Mr. BALFOURI hope the House will permit me to respond to the invitation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few nights ago. I speak, of course, only by leave of the House, and I do it because, as the House will recognise, no answer could be given on the night on which the invitation was publicly made. And I should imagine, as we are about to start on the holidays, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to know definitely, at all events, what is the impression left on my mind and of those with whom I act, with regard to those suggestions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in saying that the Bill is a non-controversial one, and on that he based the suggestion that there should be a consultation between Members of the House and the Government, and he promised on his own part to do his best to answer privately any questions with regard to points of difficulty which might be put to him, and also to place at the disposal of Members of the House the actuarial calculations upon which so much of the Bill depends. I think that was a very valuable suggestion. The actuarial calculations, of course, are quite beyond the competence of anybody but an actuary. If the right hon. Gentleman will assist Members of the House who have not his means of arriving at conclusions upon actuarial calculations, and give them the benefit of the advice of his experts, and will at the same time supply 1230 them with the premises on which those experts have based their calculations, I believe that Debate will be saved, waste of time will be avoided, and there will be considerable advantage. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and made a suggestion which, so far as I understood it, was that each party in the House should elect, as it were, a small number of representatives who should confer with the Government and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should have authority, I presume, to decide certain points, or, at all events, provisionally to decide certain points, to withdraw certain Amendments from the Order Paper, and to do, as it were, the rough work of the Committee stage of the House, and eliminate from the Order Paper, as I understand it, a great many Amendments which really would not bear examination in the House, and which it might, therefore, be desirable to dispose of at some earlier stage. There seems to me to be much to be said for that proposal, or for some modification of it, but it would also seem, as presented to us, to be an extremely difficult thing to carry out, because it would really imply that concurrently with the sittings of the Committee of the Whole House there should be an unofficial Committee, representing each section of the House, which, as it seems to me, would be of no use unless they had some authority to bind their colleagues of the same party. So far as I can see they could never get that authority by any means known to us, and that difficulty is increased by the fact that it is an uncontroversial Bill.
In matters where there is acute controversy, and where party feeling is crystallised, it is necessary, it may be necessary to a certain extent, that members of a party should invite the guidance of their party on both sides, and of those who for the moment are their leaders. That generally is acquiesced in by Members in all parts of the House and among all parties. But I do not see how it can be quite so readily accepted or acquiesced in where, as it is acknowledged we are dealing with what is not a party question, and when it is hardly possible to invoke the party machinery in order to secure uniform action. I do not see in this case how any party is to select delegates and give to those delegates powers to speak for it. The delegates of the party opposite, or of the party to which I have the honour to belong, would probably be representative of that party, and of those in 1231 it who devoted special interest to this great measure. But those who were left out would be a considerable section, and would include some who would consider themselves experts. Are they to be excluded, and would they consent to be left out? I am not sure that I understand the proposal—
Mr. BALFOURI am very anxious it should be understood. I do not quite see how these delegates can assume the power of acting for those for whom they are delegates, or how you will select them. As I appear to have misunderstood the suggestion I will not press the point now. I need hardly say I am not speaking in any party spirit.
One other point I hope the Government will bear in mind is that there are to be considered a large number of interests in the country, such as the friendly societies, the doctors, and the employers, who think, rightly or wrongly, that they are going to greatly suffer under the provisions of this Bill. I do not think they can be expected to be content unless their case is argued out in public and before the House. I think that, unless that were done, they would feel deeply aggrieved. When they got the decision of the House, even if it went against them, at all events it would be the decision of the House, arrived at in public and after public argument. I do not think it would be possible for us to do anything in private which would very much diminish the stress of Debate, and the effect might be the prolongation of the discussions by those who would think they were bound to represent their constituents upon some matter which deeply affected them in the scheme of the Government. There, again, I see the same difficulty in deciding in private what must be thrashed out again in public before the House, and in that case evidently there cannot be that saving of time which we all desiderate.
Therefore, in, so far as I understand the proposal, I believe I am speaking entirely for my own friends in pointing out the difficulties I have mentioned, but if I rightly interpret the feeling in all quarters of the House, I do not think the proposal, as I understand it, can quite be accepted. We are none the less grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sugges- 1232 tion to enable us to deal more readily with the immensely complicated and complex questions which this Bill raises. I hope the Government will do all they can to prevent other business being unnecessarily included in the time at our command before we separate for the autumn. For the moment I will only repeat what I have said before, that I do not believe there is the slightest desire on the part of any individual in the House to delay the passage of the Bill, and where there is such a universal agreement the Chancellor of the Exchequer may really count upon no greater time being taken over the discussion of his great scheme than the magnitude of its provisions and details inevitably requires. If I have in any way misunderstood the Government proposal, it is entirely due to misapprehension of it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some supplementary explanation.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I can only speak by permission of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman has done. I wish to be very brief in what I say. We all recognise to the full the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached the matter, and my object is simply to make clear what is the nature of the proposal made on behalf of the Government and which, I think, has been in some respects slightly misconceived by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a proposal made to all parties in the House. In this matter there are a large number of varied interests to be considered, and the idea foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend was that all these interests should through their representatives contribute to the common stock, if I may use the expression. The proposal was not that whatever consultation might take place should be concurrent with the Committee stage, but rather it was to be anticipatory, with a view of clearing the ground. It was to establish a kind of informal Clearing House of information and interchange of ideas which it was felt and hoped would greatly simplify the discussion of details in Committee. There was certainly no intention that any such body, however constituted, should claim to be regarded as possessing the right to bind anybody in the House. The Government could not bind their own supporters, and do not desire to do so in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman and myself sat on a body, which did not result as fortunately as we hoped, to consider very grave and serious matters of 1233 controversy. But it was fully recognised on all sides that we were not acting as plenipotentiaries, and that our decisions had no binding power upon those whom we represented. In something the same way it is proposed to have an informal preliminary consultative body on this Bill, such as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has truly said you cannot without discussion in this House, and a full representation here in public of all the interests concerned, determine such important questions, for instance, as the position of the doctors or of the other leading interests affected by this Bill. My right hon. Friend never supposed for a moment that matters of that kind could be settled in that informal fashion. A measure of this kind which has so much detail to be examined for the first time might, by a preliminary arrangement of that kind, be prevented from occupying many hours which might otherwise be usefully spent by the House. We thought we might avail ourselves of this preliminary, and more or less informal, clearing away of the undergrowth, leaving a few broad, well-defined paths for the general discussion in Committee.
4.0 P.M.
That, I think, was the object of the right hon. Gentleman, and why he says that he welcomes that part of the proposal which will give to himself and his friends, or whoever it may happen to concern, the power of examining, perhaps cross-examining, the actuarial materials and authority which my right hon. Friend has at his disposal. That, I think in itself and by itself, would be a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. What we rather contemplated was that a number of people, more or less representative, should be brought together without any power to bind those whom they represented, and sitting round a table contribute to the common stock of facts and figures those which they have at their disposal relative to the situation. The Government will contribute freely from their exceptional sources of information. This might enable us to clear the ground, to abbreviate discussion in Committee, and to facilitate the object which every party in the House has in view, that of passing this Bill into law after adequate discussion, without waste of time from the examination and discussion of mere details. That was the nature of the proposal of my right hon. Friend. I shall be glad even now if that proposal meets with general 1234 acceptance. Unless it can meet with general acceptance, and unless there can be co-operation in the sense which I have described, the proposal is one which, of course, the Government will in no way endeavour to force upon the House of Commons.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDI shall be glad if the House will extend its indulgence to me while I explain the view that we take with reference to this Bill. The Irish party have this matter under consideration at a meeting to-day, and they unanimously passed a resolution heartily approving of the principle of the Bill. We are all extremely anxious that the Bill with such modifications is may be found necessary, may be passed into law. But we are forced to recognise that the case of Ireland, owing to the different social conditions of the country, is separate, and that it must be dealt with separately. We have appointed a committee of our party to consider the provisions of this Bill, and to prepare suggestions and amendments with the object of making the Bill, which, as it stands, we frankly do not consider a, Bill suitable to the conditions of Ireland, so suitable. The circumstances in Ireland are so different that I do not think it will be useful, or to any purpose, for us to take part in the carrying out of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman as I understand it. As I understand the suggestion of the Government it is that representatives of all the parties are to come together as an informal general committee.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEexpressed dissent.
§ Mr. J. REDMONDI do not think that so far as Ireland is concerned that would be possible, for our circumstances are so different that we must consider the conditions of our country, and the applicability of the Bill to it separately from the other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore so far as we are concernced, we could not fall in with what I understand to be the suggestion. But we have, as I say, appointed a committee, and I would ask the Government—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhat the hon. and learned Gentleman says is not the suggestion. The suggestion is not that there should be a general committee of all the parties, but that Committees should be appointed like, for instance, that mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman as having been appointed by his party 1235 and that we should meet separately, so that the Government could then consider the suggestions that are made.
§ Mr. J. REDMONDI am sorry if I misunderstood. As I understand it now, Committees representative of the different parties are, it is suggested, to meet separately, and to be taken into consultation by the Government?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEassented.
§ Mr. J. REDMONDThat is entirely our view, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to enable the committee of the Irish party to do their work; to extend to them the information and actuarial figures which the Government has, and which was asked for by the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor that our desire is to make this Bill suitable to Ireland. We hope to pass it into law, and we must necessarily keep our position in reference to this matter separate from that of the other parties of the House.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe will be very happy, of course, to place at the disposal of hon. Members opposite all the information we have got, and, of course, we expect that they will place at our disposal the information that they have got, and that they will meet us in the spirit of amity and co-operation, so that we may try to arrive at some sort of general understanding not to prevent discussion in the House, but in order to make discussion much more useful and to save time. These observations apply to hon. Members below the Gangway; the proposal I have mentioned is the only offer we made, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to fall in with the suggestion.
Mr. BALFOURThere is this great difference between the position of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and the other two parties to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. While every party in this House desires to see the Bill made a general good Bill, the Irish Members wish to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Irish aspect of the case. I apprehend that the Labour party, although their interest is a general interest, nevertheless have specially under their charge certain particular interests, and will desire to know the effect of the Bill upon the great organised trades and the great trade unions. We are not in that position. The Unionist party has not got 1236 a Unionist view in this matter. There is no special policy which we as a party desire to press, nor is there, from the nature of the case, special interests which we have got in the same sense that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—most properly—have, regarding themselves as the special custodians of the trade union interests; or hon. Members below the Gangway on this side, who have the Irish point of view. Our case is different, but to carry out the parallel, Gentlemen, sitting in this quarter of the House, acting with many of those in other parts of the House, do take a particular interest, irrespective of party, in some special case, such as that of the friendly societies, the collecting societies, the doctors, and others. By meeting they could carry out the Chancellor's view. I shall be delighted to further in any way in my power the kind of informal arrangement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in relation to a Bill in which we have, as a party, no special views. Perhaps what I have just said will meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf I may say so, the view taken by the Unionist party is also the view taken by the Government. We do not consider that we have got a special Liberal view, any more than the right hon. Gentlemen considers that his party has a Unionist view. I hope we take the general and the national view of the matter. I understood that a committee had been appointed on the other side to consider the Bill, and my suggestion was that we should meet representations of that committee in relation to the collecting societies or the doctors, or any special point of view, and we consider that it would be useful both for them and the Government that representatives of that committee should meet us.
Mr. BALFOURI think it is extremely probable that the members of the committee will be very glad to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer.