§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, haying regard to the inroads that have been made this session on the days allotted to Supply by means of contentious Private Business and Motions for Adjournment, he will consider the advisability of moving that the usual extra three days shall be devoted to Supply; and, if not, will he state the reasons that induce him to depart from precedent in this matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe only inroad made on the time of the House by way of Motion for Adjournment proceeding from the Government side of the House was, I think, the one made in connection with West Ham. Supply has been taken on sixteen days and parts of days, in addition to the counting days; and, in my opinion, the general state of public business quite justifies, I will not say the resolution at which I have arrived, but the plan which seems to me most convenient, that on this occasion the House 1188 should forego the extra three days commonly voted to Supply. I do not think we have been peculiarly unfortunate—my general impression is that we have been rather fortunate—in the number of contentious private Bills this session.
§ MR. DALZIELMore contentious Bills have, as a matter of fact, been put down this session than in almost any previous session. Is it not the fact that the extra three days were to be given in respect of the state of Supply and not of the particular arrangement of public business?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not accept the proposition of the hon. Member Still, I can inquire into the number of Bills. I do not think it was ever suggested that the three extra days should be given quite irrespective of the general condition of public business.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to enable us, in addition to the three counting days for Irish Supply, to have at any rate some discussion on the Irish Development Grant Fund, the importance of discussing which I am sure he will admit?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURreminded the hon. Gentleman that they had had at least one important purely Irish discussion altogether outside the time devoted to Irish Supply, as the hon. Gentleman secured first place in the debate on the Motion for moving the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDHave we not some special claim, seeing how we assisted the right hon. Gentleman to save several days debate on the Redistribution Resolution?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI admit our debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman, but he must not be too exacting.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)asked whether it was not the fact that, under the Standing Order, any Member could put down a Motion for the extra three days, which must be divided upon 1189 without Amendment or debate, and that it was not restricted to a Minister.
§ MR. LOUGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this was a question to be settled by the general opinion of the House rather than by himself absolutely.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that he did not think so. No doubt the House would like to have the three extra days, but he had to survey the general course of business, and in consequence of the survey he had made he had come to the conclusion he had already indicated. He thought it must be left to the Leader of the House, and to him alone, to give an opinion on this point. He might be mistaken in the decision he had come to, but he was bound to look to the broader considerations.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I conclude that, if a private Member puts down a Motion, the right hon. Gentleman would not give an opportunity for a vote upon it?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)We must assume from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that there is such an intolerable quantity of legislation that there is no room for the usual discussion of Supply, which is in a worse position this year than we have ever known it. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what this great mass of legislation is which is crushing Supply almost out of existence, because we are not able to discern it?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, misinterprets what I said. I presume that no one in the position of the right hon. I Gentleman opposite will deny that the general condition of public business, as well as the state of Supply, must be considered in determining this question. So far as I know, Supply has absorbed a quite abnormal amount of time during the present session [OPPOSITION cries of "No"], while the time available for the transaction of legislative business has been unusually small.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERMay I point out that of the eleven classes of Votes six or seven have never been discussed at all. I believe I am within the mark when I say that less time has been given to Supply this session than in any previous session during the Prime Minister's tenure of office.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the I right hon. Gentleman has spoken somewhat hastily, but it might be useful if he would put a Question on the Paper asking for the number of counting days, and the number of days or parts of days which are not counting days, which have been occupied in the discussion of Supply in the present session.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERI will put a Question down.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)The non-counting days really apply to the Supply of last year.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhat I want to impress on the House is that it is impossible within the limits of time at the disposal of the House to give so much time to Supply when it is required for legislation.
§ MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, in reckoning the time given to Supply, was counting the days devoted to Supplementary Estimates.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURCertainly.
§ MR. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid the Supplementary Estimates were really due to the defects of the Departments under the right hon. Gentleman's charge. Had the right hon. Gentleman deliberately come to the conclusion that twenty days were sufficient for the discussion of Supply, or was he refusing the three extra days simply because of the special circumstances of this session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe time given to Supply outside the twenty days may, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, be due to the incompetence of the present Government, but it is not due to that in my opinion, and this question of dispute 1191 between us is one which I am afraid cannot be settled by any Return laid upon the Table of the House. The margin left by the rule, the difference between twenty and twenty-three days, exists in order that the general condition of business may be taken into account.