THE STANDING ORDERS AND PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILLS. (Hansard, 18 July 1889)

* LORD BALFOUR
, in moving to discharge the Order of Reference to the Standing Committee, explained that that Committee reported that they had not proceeded to consider the Bills in question because they found themselves in such a position that that course would be, if not useless, exceedingly difficult. Provisional Order Bills dealt with matters which were to a large extent matters of agreement between private individuals and Government Departments. If any Committee of the House were to take them into consideration with a view to upsetting the arrangements that had been arrived at, that would almost necessarily involve the attendance of the parties by counsel or otherwise. The Standing Committees of the House were not appointed for that purpose, and it was obviously unsuitable to refer Bills of this kind to those Committees.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
In the absence of my noble Friend Earl Carnarvon, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for General Bills, I may be allowed to state that the view which the Committee took was substantially that which has been stated by the noble Lord, that these Bills, as a rule, are not Bills which should be considered by a Standing Committee. At the same time, it was felt that there might be some Bills of this class which involved questions of public policy, and which it might be desirable to refer, and, therefore, we thought it should be left open to the House to make such a reference in special cases, although, as a general rule, these Provisional Order Bills ought to go to a Committee of the Whole House.

* THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
I do not wish to oppose the Motion, but I wish again to point out that one of the special reasons that was given for the appointment of these Standing Committees was that they should consider these Provisional Order Bills. It was stated by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister that the Bills were passed through the House without any examination, and when I called attention to the matter when these Bills were before the House on Friday, he again stated that all Provisional Order Bills ought to go before the Standing Committees. I understand from what has fallen from the noble Baron that that is not for the future to be the practice, and it seems to me that, under these circumstances, one of the main reasons for the establishment of the Standing Committees has fallen to the ground.

* LORD BALFOUR
With the indulgence of the House, I would like to say that the noble Earl is not quite accurate in his description of the course of procedure in regard to these Bills. I demur to the statement that the Standing Committees were formed for the purpose of assisting these Bills, but I will not pursue that subject further just now. I would point out to the House that it is not correct to say that these Bills pass through Parliament unscrutinized. In the other House of Parliament they are 656 referred to a specially appointed Committee on unopposed Provisional Orders, and in this House they undergo careful scrutiny in the department of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.

* THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
I am perfectly aware that the Bills undergo scrutiny from the officers of the House, and I have no doubt that that is a very careful scrutiny. What I said was that they were not controlled by Parliament, and that seems to be the fact.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation. These Bills, as the noble Lord has said, are referred to the officers of my Department, who go through them very carefully, and have caused, and do cause, many amendments to be made in the clauses. I think it is valuable that the Bills should go to some tribunal in the nature of the Standing Committees of this House, but I fear that those Committees are too large to be able to deal with these Bills, which are, after all, very much in the nature of private Bills. In the other House, I have been told (but I am not absolutely certain of this) that these Bills are practically dealt with exactly in the same way as private Bills, and are referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to his Unopposed Bills Committee. Though they would not come before me sitting in Committee, but are, I think, as public Bills, rightly committed to the whole House, still it is not accurate to say that they go through no scrutiny at all on the part of the House or its officers. I think that, although it may be useful to refer certain of these Bills to a Standing Committee, those Committees are so constituted that, as a general rule, it would be better not to refer to them Bills of this complicated character. I would also venture to suggest that in cases where Bills are referred to the Standing Committees ample notice should be given of the intention of noble Lords to move Amendments.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I would suggest that it is worthy of consideration whether the same practice should not be followed here as in the other House—that is to say, that Bills of this character should go before a Committee for Unopposed Bills, subject to this—that if the Chairman of the Committee on Unopposed Bills wishes to call attention 657 to any matter of principle involved in a particular Bill he should refer the Bill to the Standing Committees.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I quite agree that it would be useful to have, as an aid to the Standing Committees, a small Committee similar to that which is known in the other House as the Unopposed Bill Committee.