AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Reign of Terror .

14th March 1947, Page 54
14th March 1947
Page 54
Page 57
Page 54, 14th March 1947 — The Reign of Terror .
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• (1947)1 By Our Legal Adviser AS a preliminary, this week, let us look into the guillotine question.. This procedure was introduced in the 1880s to prevent the Irish National Members from doing what is called in American procedure "a filibuster," i.e., talking so long that a measure was not passed. It has frequently been used in the mast to force through controversial Bills (Lloyd George's National Health Bill of 1911 was quoted in the House).

During the war it was realized that there would be a spate of legislation in the immediate post-war period, whichever party—or coalition—was in power. A committee of the House of Commons suggested using the guillotine procedure in Standing Committee, and accordingly sessional orders, agreed to by the House of Commons without comment at the time, were made at the beginning of the present session (1946-47) and the preceding one (1945-46).

What, then, was the fuss about (and it was a large-scale fuss while it lasted)?

First of all, the use of any device for restricting Parliamentary debate is suspect, and the Government must justify its action. In the nature of the case, the Opposition will never admit that „the action is justified; indeed, the amount of justification necessary is a matter of opinion.

Government's Case The Government's case, as stated by Mr. Greenwood in the House, rested on two legs—first, that the Government had a heavy programme. and, secondly, that it wanted to avoid an autumn "term."

It seems reasonable that any Government should have a heavy programme in these days. There is so much to be done, and undone, that, whether one agrees with the contents of the programme or not, one should admit the argument that a Government must not be prevented from putting through a large bulk of legislation, just by Parliamentary procedure evolved in past centuries. The procedure must be adapted to the needs of our times. This, however, is not the place to discuss other solutions of that problem; the Government chose the guillotine.

The second argument seems a frail one. The " autumn-term " habit, when concluding stages of many Bills are rushed through, is undoubtedly a bad one; the advantages of clearing one session's work at the end of July, and starting the next in October, are too obvious to require expansion. At the same time, the return to normal sessions is not a matter of necessity, whereas good legislation, surely, is Has there been any unnecessary delay in the Standing Committee? Certainly, the early amendments were debated at much greater length than the later ones. There was some fencing as Minister and Opposition felt each other's strength. Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 raised points of principle by which the fate of many other amendments would be decided, and consequently required most careful consideration. There was no apparent talking for the sake of talking; it was all to the point.

How about the amendments themselves? Some were relatively unimportant suggestions, which would improve the Bill if accepted, but would not ruin the opposers if they were left out. There were others going to the root of the Bill (such as the omission of ports and port facilities), which, on the face of it, the Minister could not be expected to accept. There were all shades in between.

Is it a waste of time to move the second class of amendment—that which the Minister could not accept? Not really, because in the ensuing discussions the Minister is forced to expose his policy, and tie himself (if no one else) by assurances on this and that. It cannot truly be said that time has been wasted in Committee.

The guillotine restricts discussion on amendments. Even those called are dealt with in a hurry. As, in fact, happened on March 6, three whole pages of amendments were never debated at all.

Does not this mean bad legislation? Not necessarily, because the best amendments are likely to be raised again in the House on the Report stage, and the less useful ones will drop out. further, faced with a time ration, the Opposition will do some weeding to allow more time for debating selected amendments. None of the controversial amendments would, in any case, have found its way into the Bill, in the face of a solid Government majority. On the whole, the legislative result is not seriously affected.

The power of discussion is what is struck at. Our constitution rests on the right of every member of the public, through his M.P., to register his view on the Bill. In a Standing Committee, 50 M.P.s have to speak for 640—a severe cut, anyway. But when the time allowed for airing views is cut again to an amount that is less than reasonable, there is an invasion of the fundamental rights of the electors which is most dangerous.

Theory and Practice Summing up, in principle, use of guillotine procedure need do no great harm, and, in fact, may beneficially restrict the abuse of Parliamentary liberty, so long as a reasonable time, is allowed for discussion.

It was indicated last week that 100 sittings of N hours each would be reasonable for considering this Bill. Under the time-table drawn up, 31 sittings of 24 hours each are provided for. In the one vital element of the case, the thing which could validate the conditions attaching to the use of an objectionable procedure, the Government's argument is void and empty. Bringing the matter still nearer home, Clauses 40 to 66, governing the nationalization of long-distance goods operators and the restriction of the remainder, are allotted five sittings, and passenger road transport one. Who can dare to say that that is reasonably adequate time for dis cussing the questions involved?

The actual time-fable was drawn up by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee, consisting of the Chairman, four Government members (including the Minister) and three Opposition members (Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, Mr Assheton and Sir Arthur Salter), as laid down by House of Commons Sessional Orders, and, of course, bound by the time limit (April 2) laid down by the House. Six afternoon sittings are to be inserted as the work on the floor of the House permits.

The time-table came into force on March 5. On that day the Committee covered more ground than was allotted, and started on the following day's work, with an amendment to substitute arbitration, as the method of ascertaining the compensation payable to the railways, for the present Stock Exchange value method.

On the Thursday, that debate occupied the whole morning (surely the minimum time to be devoted to such a question?). Thereafter, 11 amendments were examined in 10 minutes. They were all Government amendments, including the omission of two whole clauses, preparatory to the introduction of new ones later. In accordance with the rules, Opposition amendments were ignored.

Apart from the compensation amendment just referred to (which, needless to say, was lost on a division), only one item of direct concern to road transport arose before the Committee. The Bill stipulates that the assets of the railways shall be transferred on January 1, 1948. The Coal and Electricity Bills both allow the Minister to appoint a day, and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe moved that the same system should apply to railways.

Neither method applies to the road transport concerns to be nationalized, in respect of which the Commission has to serve a notice of acquisition within a time limit to be prescribed by the Minister, but, on the face of it, the time limit for road transport is likely to be Calculated from the date of the rail transfer.

The immense task of the Commission in preparing to assume its responsibilities was stressed, but the Minister was evidently not impressed. He did state, however, in the course of his careful reply to the motion, that it was because the Government wanted the date to be January 1 next that it was so anxious to have the Royal Assent by the end of July. This, then, was the reason for introducing the guillotine!


comments powered by Disqus