HC Deb 05 February 1897 vol 45 cc1524-8

On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,

DR. EARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said he thought it was hardly respectful to the Scotch Members that a Bill of this importance should be moved at that hour of the night. He hoped that at some future time they should have some more comprehensive statement than they had at present as to the objects of the Bill. He hoped no one would think that he had any intention of obstructing the Measure, the provisions of which on the whole were extremely beneficial and practical. But the Bill was essentially one of detail, and he hoped at a future time there would be sufficient time to discuss it in Committee. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he was in favour of a proposal which he had upon the Paper, to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee composed of all the Scotch Members, with 15 other M embers to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. He understood that the proposal of the Government was to send this Bill to the Grand Committee on Law, but he thought that proposal was entirely inadequate, and he therefore should propose, after the Second Reading, that the Bill should be referred to such a Committee as he had indicated. He was sure all the Scotch Members would agree with him that they ought to have a Committee of the kind he had mentioned, a Committee which had worked admirably in the past and which would work equally well in the future.

SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

was satisfied that the Bill could only be passed if it was referred to a Committee upstairs. The Measure had been before the House in many forms and on many occasions. He had sat on many Committees appointed to consider it, and it was his wish it should pass. The prevailing feeling in Scotland was that the Bill should pass, and, therefore, he hoped the Government would refer it to a Select Committee.

MR. T. R. BUCHANAN

said he considered that he and his Scotch colleagues had some reason to complain of the way in which Scotch business was treated. This was a Bill of 171 clauses, and its Second Reading was moved without any notice to Scotch Members, and in the absence of the Member responsible for Scotch business. Last year the Bill, which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, was passed in the House of Lords, but the Government made no attempt to pass it here. This year it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but was introduced the first day of the Session. Scotch Members showed their good sense in not making any objection to the introduction of the Bill, but they were reasonable in expecting that at this stage the Lord Advocate would be present to explain shortly and clearly the substantial alterations of the law which the Bill would make. The law relating to public health in Scotland required revision, but at the same time the constituencies were anxious to know at this stage the general lines of the reforms proposed by the Bill. The Measure had only been published within the past week, and he and other Members had had no opportunity of consulting their constituents in regard to it. It would greatly facilitate the progress of business and the understanding of this Bill in the House and the country, if either the First Lord of the Treasury or the Lord Advocate explained the principal points of the Measure, and the way in which the proposals affected the existing law. Certainly, if the Bill was to pass at all, it must be passed by a Committee on which every Scotch Member had the power to sit and give expression to his views. If the First Lord of the Treasury could assure them that the Bill would be sent to a Committee on which all Scotch Members would be represented, adding fifteen, or any other number of Members he might think right and proper to give expression to the views of the House, he thought they might take the Second Reading of the Bill without further discussion. [Cries of "No!"]; but in the absence of any explanation by the Minister responsible for Scotch affairs he did not think it right and proper that the Second Beading should be then taken. ["Hear, hoar!"]

MR. ALEXANDERCROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

was sure that Members on both sides of the House had echoed the feelings of Scotland generally when they said that the deepest interest was felt in this Bill. He thought that a Minister of the Crown ought to explain the details of this elaborate and minute Bill to the House. The Bill was one which could not be explained on general principles. It was full of details, and in the interest of business and of Scotland generally, he hoped the House would allow the Second Reading to be taken—[Cries of "No!"]—on the understanding that the Government would arrange that all Scotch Members should be present at the deliberations of the Committee. He did not desire to intrude himself on that Committee with any Amendments. He did not belong to the Standing Committee on Law, but he had received a number of communications with reference to the Bill which would make it necessary for him, if the Bill was to be referred to that Committee, to button-hole the Members of the Committee, and to impress upon them the views of the Scotch people in regard to this matter. [Hear, hear!"]

MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)

said that undoubtedly the Bill was one which required much consideration, and it could only be adequately considered in a Committee composed principally of Scotch Members. They had had no Second Reading explanation of the Bill, and it was not too much to ask the Government to accede to the appeal which had been made by Members on their own side of the House to give a pledge that the Bill should go to a Scotch Committee, Unless that pledge was given the Government could not expect to get the Second Reading of such a Bill without considerable discussion. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, Burghs)

thought the Scotch Members had reason to complain of the manner in which the Government were treating this important Bill. The Measure had been discussed throughout the whole of Scotland, and yet there was not a single Minister who would pay the smallest respect to Scotland—[cheers]—by giving any explanation of the Bill or any promise to carry out the wishes of the Scotch Members with reference to the one Scotch Bill of the Session. He could not complain of the absence of the Lord Advocate, because this Bill had come on somewhat unexpectedly; but the First Lord of the Treasury was a Scotchman, and a supporter of the Bill, and his name was on the back of it, and he ought not to have left the House when half-a-dozen representative Scotch Members had appealed to the Government to appoint the Committee suggested. That was the way Scotland was treated after a General Election—they would not condescend to say a word in support of their own Bill. [Cheers.] At the General Election, they were promised nothing but Scotch [laughter]—and the question in his own county was, how much Scotch legislation the Conservative Party were going to give them at Westminster. Under these circumstances, and having in view the importance of the Bill, he did not think they were asking too much in requesting an explanation of its details, and for a promise that such a Committee as the Scotch Members desired would be appointed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said that any differences of opinion that existed with regard to the Bill were apparently on mere matters of detail—[cries of "No!"]—and he hoped hon. Members would allow the Second Reading to be taken. [Cries of "No!"] The composition of the Committee would be considered with every desire to secure a full representation of Scotish opinion.

And it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.