you are quite likely to get a controversial Bill, by the luck of the ballot, first, and this suggestion would at any rate secure normally that uncontroversial Bills got precedence. There might be some exceptional cases where it would not be so?-On the whole I agree, but it does not get over such an instance as I gave, which could not happen now. If there was a case like that and none of our Party wished to vote against the Private Members' Franchise Bill on Second Reading, I should take care that it never got down on one of these Fridays.

53. You would take care that some other Bill got ahead of it?—Yes.

[Continued.

63. You mean the Bills are too big?— They are made big Bills. The Moneylenders Bill has been made a big Bill. and the Seditious Teaching Bill is a fairly big Bill, but I rather doubt if that will come down at all.

64. It is rather awkward taking contemporary Bills, because they are naturally matters of controversy, but, looking back to past times, is it not always the case that the machine has never worked smoothly unless, by what is almost an accident, a number of uncontroversial Bills have got ahead, and then the two Fridays have been usefully employed. When there is a controversial Bill it easily blocks the time on both Fridays, if there is nothing ahead of it?— Yes.

65. It is therefore unworkable to have only two Fridays and to allow controversial Bills to be brought forward which do not serve any useful purpose?—Yes.

66. Is not the alternative to give more than two Fridays and to face the fact that a controversial Bill may get through or to give precedence in some way or other to uncontroversial Bills?— Supposing you give priority according to the votes against, that according to the minority recorded against a Bill it might mean that the last Bill in the ballot was such a Bill as I took as an instance, and, because it had no votes at all against it, it would gain priority over many slightly uncontroversial Bills which had some votes recorded against them on Second Reading. So I do not think it is

on all fours with the suggestion put forward by Sir Robert Sanders.

67. No, I put it forward as an alternative, not as on all-fours with it.-I thought the question you put was that we should be in just as bad a position, in the instance I am taking, under Sir Robert Sanders' suggestion as under yours. I do not think we should be.

68. Surely the uncontroversial Bills that go through after 11 o'clock would at a very early period of the Session under either rule occupy the Fridays, and therefore the only danger arises when the controversial Bill comes high in the ballot; whereas if it came low in the ballot it would not get in, because there would be such a lot of uncontroversial Bills ahead of it?-With regard to that, we never let Bills through that are read over after 11 o'clock, until people who have had the luck of winning the ballot have a chance of getting their Bills down on those Fridays. It would be unfair otherwise to the people who win the ballot. I do not think we need worry about it, because I always see that those Bills are blocked until Bills that have been through the ballot are down for those two Fridays.

Sir Park Goff.

69. They in fact have priority over the Bills that pass after 11 o'clock?Because we see that they do; otherwise if you pass Bills every evening after 11 o'clock you would soon find those two Fridays filled up.

70. You make a point of that?-Yes, because otherwise I think it unfair to people on both sides of the House who have obtained luck in the ballot.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

71. But this year one Bill is through? -Yes, if it goes through all its stages, but that is never done unless the whole House wants it.

Chairman.

72. Do not you think it would be a great saving of trouble and be more dignified and sensible, where a notice of rejection is put down against a Bill, that it should be treated as opposed and not be necessary to have a ridiculous blocking objection?—I do. It has become a

"arce.

[Continued.

73. It is not really a good plan when everbody it talking or there is a noise in the House that a Bill should thus slip through, because that is not a dignified way of carrying legislation ?-No.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy.

74. Would not that motion for rejection be an automatic block?-Except that you find out who is blocking it and by argument you may remove it.

Chairman.

75. I am sure a lot of Bills would have no notice put against them. The same argument applies to a Bill that has great public support, where people do not like to have their names down as the only opponents?—Yes.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

76. That process surely is adopted now. If a Bill is being blocked the Member sees who is blocking it and approaches him, and very frequently obtains the removal of the block under existing circumstances?—Yes.

Chairman.

77. That part would not be different, but where a notice was down there would be no further trouble and none of that undignified crying "I object" when it is unnecessary, nor would a Bill slip through without notice.-Where it is marked "a" it would not be called.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

78. What is in Mr. Kennedy's mind is that one Member or one or two Members who specialise on this function would put down notice of objection to every Bill?— Yes.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy.

79. There is a process of rejection at present. Somebody gets a Bill, which is of interest to one side, and then someone on the other side objects to it. It is not a bad thing on the whole, because, if every Private Member's Bill passed, God help the country!

Chairman.

80. Would you be able to give us an opinion on that last suggestion, because

[Continued.

that is a thing about which the Whips of the various Parties are specially experienced?-Personally I should like to see it. I think it is rather undignified this "Now"; "Object" and people getting up to ask other people to remove the block, and shouting. As I am trying to look at this from an Opposition point of view, I do not think I should object to it. I think as a whole these Private Members' Bills are a great nuisance.

Chairman.

81. I want to get rather beyond that and to see whether we are all agreed. We cannot say that Private Members' Bills are either good or bad in general, and the only way of making the time available for Private Members work smoothly is to confine Private Members' Bills to uncontroversial topics as far as one can. Are we agreed about that?Yes.

82. We cannot really proceed on a reform of procedure partly on the theory that you do not want anything to pass. and partly on the theory that you do want things to pass occasionally. We must have a coherent theory behind the rule? Yes.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy.

83. Your view is the time now spent on Private Members' Motions and Bills is largely wasted because it yields no result, and that is representative of the opinion of the House?-No, I would not say it is altogether wasted.

84. In the sense that it yields no results? I would rather keep to this point as to Bills after 11 o'clock.

85. I thought you were summing up your general attitude just now ?-No. All I was thinking about was this: Last night we had 25 Private Members' Bills down, most of them not wanted. After all, they are mostly the ideas of one or two cranks, let us say. If a Bill is going through after 11 o-clock it is only because it is wanted by the whole House, and it is not a bad arrangement, I think. Most of these Bills have not a chance of getting through. As I understand, the question we are now discussing is whether we should continue the form of the Speaker calling over these Bills, some saying "Now " and others saying "I object," or have a simplified process of putting down a considered objection to the Bill on the Paper, and if that ob

jection stood on the Paper it should not be called.

Chairman.

86. Or only called for the purpose of appointing a day?—Yes.

Mr. Lees-Smith.] If there was no objection notice on the Paper, then that Bill would go through.

Chairman.

87. No, it would be the same process as now? Yes.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

88. Although no objection notice was on the Paper a Member could still postpone the Bill by saying "I object "?Yes, and of course that applies to Government business in exactly the same

way.

Chairman.

89. You would have to alter the rule that opposed business could not be taken after 11 o'clock, because, if it is opposed, it is opposed.-Then you are impinging on public business.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

90. It comes to this, that the only argument for this new proposal is that it would save time and would save this slightly undignified scene at 11 o'clock? -Yes, as I understand it.

91. As you explained, bad Bills, unless the House wants them, are killed now?— Yes.

92. It is no further safeguard? It is only killing them a little more quietly.

Chairman.] It would. prevent the accident of some Bill, which might be no better than another, going through unnoticed because of people talking.

Mr. Lees-Smith.] Do you mean it goes through Second Reading and then goes upstairs to Committee and slips through Committee?

Chairman.

93. No, it blocks the machinery and a Bill which creates controversy causes a great deal of waste of energy in Committee and does not pass after all. If it passed it would have something in it? -Yes.

Sir Robert Sanders.

94. One Bill went through Second Reading and through a Committee two Sessions ago which those who were opposed to it knew nothing about until they were written to by other opponents in the country. They found that the Bill was already through Committee and down for report stage in the House, and they then woke up and had to look out for blocking it on the report stage. That Bill got through all the other stages without Members knowing anything about it.—I think there is a great deal of wasted time and wasted energy over Private Members' Bills upstairs.

Mr. Lees-Smith.] Do you really regard as rather undignified this scene at 11 o'clock. I always think it part of the life of the House.

Chairman.] I think it is not a very important matter one way or the other, but it would save trouble certainly if it were dealt with otherwise.

Sir Robert Sanders.

95. We have considered the point of the possibility that we may recommend the whole of one day instead of two halfdays for Private Members' Motions. Supposing we do not come to that conclusion but we consider that 8.15 is a particularly disagreeable time for breaking off Government business and starting Private Members' Motions, and supposing we were to suggest, say, that 7.30 should be substituted for 8.15, that would be taking away something in the way of Government time? It would be taking away considerable time.

96. Have you any idea as to what the Government would think fair compensation for that three-quarters of an hour of a Private Member's day that we were taking away from them? I think you must take off a sufficient number of Wednesdays between Easter and Whitsuntide to compensate for this extra three-quarters of an hour.

97. Do you think something of that sort might be practical?-I think so, yes.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

98. Do you think the Government would insist on that. In fact it would mean that they would get the same business done by 7.30 or 7.45 and they would move the closure rather earlier ?-Not necessarily.

Chairman.

99. The Chairman might not always give the closure.

100. As a matter of experience if it is at all an important debate, with big speeches by persons whom the House is anxious to hear, would 7.30 p.m. be too early a time to cut short the debate? Is there enough time between 3.45 and 7.30 to have what might be called a good debate?—No, I think it is a very short time and that is why I am in favour of this one day. I think one very often kills a debate by cutting it short. That is why I am strongly in favour of the one whole day for Private Members' time, which would get rid of these difficulties, I think.

101. Can you suggest any way of protecting Private Members, or do you desire them to be protected against the intrusion of Private Bills into their

time? No, speaking as Government Whip I certainly do not, because we share that burden of the Chairman of Ways and Means' Bills with Private Members up to Easter, and after that we have to take it all on our shoulders. 102. Is that the rule now?-Yes.

Sir Robert Sanders.

103. Standing Orders says that the time shall be fairly apportioned between the two. It must be shared before Easter and it comes all out of Government time after Easter.-Yes; so I always welcome up to Easter such time as is taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because it only means 50 per cent. of it falls on my shoulders.

Chairman.

104. We cannot go into that matter, but it is a thing which at some day must be gone into.-It would be within your terms of Reference, would not it?

105. Merely this aspect of it would be, but the real way to deal with Private Bills is in my view that they should be dealt with by a large Committee and not by the House at ail.I quite agree.

106. I do not think the House is suited to do the work it is doing now with regard to them. This question will arise in an acute form if you decide not to take one day, such as Wednesday, but decide to alter the time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, because the

question would arise very directly, and that is another reason I should favour the Wednesday.

107. You prefer the one day to the altered time?—Yes.

Sir Park Goff.

and

108. At present the Tuesdays Wednesdays give Private Members 5 hours in the two days, but if you have a whole day that gives Private Members 7 hours? Yes, 7 hours.

109. Then if you take off half an hour from 8.15 to 7.45 you take off an hour for the Tuesdays and Wednesdays.--That is comparing what Private Members get now with what they would get if they had Wednesdays.

110. I am comparing it with going back an half hour of the clock from 8.15 to 7.45 or 7.30. I would like to hear what you have to say about that. If you decide to have the whole of Wednesdays I gave some figures just now to show that up to Easter the number of hours allotted to Private Members' Motions would be almost identically the same as the time allotted now in our present arrangement with the two half-days before Easter and the one half-day between Easter and Whitsuntide. If you decide to adopt the other suggestion of beginning Private Members' Motions at 7.30 instead of 8.15, then I think the Government would require a quid pro quo, but of course the Private Member is always at the mercy of the Government, and, if it comes to that, they can take the time. One does not want to do that unless one cannot help it.

111. Do you lay any stress on 7.30 or 7.45 if the hour were changed?-As between 7.30 and 7.45 I do not think it would make very much difference.

Chairman.] About what time do you find Members want to go away if they are not dining in the House?

Sir Park Goff.

112. Always before 8.-Yes, that is very general.

113. If you look at the Pairing List you generally see "from 7 or 7.30 to 10."-Yes.

Chairman.

114. There is that difference between 7.30 and 8.15. People find it inconvenient to be there up to the last

moment at 8.15, but might not find it inconvenient up to 7.30? That is so, but you might have a series of division at 7.30.

Mr. Lees-Smith.

115. From your experience of the House do not you think that extra three-quarters of an hour would make a very great deal of difference to the Private Members' debate on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?-It would be more real if it started at 7.30.

116. Yes, I feel that. The tradition is getting rather stronger that you should cut your speeches short on Private Members' Debates, but I do not feel that the time would be unsatisfactory if you got that extra threequarters of an hour, because it would enable you to get in practically three more Back Bench speeches.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy.

117. I suppose you agree that at the moment Private Members' time is not eaten into by divisions after 8.15 to any great extent? Not to any great extent. Sometimes it has to be if a Closure Motion has been taken and you have to go on with some other divisions to bring something to a conclusion. Ꭵ have seen three divisions taken in that time.

Sir Park Goff.

118. It is very exceptional to have three divisions. Very exceptional.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy.

119. Would that tend to increase if we have a 7.30 p.m. arrangement?—I do not think that it should increase.

120. It would increase in the sense that, for the purpose of the preceding debate, all the time would be occupied up to 7.30 and a division taken then if it was to be taken at all?-I can conceive it increasing to this extent, that it might be more necessary to get ciosure at 7.30 than at 8.15 and more necessary to take more divisions after. That might be the effect.

Chairman.

121. Would you agree that in the House there would always be more pressure at 7.45 than 7.30, and to that extent a Private Member who had a full