millions of tons short of shipping, and I fear we shall be short for some time yet. But, as a matter of fact, the diversion of a considerable amount of shipping has been, I think I may almost say, boldly undertaken in view of the many other demands upon shipping. For instance, three ships to Australia which were detailed for this service last year were supplemented by the use of the "Asturias" in the autumn, and she is already undertaking another journey with migrant passengers and so providing an additional two thousand berths. It is estimated that next year the shipping lines, together with this service, will be able to move something like twenty-five thousand people, which is a very substantial contribution seeing that it has been going for less than two years. It is, I think, a very good start; and at any rate, it shows an earnest of a very real desire to be helpful. So far as South Africa is concerned, there are two special ships detailed for the transport of migrants there. New Zealand has already secured the services of the "Atlantis." In short, we are really endeavouring, in concert with each Dominion, to provide all the shipping for migration that can properly be provided.
Having heard some of the suggestions about aircraft carriers and other methods, I can assure your Lordships that these suggestions have already all been meticulously examined, together with what use could be made of certain transports. You really cannot send our women and children, except under decent conditions. You really must have the ship put into decent condition before you can send them out. It would only discredit the whole thing otherwise. It is just as much a saving of time to take two or three months to put a ship into proper order as it is to send it out under unsatisfactory conditions. Considering the large crews that an aircraft carrier requires, and so on,
454
I would assure your Lordships that, whilst this and other expedients have been honestly examined with a view to doing the best we can, this is not a practical proposal. We were glad of, and have been giving all the help we can to, Colonel Drew's transport of a considerable number of people by air to Canada, but still I do not think anyone would suggest that the transport by air of large numbers of people—certainly to Australia and New Zealand—is really a practical proposition. In small numbers, I dare say, it is all right; but otherwise this is not the way to deal with our problem. The Australian Government, in concert with ourselves, have given considerable thought to the possibility of building special ships, and in this, and in many other ways as a matter of fact, we have given a great deal of thought to the question of lending practical help in any consistent and logical way.
Let me mention in that connexion one or two other considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said that we had had a few people coming back from Australia who were disgruntled in regard to their experiences. That is true. When I was out there I had some letters sent to me from some of them. But they had been very ill-advised people. They had gone out entirely on their own, without making any necessary and proper inquiries as to whether they would be likely to get a job or anywhere to live when they get there. So, I am afraid, some of them were disappointed. But this, of course, was only what might have been expected; it was, in fact, inevitable. But, my Lords, it is this kind of thing which helps to discredit the emigration movement, and considerations of this sort make it all the more necessary that migration should be carried out on practical and sensible lines. I can assure the House that Mr. Calwell is carefully classifying he emigrants to Australia into certain categories, of "priorities"—to use modern jargon. Those who do not come into these priorities are not being encouraged to migrate till additional provision is made. I cannot go into details on this, but that is what it amounts to. The first priorities are people for whom some accommodation can definitely be provided when they get to the Commonwealth country of their choice. The second priority consists of those who can depend on help of friends in the country to which they desire to go.

455
so that there will be some sort of accommodation for them when they get to their destination.
When I was in Brisbane I was myself greatly impressed by the efficiency of the arrangements which had been made there—and I saw them actually at work—to receive emigrants. The arrangements are run on very business-like lines. The names of people going there are known before they arrive, and there is even information filed regarding their affinities. Arrangements are made to get them places and to help them in every possible way. In short, it is an entirely practical scheme. There is accommodation for the reception of something like 300 people, and the place is a model of cleanliness. I consider that that is a practical and sensible way of dealing with migration, and one not likely to lead to frustration and disappointment.
It is exceedingly important that we should not lose our heads about this business but should use our best endeavours to see that it is carried out sensibly. What we are looking to and what the Dominions are looking to is a well directed movement consonant with what we can do on this side and what they can do on their side. The scheme is intended to be a full and developing scheme. And here I should like especially to comment on the question of the provision of accommodation on the other side—at the end of the journey. It is a remarkable fact that wherever you go in the world to-day housing seems to be one of the most acute problems. It is extraordinary, but there it is! One wonders why it should be so universal, why it should be that every nation is clamouring for houses! The problem is perhaps as urgent in New Zealand and Australia as it is in England. I must say that I entirely agree with the tribute which has been paid by my noble friend who sits behind me to the pioneers of his family—and I can honestly say that my own family too were pioneers—who went out years ago to carve out their fortunes overseas. In the case of members of my family it was New Zealand. But, for all that, this is a fact that we must face: we cannot dump thousands of people down by means of modern transport in large numbers in Commonwealth countries, unless some forethought has been taken for their accommodation on arrival. If such forethought is not taken, we shall be simply
456
courting trouble. So it is that both in Australia and New Zealand much thought is being given to housing problems, just as it is over here, and those nations, like ourselves, will have to settle their own policies. There are noble Lords here who have an immense experience of some of the countries concerned, and I am sure that they will bear out what I say.
Now let me deal with a rather strange feature of the position in New Zealand by reason of natural conditions. In that country grass grows for ten months of the year. That is a fact of immense consequence. In this country grass grows for only about five months of the year—indeed we are lucky if it does that, but, in New Zealand, as I say, grass grows nearly all the time, as do the trees. This means that the capacity to support livestock in New Zealand is immensely greater than it is in Britain, because of that simple natural fact. And this does not in any way mitigate the truth of the statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. He knows as well as anyone that it would be possible to increase enormously food production in New Zealand without great difficulty. But of the requirements to that end, the chief is men.
In Australasia you see great expanses of territory compared with which our little island appears but a mere scrap. Those wide areas are capable of being greatly developed, and if they were developed they would, of course, add enormously to our food supplies and incidentally to their own prosperity. Their chief need, as I say, is men, and moreover there is also a great call for houses. I think it is important that the correctness of the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the potential increases in the production of food in New Zealand and Australia should be realized. New Zealand's meat production certainly could be doubled—a fact which is appreciated just as much by the New Zealand Government as it is by the noble Viscount. They are continually seeking to increase their food production. The great anxiety expressed everywhere in both Australia and New Zealand is as to what more they can do to help the Old Country. And in this connexion food production of course stands out first and foremost as the matter to which they can devote their attention.
But in addition to the need of men, account has to be taken of the fact that

457
one-third of the population of Australia, or rather more than that, live in three cities, for the increasing urge in Australia and New Zealand, as it is in Canada also, is to the urban type of life. This is understandable. In some respects it is pleasanter to live under urban conditions. Very often these mean better water supplies, better lighting, and better amenities in many other ways which go to make life comfortable and pleasant. Therefore, the Governments of those countries find themselves confronted with the fact that a great access of manpower is needed to develop their countryside still awaiting development. Yet, at the same time, there is an increasing urge to develop minor or other industries, and for more and more people to live in towns. This creates a problem of some magnitude. This is their problem: whether in the countryside or town, they need more people. It will be for them in their own ways to decide the details of policies which will determine how their migrants will be disposed.
I think that some of the proposals with regard to dispersal that one has heard ventilated amount to little more than dreams. Some of them are hopelessly impractical. You cannot lift a town or part of a town from Great Britain and plant it in Australasia; that is really not a practical proposition. For, be it remembered, we are dealing with human beings and we have to consider what they want to do and what they do not want to do. I am sure that Lord Tweedsmuir was right when he said that the only kind of dispersal that is practicable so far as industries are concerned is the setting up of assembly plants, or portions of an industry, in the Dominions, and getting there development which will gradually add to itself as it grows. That is a practical form of dispersal and one consistent with reality. No other form of dispersal which requires any element of compulsion, such as, shall we say, dispersal of a population as a whole, is really practical politics. I am sure that everyone in our Dominions, like ourselves, is anxious to develop this movement, consistently with the realities of their own needs and with the recognition that we on our side can only help consistently with the realities of our own needs.
But, let me say, we are not prepared to take, and we do not take, as indeed, the quotation I have already given from
458
the Minister of Labour shows, a shortsighted view of this problem. If 20,000 people out of the large number who have applied for particulars do succeed next year in going to Australia, I think we can afford it. I think it is right to afford it. Indeed, we have deliberately decided that it is right to afford it. And I believe it will add not only to the strength of the Commonwealth in a practical way, but no less. to the strength of this country. I would assure your Lordships that, so far as the long view is concerned, you are preaching to the converted when you talk to His Majesty's Government. I do not think there is any difference between us in this matter.
But we are, and any Government in authority in this country or in the Dominions must be, governed all the time by the realizable possibilities. Those are the limiting factors. Short of them, I do not think there is any limit that we need set at the moment to our purposes, because every one of us who has seen the vast spaces in Canada and Australia, and the great possibilities of New Zealand, comes away with the impression that the overwhelming necessity of those places is people. And the right people, the people we hope they will have, are people of British stock. We have given, and are giving, detailed examination to all practical suggestions, and I think what I have said has shown that we are willing to continue to do so.
I may say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that we have not, except in the case of the Fairbridge Society, renewed the contributions to voluntary societies. The demand is so overwhelming that we should be asking the societies to do something which is already being done by the Dominion Offices. It is not necessary. But we are continuing to help the Fairbridge Society, which, with its schools, so far as I and other noble Lords have seen, has rendered a first-class service within the limits of its opportunities. Apart from that, we are not making contributions to voluntary societies, because the demand is so great without them that it would not be sensible to encourage more people to come in and enlarge it.
LORD GIFFORD: In the case of the Big Brother Movement, on whose Committee I sit, we are limited in the number of lads sent out by the nominations we receive from Australia, and we cannot go

459
beyond that. Our Society, which sends lads of that age to the Dominions in probably the best circumstances, is of such a nature that we are put to certain additional expenses. I feel that if the noble Lord could make a special allowance for Fairbridge, perhaps he could look into the position of the Big Brother Movement on something of the same footing.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will consider it again. I was replying only in general terms to the noble Lord's inquiry. I am sure he will agree that our decision is the only sensible decision we could make at the present time.
In referring to the assistance that the Dominion Governments are giving to migrants, I should have said that the Union of South Africa has secured the service of two excellent ships and is making interest-free loans and helping to provide accommodation in South Africa for those who become approved migrants. The movement is being helped by these practical methods in every large nation of the Commonwealth. I am sure the debate we have had in your Lordships' House will encourage us to proceed with all practical means to develop this movement of which we all approve.
5.18 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I echo the generous words of welcome given by almost every speaker congratulating the Leader of the House on his return from his long journey. It is fortunate that one of the first responsibilities he had in this House enabled him to deal with a matter of this consequence, a matter on which he is especially well charged to reply, quite apart from the knowledge which he already possessed. I would express my appreciation of the words of the several noble Lords who spoke in support of my Motion and add to that my appreciation at the manner in which the Leader of the House has dealt with it. If I may, as is customary before withdrawing a Motion, I would like to refer to two points in the debate.
I appreciate the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has emphasized, that this is no partisan matter. It is certainly not controversial in the Party political sense. I venture to say, in regard to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord
460
Altrincham, that there will be widespread doubt as to the accuracy of his view that a reduction of population would necessarily cause a reduction of the standard of living in the United Kingdom. That is a controversial point. I appreciate the approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. It is right that we should make some reference to the Minister of Labour's widely circulated statement. I must answer his reference to insufficient efforts being made. It is difficult to accept his forecast of 20,000 people next year.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was referring to Australia only.
LORD BARNBY: I withdraw. I misunderstood.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make a remark about the reduction of the standard of living; it is important to understand this. If it were suggested that we should export our unproductive population, there would be no fall in our standard of living. But the suggestion is that we should export our productive population while still carrying the burden of our unproductive population, and that would unquestionably mean a fall in our standard of living.
LORD BARNBY: My reply is that it was our productive population which built up the Empire in the last 200 years. With my eye on the clock, I do not desire to enter into controversy with my noble friend at the moment. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House challenged me in regard to Mr. Calwell's statements, I will quote him. When asked, "To what extent is Australia prepared to receive and provide accommodation for a large number of emigrants?" he replied:
"We can take in industry 200,000 people. We cannot find accommodation for all. We could find accommodation for a large number. It is all a question of degree."
The real point is the dispersal of the population over a period. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has said that that is a dream and is impractical. That he has expressed himself in those words may well cause disappointment. The transferability of contributions was a point of great interest with which the noble Viscount did not deal, although I hope that he may find an opportunity to deal with it at some future time.

461
In conclusion, I may say that there is general agreement as to the fundamental desire for facilitating migrants. The Government have clearly given their blessing to it. I feel sure that this debate will not discourage those adventurous spirits who want to repeat the record of the past, and no doubt they will profit from the facilities which will be given. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
462

Borough of Oswestry;

Urban District of Cirencester;

Urban District of Hay;

Urban District of Hinckley;

Urban District of Wilmslow;

Rural District of East Elloe;

City and County of Lichfield;

Borough of Falmouth;

Borough of Harwich;

Borough of Shrewsbury;

Urban District of Axminster;

Urban District of Sutton-in-Ashfield:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.