§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the statement of the Standing Committee on Trade that they were unable to discuss the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill for lack of information, he intends to recommit the Bill when the necessary information is obtained.
§ MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir. When the Committee over which my hon. friend the Member for Gloucester presides, have presented their Report, the Government intend to introduce a Bill of their own.
§ MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in 272 view of the fact that there is no precedent for the action of the Grand Committee on Trade in declining to consider a Bill remitted to it by this House, and that only thirty-four out of the eighty-three Members of the Committee were present, when, by a majority of four, the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill was thus summarily dealt with, and that it was on the recommendation of the Prime Minister that the Bill was referred upstairs, he will afford facilities for recommitting it to one of the Grand Committees.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI must refer my hon. friend to the speech of the Prime Minister on 12th April, to the effect that, having regard to the new Standing Order which he was asking the House to adopt, he did not see how an exception in the case of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill could be made to the general rule which was about to come into force. The Standing Committee having reported the Bill to the House without Amendment on the ground that the information at their disposal was inadequate to enable Amendments to be satisfactorily discussed, the Government cannot give facilities for its recommitment.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)asked if it was customary for Members co-opted to a Standing Committee to be informed on Saturday that they were expected to attend the meeting of the Committee on Monday. That happened to a number of Members on this occasion. He also asked if the Bill would be recommitted.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI am afraid I have nothing to do with the summoning of Members, and I cannot, therefore, answer the Question.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMWill Mr. Speaker inform me?
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid he was equally unable to give the information, but he would inquire of the Chairman of the Committees of Selection as to the practice in giving notice.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASWhen the House refers a Bill to a Committee, is not that a mandatory instruction to the Committee to consider that Bill? Is it 273 competent for the Committee to return the Bill without considering it?
§ * MR. SPEAKERT think it is a practice which ought to be carefully watched, because great difficulties, indeed abuses, may arise from a majority on a Committee treating a Bill in that particular way without reason for doing so. There are certain precedents for the manner in which the Standing Committee dealt with this particular Bill. Standing Committees are instructed by the Standing Orders to follow the procedure of Select Committees, and as these have so dealt with Bills, the Standing Committee is justified in the action taken; but it is a practice that ought to be very carefully watched.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMIn view of what did happen, is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to reduce the hours of labour in mines—not to regulate but to reduce the hours—that it may become law this session?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member ought to give notice of the Question.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)asked whether, under the Standing Order establishing the new Standing Committees, it would be open to anybody to make such a Motion?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe new Committees are governed by the Standing Orders.
§ MR. W. E. HARVEY (Derbyshire, N.E.)asked whether want of due notice in summoning Members was not sufficient reason for recommiting the Bill.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was not aware the ordinary course was not followed.
§ MR. W. E. HARVEYpressed for, something more direct, but no further Answer was given.
§ MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the action of the Home Secretary immediately on the commencement of business in the Standing Committee on Trade last Monday, 22nd April, in 274 moving to report the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, without Amendment, to the House, with a statement that the Committee had insufficient evidence on which to consider it, is to become a recognised Government precedent for postponing private Members' Bills.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir; every case will be judged on its own merits.
§ MR. D. A. THOMASIs it not the case that the Government in 1894 gave facilities for an Eight Hours Bill in Committee of the Whole House? Can the right hon. Gentleman state what information he was then seized of which he has not now?
§ SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI cannot say.
§ MR. EVELYN CECILIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the ruling of Mr. Speaker that this procedure needs to be carefully watched?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIf I may venture to say so, I entirely share the view expressed by Mr. Speaker.