May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 14th July—Committee stage of the Indian Independence Bill, Committee stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1945–46.

Tuesday, 15th July—Remaining stages of the Indian Independence Bill, which it is hoped will be obtained by 7 p.m.

Afterwards there will be an opportunity for the consideration of the Report from the Committee of Privileges relating to the case of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown).

Wednesday, 16th July—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Thursday, 17th July—Supply (12th Allotted Day)—Committee. A Debate on the coal situation will take place.

Friday, 18th July—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.

During the week we hope that there will be an opportunity to consider the Lords' Amendments to the National Service Bill, and the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (Certain Woven Fabrics) (No. 1) Order, 1947.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for the convenience of the House, on which day he proposes to take the items to which he referred at the end —the Motion relating to Purchase Tax exemptions on woven fabrics, and the Lords Amendments to the National Service Bill? It would be convenient to know when they are coming on. With regard to Monday's Business, am I right in thinking that on the Committee stage of the Indian Independence Bill there will be an unlimited suspension? I do not think the House would wish to sit late.

No, Sir. I do not think the House would wish to sit late, but we propose to suspend the Rule as a precautionary measure. We propose to take the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised on Thursday.

In view of the importance of the Report from the Committee of Privileges, which is to be discussed on Tuesday, would the right hon. Gentle- man consider extending for a period, so that we can have a full discussion?

Yes, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be wise to have an unlimited extension, because a decision should be by a representative House, but if we leave it without extension there would be only two and a half hours or three hours, and perhaps that would be too tight. I would therefore propose to suspend the Rule for an hour.

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has observed that we have been allotted only one Supply day next week, and there are still eight Supply days to be taken before 5th August? There are only nine days left, or 10 if we include Fridays. I hope the matter has not slipped the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

No, Sir, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unhappily it has not slipped my attention. I did intend to give more days to Supply next week, but the Indian Independence Bill comes up and has rather crowded it out. I know our obligations, and I am sure that with the arrangements between the Government and Opposition we shall solve it somehow, but it will be tight going.

May I ask the Lord President of the Council, more especially as he is the Minister responsible for science, to bear in mind the fact that this House has never yet discussed the maximum use of our scientific manpower and resources, and to bear that in mind in relation to the Business of the House because of the fact that, with the support of the Opposition in the main, this matter has not been raised?

I thought my hon. Friend was going to lead up to a tactical and discreet appeal to the Opposition, but, if he attacks them in advance that will not be easy. One does that when one has exhausted all other means of persuasion. There is a substantial body of opinion in the House, and in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which no doubt would wish to discuss scientific subjects. It is a matter of Supply, however, and no doubt the acting Leader of the Opposition has heard what has been said and it is for them to consider that.

We have so many volunteers from the Government side that the number of subjects is embarrassing to us.

The Lord President has allotted only three and a half hours, or a little less, to the Report and Third Reading of what will perhaps be the most momentous Bill with which any of us have had to deal. Is that in keeping with the dignity of the House, and the magnitude of the subject? Surely, however crowded the Parliamentary programme may be, we ought to attempt to do justice to this immensely important Measure?

This is a Bill on which, fortunately, we have no reason to anticipate great controversy. We appreciate that, quite properly, discussion may arise on Clauses of the Bill in Committee. As to whether there will be a Report stage depends on whether Amendments are made in Committee. It may be that none will be made. We have had to get this Bill in, as the House will appreciate, rather quickly at the end of the Session, and it is most difficult to fit it in at the end of the timetable. While I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) I am afraid we really cannot help it. We have done our best, as the acting Leader of the Opposition knows, to meet the convenience of the House, and I do not think we can do very much more. If there were no Report stage, or if it were limited, there would be more time for Third Reading.

What the right hon. Gentleman has just said is relevant to what I wish to put forward. It seems to me that the Indian question on one side, and the Privilege question on the other, are two classic cases of what are House of Commons matters, in which all hon. Members of the House are and must be considered. I would not press the point, but the original Privilege Motion was in my name. It is indicative of the fact that this is not a matter as between two sides of the House, Government and Opposition, but between the whole of us as individuals. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Privilege, of all matters, is the most difficult to discuss except in extreme detail? Will he therefore not consider whether it is proper that a question of this magnitude should be put down as the second Order for Tuesday?

I think it is right that it should be the second Order. I think it is right that there should be reasonable time for discussion, and, if we finish the India Bill at 7 p.m., and suspend the Rule until 11 o'clock, we would "be giving it proportionately about the right time. It is to be remembered that in the case of the Privilege Debate, which I entirely agree is a matter of importance, a detailed Report from the Committee of Privileges is in the hands of hon. Members. If we get the India Bill finished by about 7 p.m., as I hope we shall, it would not be unreasonable to finish at 11 p.m.

Reverting to the India Bill, even if it is not controversial, there will be four front bench speeches on this most momentous Measure. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as a good House of Commons man, to treat this matter with the dignity it deserves. The House will not be worthy of itself if it allows this very important matter to go through in such a hurried manner.

We have the whole of today available to the Second Reading. We then have the Committee stage, for which there is a great amount of time provided on Monday. I cannot imagine that on Third Reading there will be four speeches from the Front Benches. I think that if the hon. Member assumed that he would be wrong.

In regard to the Business for Wednesday, in view of the fact that we did not reach the Report stage of the Finance Bill until shortly before 10 o'clock last night, and the congested condition of the Order Paper, is the Lord President satisfied that one day is sufficient for the remainder of the Report stage?

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? With regard to the question of Privilege, and the Motion standing in the names of the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council:

["That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and in particular declares that it is inconsistent withthe dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."]

Will it be possible in the terms of that Motion to discuss the nature of Privilege itself which arises on one of the documents contained in the Report apart from the findings of the Committee?

I was not quite certain what the hon. and learned Member asked me. Did he assert that the Motion on the Order Paper was one of Privilege?

No, Sir. My point is that one of the most important documents in that Report is that provided by the Clerk of the House, in which he discusses the two possible meanings attaching to Privilege. In the form of the Motion, would it be possible to discuss the nature of Privilege as it appears in the original Motion or the Privilege of the House independently of the actual merits of the case, because the nature of the Privilege, as it appears to me, affects the decision with regard to the individual case?

I am sorry to say that I have not yet seen the Motion on the Paper, so I do not really know what we can discuss. I shall be giving a Ruling on this matter later today, but I do not think it will help the hon. Member very much.