§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I submit, on a point of Order, that the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, in reference to the Telephone Transfer Bill, is an infringement of the rights of private Members, and is wholly unnecessary, and does not state accurately the facts to the House. It is well known that at this period at the Session the 2122 House never refuses the Third Reading to a Bill immediately after its Report stage. It is constantly done. This Motion is an infringement of the rights of private Members, because private Members cannot make such a Motion, and if it is carried it will set up a practice in the House which is frequently likely to be fatal to the advancing of a Bill by a private Member. Bills constantly get their Third Reading by the general consent of the House without the intervention of such a Motion as this. I therefore submit that unless something should arise to make a Motion of this kind necessary it is far better that the Chair should rule, as your predecessor, Sir, and yourself, I think, have frequently done, that the Third Reading can be taken at this period of the Session without any Motion whatsoever.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps I may be allowed to say a word by way of explanation. This Motion in regard to this Bill of which I have charge was put down by request. It is right to say that in respect of many Bills the Third Reading may be taken immediately after Report stage, by the general consent of the House. But that is not the case in respect of Bills founded upon Money Resolutions, such as this is. The hon. and learned Gentleman is therefore under a misapprehension. The Third Reading could not be taken following upon the Report stage, unless there was a Motion passed in the sense of that now upon the Paper. I should like to explain further that the reason why it is desirable to pass this Bill, which is now happily uncontroversial, this afternoon is that the other House is anxious to get the Bill this afternoon in order that they may pass it through all its stages.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI have no objection whatever to the Motion, only that I wish to safeguard the rights of private Members.
§ MASTER of ELIBANKI should like to supplement what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about business by saying that to-morrow we shall ask the House to pass all the stages of the Official Secrets Bill, which, in the opinion of the Government, is of an urgent nature.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe, of course, shall give our support in every way we can in carrying out the intention which the Patronage Secretary has just announced. With regard to the Telephone Transfer Bill, may I ask the Postmaster-General whether he knows of any prece- 2123 dent for this Motion which is on the Paper relating to a Money Bill?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThis is a Bill founded upon a Money Resolution. I do not know whether there is any precedent for the Motion, but, unquestionably, there-was no objection to it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWhatever be the former practice in respect to Resolutions of this kind, is it not usual to rely upon the general consent of the House?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt cannot be done by the general consent of the House.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs that so, Mr. Speaker? Is it not a fact that the course announced by the Patronage Secretary with regard to the Official Secrets Bill is as much a departure from general practice as passing two stages of this Bill in one sitting? Is not that frequently done by the general consent of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is certainly so in the case of ordinary Bills, but I do not recollect that it has ever happened in the case of a Money Bill, or of a Bill originating in a Resolution in Committee. This Bill is, perhaps, technically not a Money Bill, but it is a Bill founded upon a Resolution taken in Committee, and it would have been my duty to have stopped two stages of such a Bill being taken on the same day.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I submit the consideration of what will soon be the Parliament Act and the part which the views of the Chair will play in this class of matter. If we now decide that this Bill requires these stages we practically tell the House of Lords that they have no power to touch it because it is a Money Bill, and therefore we will be by this system affixing that character to Bills which have not yet received the Royal Assent. We are now deciding that this Bill, founded upon a Resolution is a Money Bill, and we tell the House of Lords that in future they cannot touch a Bill of that kind, and that they have no power to amend it, and the House of Commons can pass it over their heads.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would not like to say that this is a Money Bill. There is a new definition of what a Money Bill is, and I have not yet had time to consult it, and therefore I would not like to commit myself. But I say that this is a Bill founded upon a Resolution taken in Committee, and 2124 the practice in regard to such Bills as that has been not to take two stages in one day. Yesterday we had a case in point. We had a Bill, not strictly speaking a Money Bill, but a Bill founded upon a Resolution in Committee, and the Government tried to take two stages of it last night, and it was my duty to say that it could not be done. I would suggest that as this is a somewhat novel procedure it might be debated, and the discussion could be taken after I had put the question, when the proper opportunity for raising such points would arise.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to what has happened, do the Government think it worth while to persist?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI understand it is a matter rather for the convenience of the other House that this Bill should be got through in time this afternoon in order that they may have an opportunity of discussing it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that he is consulting the convenience of the other House by giving them half a day for this discussion?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this Bill should go over to the Autumn Session.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhy not?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEBecause I believe that would be a very serious inconvenience. There is a feeling on both sides of the House, and it would be very undesirable to put the arrangements of the telephone system off until the Autumn Session. There is a desire on the part of the other House to get the Bill as early as possible, if it is sent up to-morrow they will have no possibility of debating it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI have no intention of delaying this Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERTo put ourselves in order I think we ought to get this Motion formally before the House.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI beg to move, "That the Third Reading of the Telephone Transfer Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice 2125 of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Third Reading stages of such a Bill."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has stated what the law of the House in this matter is. That law will be governed by precedent. These precedents are easily ascertainable by the Government, and certainly when the Government is so fortified I think it is only fair that those interested in the question should know whether there is any necessity for a Motion of this kind. I respectfully demur as to the necessities for this Resolution. The House itself has departed in a very signal way in recent years from the system of interposing days between the several stages of Money Bills when passing through the House. Let us take what happened yesterday. The Secretary to the Treasury walked up the floor with the Appropriation Bill. In olden times he could not have done that, but yesterday the moment the Money Resolution was voted by the House upon its Report stage the Bill was immediately brought in. The former practice was the Money Resolution was brought in upon one day, and then, having got your money Resolution on that day, the next day you inarched up the floor and brought in your Bill. That was the practice until 1881, and I remember putting a question on the point to that very competent official, Mr. Milman, who was one of the Clerks of the Table for many years, and shed much distinction upon the House, in reference to this matter, and he said, in reply, "I never agreed with Mr. Gladstone's finance." We have now arrived at a very much more critical time, because now we have passed the Parliament Bill. I did not intervene at all the other day when that very foolish procedure was adopted of associating with Mr. Speaker the Chairman of Public Accounts and the Chairman of Ways and Means in considering what was a Money Bill. A more foolish procedure than that was never adopted in regard to any Statute. You have imposed upon Mr. Speaker the duty of consulting these officials, but you have in no way bound him to take their advice. We have therefore a state of the law in which we bind Mr. Speaker to give a decision to what are and what are not Money Bills, and I respectfully submit that once you rule that a Bill founded upon a Resolution is a Money Bill you thereby earmark measures of that character as coming 2126 within the prohibition of Money Bills under the Parliament Act. That is the real meaning of a Motion of this kind. If it is a Motion for which there is any precedent, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. He has not cited any precedents, and I think he ought to cite them if they exist. The power of the House is by general assent going to be given to pass the Official Secrets Bill in all its stages. I have no objection to that, but I do say that a Bill of that kind ought not to be brought in at the end of the Session and thrown at our heads. Such a thing has not been done since 1866, and I certainly think we are depriving ourselves of the inherent powers of the House, and I think we are interfering with the rights of Mr. Speaker by passing a Resolution of this kind. I wish to say most emphatically that I do not desire to oppose the Telephone Bill, because I am entirely in sympathy with it, and with the policy of the Government in regard to it. I am afraid, however, that this is an innovation which may interfere with the liberties of the Members of this House.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the form of this Resolution really will enable the House to pass these stages. Standing Order No. 201 provides——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is no Standing Order No. 201.
§ Mr. JOYNSON HICKSI mean paragraph 201 of the manual of procedure.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am sorry to trouble the House again with a small matter of procedure of this kind.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIt is not a small matter.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI anticipated that the Telephone Bill would have been passed on Friday last, but, at the desire of hon. Members opposite, I postponed one Clause which was considered controversial, and that Clause was passed by general consent, in virtue of an arrangement arrived at in the meantime. That is the reason why the Bill has been pushed back. If this had been an ordinary Bill not founded on a Money Resolution, the Third Reading could have been taken by the general consent of the House. I have no reason to think that anyone is going to raise any objection to the Bill on its merits, but it is the practice that a Bill founded on a Money Resolution in Com- 2127 mittee must have each stage taken upon different days. That has been the invariable practice of the House, and Mr. Speaker has already told the hon. and learned Member that yesterday a Bill was stopped for that very reason, and it was not allowed to be taken through more than one stage on the same day, because it was a Bill founded on a Money Resolution. There is a special definition of what a Money Bill means in Clause 1 of the Parliament Bill, but it does not mention Bills founded upon Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. Nothing that we do or do not do can make the smallest difference to the procedure under the Parliament Bill, or in any way bind Mr. Speaker in the matter, or affect the House of Lords.
The two things are really quite separate. A Bill is not a Money Bill because it is founded on a Resolution originating in Committee of Ways and Means under the meaning of the Parliament Bill, but because it is founded on a Money Resolution the two stages cannot be taken in one day. If the Bill is not passed through two stages in one day one of two alternatives will occur. Either the House of Lords will be asked to pass it through all its stages to-morrow in order that it may be dealt with before the adjournment; or as the other alternative the Bill will have to be hung up in mid-air until October. I think all the parties understood this. The Post Office, the National Telephone Company and all the people throughout the country who are now busily engaged arranging to make transfers next year would be disappointed if any further delay took place, and if any further alterations were made in the latter part of this year in the Bill. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of all sections of the House, and I have got complete unanimity on the subject. Neither the company nor the staff have any further points to raise, and I appeal to the House on this occasion to adopt this Resolution.
§ Sir W. ANSONThis matter was discussed at some length in the Debate on the Parliament Bill, and perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not think the anxieties of the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) are well founded. A Bill might be founded on a Money Resolution which by the Standing Orders of the House would have to go through certain stages. I recollect very well the discussion arising on the definition of a Money Bill when we were discussing the 2128 Parliament Bill, and I feel sure that this Resolution will not prejudice the question.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy objection is not to the Bill, which has, by the concessions made by the Postmaster-General, become a non-contentious one. I wish to ask what special reasons there are for breaking what I believe has been an almost unbroken Rule in this House. I am told that the Government have one precedent, and it happens to be one which they set for themselves, but it is the very worst they could possibly have chosen. The precedent I allude to is the one under which they guillotined the Finance Bill and passed the Third Reading on the same day as the Report Stage. I have not the least objection to this procedure under the circumstances in regard to this particular Bill, but I do not want the Government to establish it as a precedent at the time when they are going to receive an unparalleled control over this House and everything in the nature of a Money Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.