§ Further considered in Committee.—[Progress, 2nd July.]
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of Order. I think it is within your knowledge, Mr. Whitley, that on application being made at 11.30 in the Vote Office hon. Members were informed that owing to the great bulk of the Blue Papers the copies of the White Papers were delayed, and were not available in the Vote Office until ten minutes to twelve, which was a matter of extreme inconvenience.
§ The CHAIRMANIt has come to my knowledge that there has been some question of delay about the White Papers, but I would point out to the hon. Member that it is the Blue Papers that are the effective Notice Papers of the House. As far as I am informed the only difference in the Papers is a matter dealing with one notice of Motion for a Return, and has nothing to do with the Bill.
§ Mr. NEWMANMay I draw your attention on a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, to the place given to new Clauses to be moved by Members. Both on the Blue Paper and on the White Paper there was the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson) that the Bill should not apply to Ireland. If hon. Members will look at the White Paper they will now see a similar new Clause put down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig) standing in front of the Clause put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. It is 2351 perfectly obvious, Mr. Whitley, that if you call on the hon. and gallant Member from Ulster my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury will not be in a position to move his Clause. It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury might move the Clause in a very different spirit to that of my hon. and gallant Friend from Ulster, and therefore, I put it to you that this should not be allowed.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not on the spur of the moment able to trace how this occurred or to say how it happened. I have no power to rectify any mistakes which have been made.
Captain CRAIGOn that point may I say I was really astonished when I took up the Order Paper and noticed that the Amendment in my name had priority over that of my hon. Friend, but, of course, so far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to give way to him. I only put down the Amendment in my name for fear by any chance the hon. Member might not be in his place to move it.
§ The CHAIRMANI am quite sure that is so. I do not understand how it occurred, but I will look into it.
§ Mr. SANDYSPerhaps you could tell us, Mr. Whitley, who is the Minister really in charge of the printing arrangements?
§ The CHAIRMANNo Minister is in charge. In regard to the Amendments on the Paper to-day, which propose new Clauses, the number and nature of them have made it my duty to scrutinise them with special care, and I ought at the outset to remind the Committee, to save trouble later on, that the stage for offering new Clauses is not a renewal, and never has been, of an opportunity for Amendments. There are two plain rules which have always applied to new Clauses, and, in the interests of whoever may succeed me in this office, I think it is most important that I should be most careful to maintain them. One is that new Clauses must not be offered which are inconsistent with the Clauses of the Bill as passed and decisions come to thereon, and the other, that matters shall not be proposed in the form of new Clauses which could have been proposed as Amendments to the Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. J. HOPEOn a point of Order——
§ The CHAIRMANI hope hon. Members will be always ready to allow points of Order to be raised. If they are improper, or if the opportunity is wrongly used, it is for me to deal with the matter.
§ Mr. J. HOPEThe point of Order I wish to raise is serious and far-reaching. I want to ask you, Mr. Whitley, arising out of what you have just said, whether you would hold that a new Clause is out of order because an Amendment in the same form had been on the Notice Paper, had been in order, but was not in fact selected by you as one of the Amendments under the new Standing Order?
§ The CHAIRMANI am very glad the hon. Member has put that point, because it is one which is clearly likely to arise. Certainly that is the case. The fact that I did not select an Amendment under the Standing Order of the House does not affect in the least what I originally said. An Amendment which was in order and not moved is in exactly the same position as an Amendment which could have been moved and was not put on the Paper, or as an Amendment that was on the Paper and was not moved by the hon. Member who put it there. The fact of my not selecting an Amendment does not in the least entitle that Amendment to be brought up again in the form of a new Clause.
§ Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSI do not attempt to dispute your ruling, but do I gather your contention is that the Standing Orders which give you authority to select Amendments, authority you to rule out of order a new Clause which may have the same effect as an Amendment which you have passed over, and which we have been unable to discuss as an Amendment, and therefore we did not know why it was out of order. It is admitted by you, Mr. Chairman, that an Amendment may be in order and proper to be put, but; in your discretion you do not call it on as an Amendment, and therefore by that fact you prevent us discussing it as an Amendment and you also prevent us discussing it as a new Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has not put the matter quite rightly. The point is that the House by Standing Order has made a certain provision with regard to the selection of Amendments by the Chair, and whatever happens to an Amendment does not overrule or interfere 2353 in any way with the ordinary Rules of the House, and it certainly does not give any additional scope.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am very sorry, but this is an important point which I do not think has been raised before on any other Bill. I do not quite gather from your last ruling that we are prevented from discussing new Clauses except to the extent that you have a right to say an Amendment though in order has not been called upon by you——
§ The CHAIRMANI must protest against the way the hon. Member is dealing with the matter. He is putting an imputation on the Chair that it is the intention of the Chairman to prevent discussion.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNot in the least.
§ The CHAIRMANAt any rate the words of the hon. Member seem to me to imply that I am administering the Rules of the House with the intention to prevent the discussion of new Clauses. The fact that because Amendments have been passed over in the selection of Amendments gives no ground for bringing them up again in the form of new Clauses.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI had not the slightest intention of imputing to the Chair in any sense whatever, an attempt to stop us moving new Clauses. The point I am making is whether the fact that the Chair thinks an Amendment is not desirable to move, and very properly thinks so, prevents a new Clause being moved which would have been in order if the Amendment had been put down. Supposing an Amendment had not been put down on a particular point, would the new Clause have been in order?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is mistaken. A matter which could have been an Amendment to the Clause, even if it had not been put on the Paper, could not be brought up as a new Clause.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLSupposing an Amendment had been down on the Paper which you passed over, because in your consideration it would have been better raised as a new Clause. If that was put down as a new Clause, although you thought it might have been better as a new Clause, your ruling precludes it from being discussed.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think I said that.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONAs this is a very important ruling, may I ask whether under that rule you could not move a new Clause which applies to Government Clauses as well as to the Prime Minister's Clause?
§ The CHAIRMANA matter which is a proper subject for discussion on a Clause of the Bill is not a matter which could be submitted as a new Clause.
§ Sir W. ANSONIt is not an uncommon thing when an Amendment has been reached for the Chairman to say that it ought to come as a new Clause and he rules it out of order, because it should come up as a new Clause. If such an Amendment after it has been put down as an Amendment and not reached or has been passed over under the Kangaroo Closure is put down as a new Clause, would it not be out of order under your ruling?
§ The CHAIRMANIt would be in order, provided it is not inconsistent with what has been passed in the Bill.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHMay I ask your advice. I have got a new Clause on the Paper, which might possibly have been moved as a proviso to one of the Clauses. I thought it would be better to move it as a new Clause instead of a proviso. I should like to know what course I ought to pursue, if it is a fact that my proviso is out of order as a new Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANI think I had better deal with that case when it arises. If I am not mistaken, the hon. Member had his proposal down as an Amendment.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHNo.
§ The CHAIRMANI must leave the matter until I come to the exact case in point. I wish it to be quite understood that what I am submitting to hon. Members is no new rule. The number and nature of the new Clauses offered on this. Bill is rather unusual, and that has made it my duty in the interests of my possible successors, to look most carefully into these matters, and for the convenience of the Committee, I remind hon. Members of the rule.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think I may venture respectfully to say that this point of difficulty really arises through the application of the Kangaroo Closure, because, under- 2355 normal circumstances, every Amendment when reached would be explained by the Chair to the Committee why it could not be moved, and it has then been the custom for the Chairman to say, "I consider that this Amendment would come better as a new Clause." Then we know that we may put the Amendment down as a new Clause. By the operation of the Kangaroo Closure, we know nothing of the reasons why our Amendments are out of order, and we have no guidance from the Chairman in putting down new clauses, which were on the Paper as Amendments. I do not know that there is any means of us obtaining such guidance.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is quite correct in saying that the more recent procedure in this House devised by the Standing Orders for the selection of Amendments does perhaps raise a point which is not within the general knowledge of the House or the Committee, and that is why I have put this point to the Committee as to what the, effect is on the older Rules of the House. The first new Clause on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Stanier) is covered by what we have already been discussing. It was dealt with as an Amendment to Clause 1, and was in order at that point. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I had some doubt about, as it dealt with exemptions in Clause 1 which have been discussed and settled at that point. This new Clause raises the question of the exemption of the City of London, and I am of opinion that this is another case which has been dealt with separately in similar eases, and for that reason, and for that reason only, I think I must allow the hon. Baronet to move his new Clause.
§ Sir F. BANBURYBefore I move, I rather want to ask your opinion about something which may possibly appeal to the House as a whole, and which may perhaps be held to be not a point of Order, though I feel that it is my duty to put it before the House. The new Clause which I propose to move is one of great interest to my right hon. colleague the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). The day before yesterday he asked me when I thought this new Clause 'would come on, and I told him that I really could not say, but I thought that it would probably come on somewhere 2356 about two o'clock. My right hon. Friend then said that at 11.30 lie would be on the Committee of National Defence, and he regretted very much that if the Clause came on earlier than two o'clock he would be unable to be present. My hon. Friend for one of the Divisions of Somerset has informed me just now that he has communicated with my right hon. Friend, and that he has stated that he cannot be here until three o'clock. What I want to ask the Committee I know is unusual, but the circumstances are unusual. I want to ask whether, with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be possible to postpone this Clause until three o'clock. I should like to raise that as a point of Order and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether lie would consent to it.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)Of course, the point of Order is entirely in the Chairman s hands, but I think the hon. Baronet is misinformed. The meeting cannot last beyond 1.30. They might resume at three, and I should have thought that 1.30 was much more convenient than three. I am a Member of the Committee, but I have to be here.
§ Sir F. BANBURYDo I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will allow another Clause to be taken before this?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, I have nothing to do with that.
§ The CHAIRMANWe have come to a point which I think affects the whole Committee. The point is that, if a Clause is not taken where it stands on the Paper, it can be moved later only as though it were a manuscript Amendment, taking its place at the end of the list. Of course, if the hon. Baronet waives his present opportunity, he will be taking his own risk in the matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think that it would be any more convenient.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not wish to press the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps I may take the Committee into my confidence on the question. Of course, if I can rely on the Committee not using my attempt to meet the hon. Baronet's convenience to my own disadvantage, I think that it might well stand with the hon. Baronet to say whether he will waive his priority or not.
§ Mr. CASSELOf course, we do not want to take advantage of anything that you have said, but may I ask whether your statement now will debar us from urging that any particular Clauses are proper Clauses to be taken?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the difficulty under which I labour.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not wish in any kind of way to press it, but I thought it my duty to inform the Committee what had taken place.