§ Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister, in view of the majority of Members of this House in favour of Woman's Suffrage, and of the fact that their opinions have been at least twice submitted to the electors of this country, he will grant facilities for the passage of the Women's Enfranchisement Bill into Law this Session?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe position of the Government in regard to this matter was stated on behalf of the Cabinet by the Prime Minister in the last House of Commons on 22nd November, 1910. The exact language used was as follows: "The Government will, if they are still in power, give facilities in the next Parliament for effectively proceeding with a Bill which is so framed as to admit of free Amendment." The Government recognise that the Bill which was read a second time the other day satisfies the last-mentioned condition, and that, consequently, it is their duty in this Parliament to give the promised facilities. They were careful not to bind themselves by any pledge in regard to this—the first Session—of the new Parliament, as it was clearly impos- 704 sible to foresee the course which business would take. The Cabinet have now given the matter their most careful consideration, and they have come to the conclusion that the Government proposals for legislation will, if they are to be adequately discussed, fully occupy a prolonged Session, and that, without jeopardising the fortunes of those measures, they could not allot to the Woman Suffrage Bill this year such an amount of time as its importance demands. They will be prepared next Session, when the Bill has been again read a second time, either as the result of obtaining a good place in the ballot, or (if that does not happen) by the grant of a Government day for the purpose, to give a week (which they understand to be the time suggested as reasonable by the promoters) for its further stages.
§ Mr. SNOWDENOn what authority is the statement made in this answer that the sponsors of the Bill would be satisfied with a week?
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHOr that the opponents of the Bill would be satisfied with a week?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESAre we to take it that this week is equivalent in the eyes of the Government to the full facilities promised by the Government in November last year? Do not full facilities mean as much time as is necessary for the full discussion of the Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot say upon what authority, but representations were made by friends of the movement that in their judgment a week would satisfy the requirements of the promoters of the measure and the Government at this present stage cannot see their way to go beyond giving facilities for a week. That is all they can see their way to do at the present moment.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI press for an answer to my question. Are we to take it that in the view of the Government a week of time in the next Session is equivalent to the full facilities promised by the Government for this Bill?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether in the event of only a week being allocated to this measure the Government will, by means of the closure or otherwise, make it imperative that the Bill will go through in that time?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo; I cannot give an assurance of that kind. After all, it is a problem of the very greatest magnitude, and in answer to my hon. Friend I have to remind him that the pledge given by the Prime Minister was for full facilities in the present Parliament, and certainly if in the course of a week the Bill could not be pressed through, that would not be regarded as a discharge of the pledge of the Prime Minister for this Parliament. It is my interpretation, and I think it is the interpretation of the Government, that we are bound in the course of the present Parliament to find whatever time is necessary to enable the House of Commons to express an opinion even to the final stage upon the proposals.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYDoes this programme and time table contemplate the Committee stage being taken before Standing Committee or before the Committee of the whole House?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have my own opinion with regard to that, but it is a question which will have to be considered very carefully before we arrive at that stage.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWas it not undertaken by the then Leader of the House, when the new rules in regard to Standing Committees were framed, that Bills of this character should not be sent to Grand Committees?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe matter was carefully considered, and there is very great force in what the right hon. Gentleman says.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWill the Government take steps to prevent the possibility of the Bill being destroyed in another place, and to insure its becoming law in his Parliament?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think if my hon. Friend follows that out he will find that next Session is not too late. There are franchise measures in which the Government are concerned which we certainly hope we shall be able to get through in the third Session of Parliament, and that would be ample time to come within the terms of the Parliament Bill.
Mr. BOTTOM LEYIn view of the emphasis which the right hon. Gentleman places on the phrase "in this Parliament," does he share my view that this will be a very short Parliament?