PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 April 1891)

§ (6.42.) DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion, and will briefly state the reasons which induce me to do so. This Committee consists of 20 Members, five of whom are a quorum. The Committee has only sat on three occasions, the first being the usual formal sitting for the 1798 election of a Chairman and the arrangement of the order of business, while on the second and last the business of the Committee has been proceeded with. During the discussions that have already taken place much progress has been made, and I venture to say that almost every point on which there has been any difference of opinion has already been discussed and settled. Indeed, I have little doubt that another sitting will conclude the deliberations of the Committee. The object of having a small quorum is to allow those Members who for any reason are unable to attend to absent themselves without at the same time interfering with the progress of the business. This Committee was appointed on the 9th inst., and on the 16th two of its Members were discharged before business had been commenced. There was good reason for the discharge of those hon. Members, one of whom had been appointed on a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, which required his attendance; while the other hon. Member was not in this country. On the 21st inst. we had another change in the composition of the Committee; the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been taken ill, and was unable to attend, and another hon. Member was substituted, namely, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff). This proceeding was justifiable, because it was desirable that there should be a representative of the ex-Cabinet on the Committee; but on the 27th inst. we had another and a wholesale change in the constitution of the Committee, four of its then Members being discharged and four others substituted. It would seem, however, that this was not enough, and we are now asked to make a further alteration in the constitution of the Committee, by discharging two more of its Members and putting two fresh ones in their places. If this proposal is adopted we shall be placed in this position: that at the very last stage of the business of the Committee we shall have had changes in the composition of that body to the extent of nine Members. This can hardly be regarded as a proper system of working Select Committees. On the contrary, it appears to me to be a system which, if generally adopted, would be subversive of the confidence usually felt by this 1799 House in the proceedings of its Committees. One of the advantages of a Select Committee is that its Members are usually more amenable to argument than is the case in the House itself. They listen more attentively to what is said on both sides, and their decisions generally receive the assent of the House. I must protest against the further innovation in the composition of the Committee which is now proposed, as being, at any rate in my experience, altogether unprecedented. If the hon. Members it is proposed to discharge from this Committee cannot attend there is no reason why they should do so. But as it is, these two gentlemen are two of the most valuable Members of the Committee, namely, the Member for North Belfast (Sir E. Harland), and the Member for one of the Divisions of Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour). The hon. Member for Leeds has taken a most active and intelligent interest in the business before the Committee, and the same remark applies to the hon. Member for North Belfast. I am sorry they should think themselves unable to attend tomorrow's sitting, which I suppose will finish the whole business, and I hope the Government will postpone their proposal. I do not think there is any necessity or excuse for a proposal which, in my opinion, tends to subvert the system on which Select Committees are based, and to weaken the confidence which this House has hitherto reposed in their decisions.

§ (6.50.) THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute
In answer to the hon. Member for the College Division, I would point out that the two hon. Members whom it is proposed to discharge from the Private Bill Procedure Committee have been appointed by Her Majesty as Members of the Labour Commission, which is to meet for the first time to-morrow at the same hour as the Scotch Procedure Bill Committee. So far, the changes made in the constitution of the Committee have been made on the footing of friendly arrangements between both sides. With regard to the two gentlemen it is proposed to discharge, great importance is attached to the proceedings of the Labour Commission, and to the services of those hon. Members upon that Commission. I may point out with regard to the changes 1800 already made that the illness of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs necessitated one change, but he has fortunately since recovered his health, and on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury he has been replaced on the Committee. The other changes have also been justified by the circumstances of each case; it has been felt on both sides of the House that the Committee should be a large one— larger than it was when first constituted. It was originally considered that 15 Members would suffice, but, in deference to opinions expressed. on the other side of the House, the number was enlarged to 20. As to the progress made by the Committee, about 20 clauses of the Bill still remain to be disposed of, so that there is still a good deal of detail to be gone into. I trust, therefore, the House will agree to this Motion, and thus retain the Committee at its desired numerical strength.

§ MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c)
There can be no doubt that the changes made in the constitution of the Committee have been somewhat exceptional both in their number and nature. Some of them have undoubtedly been necessary changes. In my own case the course taken was somewhat unusual, because having been discharged in consequence of the state of my health I was shortly afterwards put on again. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members should be astonished at the numerous changes made in the composition of a Committee which, after all, has only sat 2½ days. With regard to the sitting of the Labour Commission tomorrow, I would say that the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, who is also a member of the Commission, spoke to me on the subject, and I said to him, not from any special knowledge, but as the result of former experience, that in all probability the business at the first meeting of the Labour Commission would be purely formal, and that therefore his attendance would not be absolutely necessary.

§ DR. CLARK
I only wish to remind the House that the Government placed three Irish Members on this Committee as representing three divisions of Parties, and that two of those Irish Members having been already taken away, they now propose to remove the last in order 1801 to replace him by a Scotchman. I am glad the Government are at last showing some inclination to give way to Scotch feeling by the course they are adopting.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the House that this discussion is not in order, and that I ought now to put the Question to the House.

§ (7.2.) DR. CAMERON
I shall not oppose this further discharge from the Committee, but I feel that it is necessary to make a protest against the addition of fresh names to the Committee and the nomination of Members who know nothing of the foregoing proceedings.

§ (7.3.) DR. CAMERON
My reason for objecting to the addition of fresh Members at this stage is that we have now in Committee almost reached the conclusion of our deliberations. It is quite true that there are a good number of clauses, but the contentious matter has been got rid of, the appointment of the Commission under the Bill has been decided, and what remains is matter of detail, upon which we are fairly agreed. There arises no difference upon Party lines, and the introduction of new Members is to be deprecated at this stage. It is simply an addition to make up the Party majority of two Members who know nothing of what has been done up to the present.

§ (7.17.) DR. CAMERON
In making my protest against these changes I did so as a matter of principle, and upon no ground of personal objection to the hon. Members nominated by the Government. 1802 They no doubt will make excellent members of the Committee, if new Members under the circumstances can be of any service on the Committee.