TRANSPORT BILL AND TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)

I beg to move, That the proceedings on the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading of each of the following Bills, that is to say, the Transport Bill and Town and Country Planning Bill, shall be proceeded with as follows:—

§ Mr. Stanley Prescott (Darwen)

The right hon. Gentleman denied it last week.

§ Mr. Greenwood

The Select Committee on Procedure, which this House appointed in August, 1945, reported that a Memorandum submitted by this Government stated: The scheme was originally drafted by a committee of Ministers of the Coalition Government, but it did not, at any time, receive the approval of the War Cabinet and the Members of the War Cabinet are not in any way committed to it. The present Government,"— That is, the one now sitting on this side of the House— whilst not thinking it right to commit itself at this stage, feels that the scheme covers a number of proposals which are eminently worthy of consideration by the Select Committee and form a useful basis from which the Committee may commence its discussions. It seams clear to me that in the days of the National Government this question of the best use of Parliamentary time and the effective use of the Committee and other stages of a Bill was under very active consideration. Members of all parties in that National Government were obviously exercised in their minds as to whether in the great strain of the days after the war—whether they sat on this side of the House or opposite—there would have to be some sort of speeding up of our legislative machine.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good saying "No." Why did the right hon. Gentleman the then Prime Minister agree to the setting up of a committee to examine this problem? He did not waste his time in those days in calling for the examination of problems which were purely academic—

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

The right hon. Gentleman does now.

§ Mr. Greenwood

It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister regarded this as a purely frivolous suggestion on behalf of somebody. The Government did in fact examine it very seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "But they did not approve it."] I have explained that they did not approve. I am not trying to pull a fast one. I have explained that they did not approve. I am only making a simple point which I should have thought might have got into the heads of hon. Members opposite. The matter was so important in the view of the then Government that, whilst they were not committed to any conclusions about this, at least they recognised the importance of a possible change in our Parliamentary machinery.

Therefore, we set up a Select Committee which reported to the House. Its first Report was issued in October, 1945. The recommendations of that Select Committee were brought before the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 15th November, 1945, in the early days of this Government. The House agreed with the Committee in its proposals in general and did not challenge a Division. That Report was, more or less, accepted by this House. Later that wry same day, in November, 1945, Sessional Orders were passed which made special arrangements for the application of a Time Order to Bills in Standing Committee. I have already said that we have not done it in this way before. This is a new experiment—[Interruption.]—a new experiment resting on the authority of this House.

§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

Call it the Reichstag, and be done with it.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I think all the potential Fuehrers are on the other side.

§ Hon. Members

Withdraw.

§ Brigadier Mackeson (Hythe)

Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman to call those of us who have done a little bit for our country, Nazis? If so, the right hon. Gentleman may as well understand quite clearly that I regard him as a low class Fascist.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I withdraw nothing unless invited to do so by Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker

If I may give advice to hon. Members, I would say the fewer points of Order we have, the better. If this sort of thing continues, we shall have nothing but points of Order all the evening.

§ An Hon. Member

Come on, Hitler.

§ Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)

Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for any hon. Member opposite deliberately to impute that a right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House is a Fascist?

§ Mr. Speaker

In a matter of this kind when hon. Members on one side of the House call hon. Members on the other side Fascists, and they reply by calling the others Nazis, really I think it is better that we should drop the whole thing altogether.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

Mr. Speaker, further to that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Franco."] Further to that point of Order, is it not a fact that the only consort of a Fascist in this country is now a Socialist Minister in this Government?

§ Mr. Greenwood

I shall withdraw any statement that I make if I am invited to do so by Mr. Speaker, and not by a horde of shouting hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Or by good taste.

§ Mr. Greenwood

Under the Sessional Order which permits this procedure to be operated Mr. Speaker will nominate the Chairmen of the two Standing Committees involved in respect of their Bills, and seven Members of the Committee, to be Members of the Business Sub-Committee provided for in our Sessional Orders. The subjects upon which the sub-committee are authorised to report to the main Standing Committee—not to this House—are four. They are: the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill; the hours of sitting, if any, additional to the usual morning sittings; the allocation of the proceedings to be taken at each sitting; and the time at which proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be concluded. All resolutions of a Business Sub-Committee are to be printed and circulated with the Votes. The resolutions will be reported to the Standing Committee, according to our Standing 57 Orders, and put to the Committee for its agreement. The question must be decided—

§ Colonel Sir Charles MaeAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern)

I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake—by the Sessional Order, not the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I beg pardon. I should have said that the resolutions will be reported to the Standing Committee, according to the Sessional Order. The decisions of the Business Sub-Committee will be reported to the Standing Committee for their agreement. The question must be decided without Amendment or Debate, and the Resolution, once passed, will operate as though included in the Allocation of Time Order made by the House. These are merely the provisions of the Sessional Order passed early in the first Session of this Government, as I said, and renewed last November. They embody the new procedure recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure which, as I must reaffirm, has been accepted by this House.

I am sure that, faced with this problem, the Business Sub-Committee of each Standing Committee may count upon the assistance of the authorities of the House in working out the new scheme, and my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be ready to assist the sub-committee in any way possible. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite are not going to disturb me too much, because I should feel a little irritation myself if this procedure were operated against them. I have been here longer than some hon. Members, and I think it is a pity that we were not able to carry through the Legislature proposals submitted to Parliament by voluntary arrangements—[Interruption.] I am saying that I am sorry that it has not been possible for it to be done by voluntary agreement, and that if it had been done by voluntary agreement it would have been to the satisfaction of the Government; but, in view of the state of the programme, and of the fact that no voluntary agreement has been reached, we have no alternative but to put into operation the machinery with which we have been armed. Standing Committee B, which is considering the Transport Bill, has had II Sittings up to and including last Thursday. Five Clauses have been obtained—

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in referring to what occurred in Standing Committee before that Committee has reported to this House? Has it not been frequently ruled from the Chair that this House has no official knowledge of what has taken place in Standing Committee until that Committee has reported?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The answer is that the House is fully aware of the Sittings of Standing Committees through publication of their proceedings in HANSARD.

§ Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

Are you aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, in spite of that fact, Mr. Speaker ruled against me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on this issue and on this very point, when we questioned the actions of the Minister of Health in criticising Amendments upstairs?

§ Mr. Greenwood

May I answer that question?

§ Hon. Members

Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman asked if he might make a comment before I answered the point of Order.

§ Mr. Greenwood

No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I asked if I might answer that question. Is it not a fact that the Sessional Orders come before the House, and must do, when we examine the question of expediting the Business of the House in Committee?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is perfectly correct. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), I cannot give a decision on that matter until I have seen what was stated in HANSARD and ascertain if they are comparable.

§ Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport)

May I also state that, when I referred to what had happened upstairs, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, he ruled that I could make no such reference?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is not for me to comment upon that.

§ Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

May I put a point? The House is now 59 being asked to discuss the Guillotine Motion which affects proceedings upstairs. I submit that, in these exceptional circumstances, it is absolutely in Order to discuss what is going on upstairs.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. I am in agreement with him.

§ Sir J. Mellor

On a point of Order. May I have your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the general point which I put to you? Is it not correct that this House has no official knowledge of what has transpired in Standing Committee until that Committee has reported? We all know that reports appear from day to day in HANSARD, but I submit that we have no official knowledge until the Committee has reported.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

So far, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order. He has simply acquainted the House of that which we already knew—that certain Sittings have already taken place—and I therefore rule the right hon. Gentleman in Order.

§ Sir J. Mellor

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill had only got through five Clauses. I submit that the House has no official knowledge of that fact—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am not a Member of that Standing Committee, but I have that knowledge, although the Committee has not officially reported, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not giving to the House information which he should not give.

§ Mr. Hogg

Do we understand that your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, means that, notwithstanding that it has been proved that what is contained in HANSARD in the past regarding Standing Committees does not constitute official knowledge, either of this House or of the Chair, anything which is contained in HANSARD which happens to he within the knowledge of hon. Members in this House can be referred to?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absurdity, 60 [Interruption.] I withdraw that word, and I say that it was an intentional misunderstanding. I only ruled with regard to the fact of the Committee sitting. Obviously, if an hon. Member referred to the actual Bills now before the Standing Committees. that would be out of Order.

§ Mr. Hogg

I distinctly heard you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you had knowledge of what has taken place upstairs, although you were not a Member of the Committee, and I ask you now whether your Ruling, which I thought I heard distinctly, means that anything which we know unofficially, or which the Chair happens to know, may be referred to in our Debates? I ask for a Ruling on that point.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take objection to the words I am going to use. We are dealing at the present moment with an exceptional matter, and, therefore, either to make or to disprove a case, it will be necessary, presumably, to state certain facts which have happened with regard to Standing Committees, and I rule that that will be perfectly in Order, but that any mention regarding the merits or demerits of the Bills now before the Standing Committees will be out of Order.

§ Sir C. MacAndrew

Is not this the position? We cannot discuss what happened in Committee upstairs unless it has been reported officially to the House, but, as it is, the day after the Committee sitting, the report appears in HANSARD. As no Committee has been sitting this morning, is it not in Order to discuss anything that happened upstairs?

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

In Order to make that quite clear, is it not within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, a month ago, I called attention in a Question to something which had occurred upstairs, namely, the defeat of the Government, and Mr. Speaker definitely told me it was out of Order to refer to it? May I put it to you that the Ruling you have given will only have relevance to this particular Debate, and that, in future, we shall not be able to discuss what occurs upstairs?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

My opinion is based on the fact that the Motion refers to Committees upstairs, and is, therefore, within the range of the discussion.

§ Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

Arising out of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would it be in Order to describe the contents and quality of the Clauses?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We can have no discussion at all upon the particular Bills which are being considered in the Committees upstairs.

§ Mr. Prescott

If it is in Order in this Debate to refer to the number of days on which the Committees have sat, and also to the number of Clauses that have been considered in those Committees, will it not also be in Order to discuss, in general terms, the manner in which the Committees have conducted their Debates, and the general atmosphere of the Committees?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already ruled that that would be out of Order. I suggest that we have now got rid of the point of Order, and that we ought to proceed with the Debate.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

While entirely agreeing with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has said, may I, with great respect, put this point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Supposing it is relevant to suggest that there has been obstruction in the Committees upstairs, then, I submit, it must be relevant for us to refute such a suggestion. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal withdraws any suggestion of obstruction upstairs—

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

On a point of Order—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is a purely hypothetical question: we must wait until such a situation arises.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

rose—

§ Hon. Members

Order.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

This is a fair point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and is not hypothetical.

§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South)

If the hon. Gentleman does not want to make any sensible contribution to the Debate, he should, by all means, carry on with his point of Order.

§ Mr. Pickthorn

The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal has based his case upon the acceptance by the House 62 of the Report of the Select Committee. The Report of that Select Committee involved among other things a view not wholly manifest about Bills which were or were not wholly constitutional or fundamental in their nature. While wholly respectfully accepting your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we would not be in Order in dealing with the merits of this Bill, the Transport Bill, or whatever it may be, I put it that it would he in Order to say whether either or both of these Bills hale both those qualities of being fundamental or constitutional.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

With regard to that, I think that we had better wait and see how the Debate proceeds. I am ruling that nothing relating to the Bills, except the actual number Of Sittings that have taken place and Clauses that have been passed, will be in Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

May I make an appeal to the House that we should now proceed with the Debate?

§ Mr. Maclay

On a point of Order. This is a serious point because it has a bearing on your recent Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I submit that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal has already referred to the fact that Standing Committee B has had II Sittings during which it has dealt only with five Clauses, that puts an implication into the mind of the general public that there is something wrong. I would merely refer the matter to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport who, I think, would agree that there has been nothing wrong with the Debates in that Committee. My point is that, under your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when we come to the Debate, we shall not be able to explain in any way what those five clauses were about. If we were allowed to do so, we should make it clear that II sittings represent an extraordinarily short space of time in which to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot deal with implications, and I now rule, as, indeed, I have done already, that it is perfectly in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to state the number of Sittings which have taken place and, the number of Clauses that have been passed. It would equally 63 be in Order for anyone to say that so few Sittings have taken place and so many Clauses have been passed.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I still propose to say what I meant to say. First, let me deal with the point of Order—

§ Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with points of Order; is not that a matter for the Chair?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I thought it was a point of Order which had already been dealt with.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I was only dealing with the assertion—because it was an attempt to undermine my argument—made by the hon. Member. He said that my case was based upon the Report of the Select Committee. I have said that my case is based on Sessional Orders adopted by the House.

§ Mr. Foster

On a point of Order—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I really must appeal to the House to proceed with the Debate as, otherwise, we shall spend the rest of the day on points of Order.

§ Mr. Foster

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that points of Order raised on this side of the House are not points of Order, but attempts to undermine his argument?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is not out of Order.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I was not referring to the point of Order, but to a statement made by the hon. Gentleman. I now propose to continue. The point I wish to make—and I shall not transgress any rules of Order; I know as much about rules of Order as any hon. Member in this House, and I have no intention of dealing with the merits or the details of the discussions which have taken place in Standing Committee on these particular Bills—is that the Committees have sat for so many days, hut have only got so far. However, enough publicity has been given to the matter, and it seems that hon. Members opposite are a little upset about it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

On a point of Order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman is out of Order in suggesting that there was obstruction on this Committee?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I am sure that the public will now be aware that we have not made great progress with these two Bills. Last Session—and I think it was a great tribute to the House of Commons and to Parliament—we were able to pass several large and very important Measures into law without the aid of special procedure. Among others were the big social reform Bills and the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, and, as we are not proceeding at the same rate this Session, we feel that we must now adopt this special procedure with which we are armed by the House of Commons. After their completion and Report to this House on 2nd April, these Bills will come to their final stages after Easter, as will other Measures now in progress. Our real aim is to try to even out the Business of the House, and to complete as much of the legislation as possible before the House becomes engaged on the Finance Bill and the Business of Supply—

§ Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would speak more loudly? Does he appreciate that a powerful voice is a customary and necessary weapon of a dictator?

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

We have got the last word.

§ Hon. Members

Oh.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am wondering how many hon. Members want to disclose that they have powerful voices.

§ Mr. Callaghan

On a point of Order. In view of the gross discourtesy which the Opposition are showing, may we hope that you will not ration points of Order when their speakers are trying to put a case?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not intend to ration points of Order. I shall accept points of Order from whatever parts of the House they come May I express the hope that they will be points of Order?

§ Mr. Callaghan

May I say that I have many which I intend to raise?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

In reply to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), may I say that to be forewarned is to be forearmed?

§ Brigadier Mackeson

May I draw attention to the fact—[Interruption.]If hon. Members want me to, I can show that I 65 have a much louder voice than they have. [An HON. MEMBER: "Chelsea barracks."] May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the very serious remark that was heard by us on these back Benches from the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), who said that she had the last word? Surely, the Chair has the last word in these questions, and the voting of Private Members.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order. May I express the view that this is a serious Assembly and that we are dealing with an important matter?

§ Mr. Greenwood

Of course, hon. Members opposite would not like to be thought guilty of obstruction, but the least one can say is they are not facilitating the course of the Debate. I now proceed to conclude what I meant to say. I was saying that it was our aim to complete legislation as soon as possible before the House becomes engaged in the very heavy work of the Finance Bill and the Business of Supply which takes up so much time of this House between Whitsun and the end of July. We have now reached the period of this Session when legislation should be well advanced, and further advanced than it is at the present time. I may say that it is the intention of the Government, so far as we can, to avoid an autumn Session, a conclusion with which, I think, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.

§ Hon. Members

Why?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to go shooting?

§ Mr. Greenwood

In view of the facts which I have given to the House—somewhat disjointedly because of the persistent interruption—we are, in my view, entitled to use the new machinery with which we have been provided by Parliament. After this Motion is passed, I hope that the Business Sub-Committees will be able to map out a Time Table for the two Bills concerned, using the time to the best available advantage, and securing the consideration of all the important issues thrown up by the Bills within the new framework. We had a heavy Session last Session. We have a heavy programme this Session—

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

Cut it down.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I explained last Thursday that we have no intention of cutting it down. A heavy burden is likely to be thrown on Parliament in future Sessions. Our programme was put before the country, and, in accordance with our undertakings, it has been carried into effect—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. John E. Haire (Wycombe)

Is it in Order for hon. Members on whatever side of this House, while still remaining seated, to interrupt a speaker? If not, what steps do you propose to take, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to prevent these continuous interruptions?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

For Members to rise when interrupting would be difficult to enforce as a rule, and it would be extremely difficult to determine who was speaking. Interruptions are in Order but it is to be hoped these interruptions will be few and far between.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

Is it in Order for hon. Members sitting on the Parliamentary Private Secretaries' bench to anticipate their promotion to office?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Greenwood

My right hon. and hon. Friends were sent here to carry out a mandate. Hon. Members opposite have heard so much about it and they do not like it, anyway. Let me try, in a few sentences, to summarise the case which I have tried to put and which has been subject to constant interruption from hon. Members on the other side who have shown me less than the usual courtesy.

§ Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

Quite right, too.

§ Mr. Greenwood

The need for an examination of this question of the work of Standing Committees and Parliamentary procedure was acknowledged by the National Government. I assert, further, that the House accepted the Report of a Select Committee which was set up to consider the proposals to which the Government were not committed. Out of that came a Report which was accepted by the House. Sessional Orders were adopted by this House to implement those proposals. We are operating them now. Last Session we were not called upon to use the new procedure though we did 67 have late Sittings. I think I was leading for the Government when we had three Sittings in one day, and we wound up the Commitee stage of the Bill at 10.25 one night. Hon. Members may remember the occasion. I am not saying there was obstruction; but I am saying we made the necessary progress. I am saying further, that with voluntary arrangements big Bills went through, and were put on the Statute Book this Session. This Session again, the House adopted its Sessional Orders. But progress has been so slow on the two Bills—

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The right hon. Gentleman has said twice that progress was slow on the two Bills, but he has said nothing about the Town and Country Planning Bill. Is he aware that the Committee dealing with that Bill has sat four times, and the last time it rose early at the request of the Minister?

§ Mr. Greenwood

I thought hon. Members opposite were very indignant at the disclosure of such secret proceedings, because when I referred to the number of Sittings it was frowned upon by hon. Members opposite.

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Answer the question.

§ Mr. Greenwood

I am not going to answer the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] I am saying that the progress on these two Bills is too slow. Therefore, we propose to apply the new procedure. The broad issues which divide you and us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—The broad issues which divide hon. Members opposite and ourselves are very well known. A large number of these issues on which we are divided are not new ones. Ever since the first structure of the Labour Party in 1900 our ways have lain apart; they always will lie apart; and I hope they may do. However, I should like to keep the Conservatives alive, if only as a museum. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will concentrate on major issues of real, fundamental importance and not on minor points, and make it easier, without the heat that has been engendered here this afternoon. I may say, we have decided that we must, and will, carry out the programme to which we are pledged.

§ Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

The right hon. Gentleman will have perceived already that we on this side of the House—[Interruption]—I am in no hurry, I assure hon. Members—resent and deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has brought this Motion before the House at this time. I must tell him that the arguments which he used this afternoon in support of it are utterly unconvincing. In the course of his observations he suddenly referred to the desirability of avoiding an autumn Session. But if the House has to choose between inadequate discussion of these most important Measures and an autumn Session, of course we are ready to have the autumn Session. I am absolutely amazed that it should be a Socialist Government which comes down to tell us that we must use the Guillotine because we cannot have an autumn Session.

The right hon. Gentleman referred, quite rightly, to the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I wondered if he had himself read his own Government's recommendation to the Select Committee. If he had, he would have found that it dealt exactly with the point with which he was dealing just now. This is what they said—his own Government's recommendation— If in the relevant period a situation arises where one or more important Bills are likely to be lost through lack of time at the end of the Session the first line of defence should be, in their view,"— that is the Government's view— to prolong the Session so far as this is possible. Yet today the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says: "We cannot do that. We might have to have an autumn Session." [HON. MEMBERS:No."] If he did not mean that, perhaps he will explain what he meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] No doubt somebody will explain whether the right hon. Gentleman did not mean what he said.

I now come to the next point. Last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise the drastic and unprecedented nature of what he is doing. There are, in fact—as I ask the House to note—two departures here. The first departure is that Bills of this major, national importance should be sent upstairs at all. Over and over again, we, and hon. Members below the Gangway 69 also, have registered our protest against that practice. Secondly, if they are to go upstairs to a small committee they should never be subjected to a guillotine at that stage in this way. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I told him last Thursday—and he did not seem to know last Thursday—the Guillotine has never been used upstairs before. That is the position. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted me last Thursday. But I think today he admits he was wrong, and has changed his mind. I make no complaint of that; we all make mistakes. What I do complain about is that, having made that colossal mistake, he does not now see the significance of it. If this Guillotine has never been used upstairs before—as the right hon. Gentleman admits—then he must make a case infinitely more far-reaching than the one he has made today. I am bound to say, it seems to us utterly scandalous to use the Guillotine in this way, on major Bills upstairs at this stage of the Session.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to our discussion when the then Leader of the House brought the proposals of the Select Committee before us. I remember those discussions very well, and we on this side of the House issued some warnings at that time. We warned the Government that present Standing Committees, of only 50 Members, are much too small to be wholly representative of all sections of opinion in the House. Everybody knows that is true. But if the work is to be given to these small Committees, they should at least be given full time to discharge that work; and if they are not, Parliamentary proceedings are reduced to a mere mockery. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the sittings on the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill, which we are discussing. Nobody in this House pretends, so far as I have heard, and I do not wish to pretend that there has been any obstruction on those Bills. Indeed, I am told that, in fact, the Bills have been improved. I am going to refer to one or two of those matters. But I do take the strongest exception to the fact that a daily newspaper makes a charge which, in fact, is not—

§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

No member of the Government has made it.

§ Mr. Eden

Yes, a charge which no member of the Government has yet made. The "Daily Herald" says today: In the past few weeks the Tories have been seeking, by all manner of dilatory and obstructive tactics, to hold up…measures of reform. It goes on later to say: The Opposition by delaying procedure in Standing Committee … I am going to ask the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of these Bills whether they allege obstruction or whether they do not.

§ Hon. Members

Answer.

§ Mr. Arthur Greenwood

May I put this point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I never referred to the proceedings in Standing Committee. I thought that hon. Members on the other side of the House challenged any reference to the proceedings in Committee. I said the progress had been slow. I did not say that there had been obstruction. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is now putting the substance of what happened in the Committees?

§ Mr. Eden

I asked the right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of these Bills a question which, I submit to you, Sir, is entirely in Order, which is germane to this discussion, and which is relevant to this monstrous article in a daily newspaper. I ask the two Ministers whether they take the view that the discussion on those two Bills has been obstructive or not.

§ Hon. Members

Answer.

§ Mr. Eden

If they decline to answer, I can only suppose they have not the courage to contradict their own newspaper.

§ Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

On a. point of Order, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If a Member opposite resumes his seat, is any Member on this side, who is fortunate enough to catch your eye, entitled to carry on the Debate?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If the Member is fortunate enough to catch my eye.

§ Mr. Eden

There is no answer to the question I ask. I understand that there has been no Motion for the Closure in those Standing Committees, and that proves that there has been reasonable discussion.

§ The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin)

I do not propose to run away from the question. I was proposing in due course to answer it.

§ Mr. Eden

I am much obliged. We shall await the right hon. Gentleman's reply with interest.

§ Hon. Members

What about the Minister of Transport?

§ Mr. Eden

Perhaps I may make an observation or two on this subject. I am given to understand that these Bills have, in fact, been considerably improved. Although I would not discuss the merits of what goes on upstairs—which is not our concern—I am, I think, entitled to discuss the time table of what goes on upstairs. I understand that the Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill have had important discussions on the part to be played by local councils in the planning of town and country, and that they have made pretty good progress, having regard to the complexity of the Measure. They have not sat three mornings a week, although I understand they took a great deal of time one morning to discuss whether they would sit three