HC Deb 05 February 1918 vol 101 cc2201-12

All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there-under.

Lords Message:

The Lords insist upon their Amendment to leave out the word "if," and to insert the words "unless and until," to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

"Because it is contended that the form is not the form usually adopted in similar enactments, and that in any case the Amendments are required in order to preserve the independent rights of each House of Parliament."

Sir G. CAVE

I think I had better move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," although personally I am not in agreement with the course taken by the Lords. This Amendment relates to the question of laying Regulations upon the Table of both Houses. The effect of the Clause as introduced. by us is that if as to any Regulation the two Houses take a different view, the Lords taking one view and the Commons the other, it would be for His Majesty's Government to decide whether by an Order in Council the Regulations should be annulled,or not. The other House has taken the view that either House should have the power to annul a Regulation, and now insists upon this Amendment. The matter is not one of vital importance, because this point seldom arises, but we shall reserve our right in future Bills. It is not worth while having a quarrel with the other House over a small matter like this.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

I wish to propose an Amendment. It might appear from the explanation of the right lion. Gentleman to be a verbal point, but it is really a question of very serious constitutional importance. Although the Home Secretary has made the declaration that this Amendment being agreed to will not constitute a precedent, but we know that in fact it always does become a precedent, no matter what declaration may be made at the time. The fact that it is there in the Act of Parliament will lead to it being quoted in future as a precedent, whatever we may choose to say now. The point was discussed when the Amendment first came down from the House of Lords. The ordinary form which has been in use for a number of years, although formerly there were different. forms, is to the effect that where Orders in Council, regulations, or rules are laid upon the Table of either House and either House passes an Address for their alteration or annulment, then His Majesty in Council may alter or annul that Order in Council or other document, as the ease may be. There is not an absolute obligation. The word "may" is used. As a matter of fact, unless there were some reason to the contrary, an Address passed by either House would naturally be acted upon by His Majesty in Council—that is to say, by the Government of the day The House of Lords now have put in an Amendment to the effect that if their House, for example, wishes a Regulation annulled and it passes an Address to that effect it ipso facto is annulled and becomes void, although this House may approve the Regulation in its original form and desire it to be maintained. In this Bill the Orders in Council, Regulations, and rules are of immense importance. The whole working of the Act depends upon it. There are a very large number of points relating to registration, methods of voting, and so forth which depend upon Orders in Council or regulations, and if one House, irrespective of the other House, has the power to secure the annulment of any one of them the effect may be contrary to what is generally desired. There appear to have been curious divisions of opinion in the other House. On both occasions when the matter came before the House of Lords the Government stood by the original form, and a small number of Peers—it was the dinner hour, and there was a very small House—defeated the Government. When the matter was before the House of Lords yesterday, the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Government, said: I do not regard this matter as one of capital importance. The Clause in the form in which the Commons restored it is the usual form, and no doubt will work in the future as it has worked in the past. After one very short speech from Lord Chaplin their Lordships divided. The Government numbered 20, and their opponents numbered 24. Consequently, the Lords insisted upon their Amendment. We cannot insist upon our view, because if we do the Bill is killed. Consequently, it will be necessary to move an alternative form. Therefore, I should like to move—

Mr. SPEAKER

We have passed that stage. I am afraid that I have put the Question.

Mr. SAMUEL

I do not object to the Lords Amendment being agreed to. I want to move a consequential Amendment, after the word "annulled" ["That the rule, regulation, or provision may he annulled"], to insert the words "and His Majesty in Council has annulled," and then after the word "provision" ["His Majesty in Council has annulled the rule, regulation, or provision"], to insert the word "it." The provision would then read,

"All Rules, Regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Rule, Regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the Rule, Regulation, or provision may be annulled, the Rule, Regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."

That would, in substance, restore it to the original form. It would be necessary not only that one House should pass an Address, but. that His Majesty should, in fact, annul the Regulation on the advice of his Ministers. Consequently, the essential constitutional object which we have in view would be attained. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment. The Home Secretary all through has held the opinion that the Clause in its original form was right. The Government in the other House have held the same view, and I trust that we shall give their Lordships an opportunity of allowing us to revert in substance to the form that has been in use for a good many years past.

Mr. SPEAKER

Perhaps we had better agree to the Lords Amendment first.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

I beg to move, after the word "annulled" ["That the rule, Regulation, or provision may. be annulled"], to insert the words "and unless His Majesty in Council has annulled."

Question proposed, "That. those words be inserted in the Bill."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

On a point of Order. I understood that Amendments must precede the Question, "That the House doth agree (or disagree) with the Lords in the said Amendment." If that be so, and I understood it was so from your ruling earlier in the day, I take it that it is too late for this Amendment to be moved now. If that objection fails, I beg to submit that you cannot move as a consequential Amendment an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman who moves it describes as wholly altering the Amendment to which it is moved. The Lords have disagreed with what the right hon. Gentleman declares to be the. normal practice. He proposes, by what he calls a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to restore the practice to which their Lordships have dissented. I submit that a consequential Amendment of that kind is not consequential but is contradictory of the decision to which the House has come.

Mr. SAMUEL

On that point of Order. Cannot the House agree to the Lords Amendment and, as a consequence, make a still further Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I was told that they could not.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that I do not know how far this is an Amendment or how far it is a denial or a reversal of the decision to which the House has just come. Of course, it is open to the House to accept an Amendment from the Lords, and then to propose a consequential Amendment to the Bill. I take it that is what this Amendment is.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I submit that is not what this Amendment is. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech stated that he sought by means of this Amendment to reverse the decision to which the Lords have come. He could not do that by simply moving to disagree with the Lords Amendment for reasons within the knowledge of us all, and he therefore sought to do it by adding these words. As the House has already agreed to the Amendment, I submit that it is not in order to convert that agreement into disagreement by making a consequential Amendment.

Sir G. CAVE

On the point of Order. I am afraid that it is true that having just agreed to the Lords Amendment we are now asked in substance to disagree with it. My right lion. Friend seeks to add words which altogether annul the agreement.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The House is asked to amend the Bill in the shape in which we now have it. Are we not entitled to so amend the Bill by adding words which differentiate no doubt against the Lords, but which do define the methods in which the Rules are to become operative? I submit that having accepted the Lords Amendment we now have the Bill before us and we can amend it in any direction that fits in with the scheme of the Bill as it is before us. I, therefore, submit that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is in order.

Mr. SPEAKER

It really comes to this If the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is to defeat the Lords Amendment, and practically to restore that which the Lords have set aside, then I think he cannot move it. It would be reversing the decision to which we have just come in agreeing with the Lords Amendment. But if while agreeing to the Lords Amendment it suggests a third course, then I think it is open to the House to consider it. I am not in a position to say how far it does that. The Amendment having only just recently been handed in in manuscript, it is exceedingly difficult to make out what are the differences between the Bill as it originally stood, the Bill as it was returned to us by the Lords, and the Bill as it would eventually stand amended by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL

Since you put the point to me, I must in candour say that the effect of the Amendment is to restore the substance of the Bill to what it originally was, but I thought it was quite in order to do that so long as you had a difference in form and did not definitely disagree with the Lords Amendment, which would have a vital effect upon the Bill, I thought you could do it either by amending the Lords Amendment or by accepting the Lords Amendment and making a subsequent alteration.

Mr. SPEAKER

Then you are reversing the decision to which the House has just come. The House has just come to a. decision to accept the Amendment which the Lords have sent up. If now we do anything to set that, aside, and to restore the original form of the Bill, I think we shall be going against the decision to which the House has just come.

Mr. SAMUEL

I must bow to your ruling, but it ought to be put on record that many Members of the House do not agree with this new form, and that the House has not, in fact, agreed to it.

Lords Message:

That the Lords insist upon their Amendment—to leave out the words His Majesty in Council may annul the Ride, Regulation, -or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Rule, Regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act"—to which the Commons have disagreed for the following Reason:

Because it is consequential upon an Amendment made by the Lords—to leave out the word "if" ["if an 'address is presented"], and to insert- instead thereof the words "unless and until" —on which they insist

Mr. SPEAKER

The Amendment is not on the Paper. It is consequential upon the Lords Amendment on Clause 35.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I think it is consequential.

Mr. SPEAKER

This hangs on the same Amendment to leave out the word "if," and to insert instead thereof the words "unless and until."

Mr. SAMUEL

Before you put the Question that we agree with the Lords, I can now move my Amendment, because this is the Amendment to which it really relates. It does not appear on the printed Paper; consequently I moved my Amendment at the previous place. I beg now to move that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, and in lieu thereof to insert the words I proposed. Is it impossible to move any Amendment to a Lords Amendment on which they insist? I think we have just done so in the case of the alternative vote. Cannot I move an alternative?

Mr. SPEAKER

Yes; the right hon. Gentleman can move an alternative if it really is an alternative, provided that it does not go back to the original position.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Is it possible for anyone on this Amendment to move a decision incompatible with that to which the House came on the last Amendment?

Mr. SAMUEL

I understand that you ruled me out, Sir, on the last Amendment because I came too late, and the House had already agreed to the Lords Amendment.

Sir G. YOUNGER

No; because you contradicted it.

Mr. SAMUEL

Now the House has not yet agreed.

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand that the first Amendment which the Lords insist upon is to leave out the word "if," and to insert the words "unless and until." We have agreed to that. Then comes the next Amendment upon which the Lords insist, to leave out the words from "annulled" to the end of the Clause, and to insert the words "the rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect, as if enacted in this Act." The right hon. Gentleman proposes to accept that, and to move an Amendment to it. We must accept that, because the Lords insist upon it. If the House does not accept that, of course there is a deadlock. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to accept that and to move some other alternative, if it really is an alternative, and does not replace the Bill in its original position.

Mr. SAMUEL

I am afraid I am not in a position to frame a form of words which will do both what I want and what the Lords want.

Lords Message:

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in the new Subsection (11), inserted by the Lords in Clause 38 ["leave out the words 'returning officer,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'sheriff'"], for the following Reason:

"Because they consider that the returning officer can better perform the duties involved."

Sir G. YOUNGER

May I ask the Secretary for Scotland to give us some explanation about this Amendment, because it was inserted upon my own Motion to meet an objection raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs (Mr. Gulland)—I should like to know why the change is now proposed?

Mr. MUNRO

It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has said, that when the Bill was last before the House some doubt was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs as to whether it was clear that the returning officer came into being as such even before an election was pending, and remained in office as such even when no election was pending. I then accepted the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) in order to meet that point, and substituted the word "sheriff" for the words "returning officer." That put the matter beyond all doubt. On reconsideration, however, it appears to me perfectly plain—and think I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs that it is plain—that under the Bill the returning officer in Scotland exists independently altogether of the question whether or no there is an election pend- ing. It appears from the Bill that he has duties to perform directly the Bill becomes law, and further duties to perform from time to time afterwards. Inasmuch as that is so, and I am advised that the introduction of the word "sheriff" might cause some complications, I respectfully suggest to the House that this Amendment should be agreed to and that the words "returning officer" should be restored to the Bill instead of the word "sheriff," which was inserted for the reasons I have stated.

Lords Message:

The Lords agree to the consequential Amendment made by the Commons in Clause 39 (Application to Ireland), Sub-section (3) ["Provided also that the person who, at the passing of this Act, is town clerk for the county borough of Dublin shall, so long as he holds that office, be the registration officer for the Parliamentary borough of Dublin, and that the last preceding proviso shall not apply in his case"], with the following Amendments: Leave out the word "person," and insert instead thereof the word "persons"; leave out the words "is town clerk," and insert instead thereof the words "are town clerks"; after the word "Dublin" ["county borough of Dublin"], insert, the words "and the county borough of Belfast respectively"; leave out the word "he," and insert instead thereof the word "they"; leave out the words "holds that office," and insert instead thereof the words "hold their respective offices"; leave out the word "officer," and insert instead thereof the word "officers"; after the word "Dublin" ["Parliamentary borough of Dublin"], insert the words "and the Parliamentary borough of Belfast respectively"; leave out the word "his," and insert instead thereof the word "their."

Lords Message:

The Lords disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the First Schedule [new paragraph inserted after paragraph (15)] for the. following Reason: Because the obligation on the Board of Trade to give this information is unnecessary.

Lords Message:

The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in the Fourth Schedule ["after the words 'personal expenses, to insert the words and the fee, if any, paid to the election agent'"], with the following Amendment: At end insert the words "without reckoning for the purposes of that limit any part of the fee which may have been included in the expenses mentioned above."

Sir C. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "mentioned above," and to insert instead thereof the words "first above mentioned."

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Message:

The Lords agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords (to insert a, new Schedule after the Fourth Schedule), with the following Amendments: In Part I., paragraph (11), in lieu of the words left out ["if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect"], to insert the words "unless the returning officer directs to the contrary," and in the same paragraph, in lieu of the words left out ["The returning officer may, if he thinks fit, give a special direction that voting in person is to be allowed at the election, and, if a direction is so given, may, if he thinks fit, limit the days of poll on which votes in person are to be received in pursuance of the direction"], to insert the words "The returning officer may give a special direction that votes shall not be given in person at the election, or that votes may be given in person on certain days of the poll only"; and as a consequential Amendment, in paragraph (13), to leave out the words "in pursuance of a direction of the returning officer."

Lords Message:

That the Lords agree to the second Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords (to insert a new Schedule after the Fourth Schedule), with the following Amendment consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18, Sub-section (1), in lieu of the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed; to insert as a footnote to paragraph (32) as amended by the Commons the words "This form will require modification when the transferable vote is not used at the election."

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to amend the Lords Amendment by inserting, after the word "transferable," the words "or alternative." It is necessary to make that consequential Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Message:

The Lords agree to the reinsertion of the Fifth Schedule, as amended by the Commons, with the following Amendments: In Part IL, in pal graph "Dorset," leave out "Poole," and insert "Eastern" (as the name of the division); in paragraph "Glamorgan," after "Llandaff" (as the name of the division), insert the words "and Barry."

Lords Reason for insisting upon their Amendment to the Seventh Schedule (to leave out paragraph (6),

"because it is consequential upon the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the first Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18 [Alternative Vote] to which the Commons have disagreed—further considered.

An Amendment made to the Bill by reinserting paragraph (6) with the exception of the words "(which makes the number of county councillors and the boundaries of the county electoral divisions in London depend on the number of members for Parliamentary boroughs and the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs and divisions in London.)"

Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments to Clause 18 [Alternative Vote], Clause 25 [Deposit by Candidates at Parliamentary Elections], and Clause 36 [interpretation], to which the Commons have disagreed,

"because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18, upon which they insist—further considered."

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."

This, however, will involve consequential Amendments in the Bill.

Amendments made to the Bill: In Clause 18, Sub-section (4), after the word "transferable" ["the system or transferable"], insert the words "or the alternative."

In Clause 25, Sub-section (2), after the word "of" ["under the system of"], insert the words "the alternative or of."

In Clause 36, re-insert Sub-section (7), paragraph (a), leaving out the words "given so," and inserting instead thereof the words "so given."—[Sir G. Cave.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to he assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their Amendments.

Committee nominated of Sir G. Cave, Sir Willoughby Dickinson, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Scanlan.

Three to be the quorum.—[Sir G. Cave]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments subsequently reported. and agreed to.