§ Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that this morning at a meeting of Standing Committee D to consider the Representation of the People Bill, a Motion was carried to adjourn the Committee on the ground that the Bill had no chance of passing into law, whether he is aware that the Government spokesman supported the Adjournment Motion for this reason, whether this attitude represents the policy of the Government with regard to the consideration of private Members' Bills which have passed Second Reading in this House, and whether the Government are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to maintain the rights of private Members as provided in the Standing Orders?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe right hon. Gentleman's question was handed to me on the Bench and I have only just had time to read it. As it seems to me, the rights of private Members are limited to the time that is given to private Members. The Government is not under an obligation to find any facilities. That is how I understand the rule in this case as in others.
§ Mr. CLYNESOne must make allowance for the shortness of the notice. May I ask whether action of this kind in a Committee could not be taken by a group of Members who are opposed to the general principle of a Bill, and by carrying such a Motion as was carried to-day frustrate the intentions and desires of this House?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIs it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of those who support the Bill to be present? The same kind of inconvenience is possible at any moment if there is a majority hostile to the Bill.
§ Mr. CLYNESIs not the function of a Committee upstairs rather that of examining a Bill in detail in order that it might again come back to the House, rather than passing a Resolution to prevent the House giving it further consideration?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the constitutional position of these Standing 577 Committees. They are acting as if they were a Committee of this House.
§ Sir S. HOAREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of hon. Members would very much regret the fact if it is found that during this Session women are not given the vote on an equality with men, and if it is impossible that a private Members' Bill should be introduced, would he introduce a short measure to carry it into effect?
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANIs not a Bill remitted to a Grand Committee in order that the Committee may consider it, and not give its opinion as to what may happen to it after it comes back to the House?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think the hon. Member is mistaken. It is in precisely the same position as a Committee of this House, and it can carry a Motion of the kind if there is a majority in favour of it.
§ Lord R. CECILDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think if the Committee uses its power in this kind of way it will not very seriously impair the usefulness of sending up Bills to Private Bill Committees? If a chance majority in a Standing Committee uses its power to destroy a Bill, does he not think that is straining their power and really bringing the whole system into contempt?
§ Sir E. CARSONHave there not been many cases in the past where, when it was found that there was not the slightest chance of a Private Member's Bill passing this House, Committees have adjourned or dropped the Bill so as not to waste time in having the matter gone through when the result would be nil?
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN:May I put this point? Assuming as I do the right of the ordinary Member to make the Motion to which my right hon. Friend has referred, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it inadvisable on the part of the Government representative to take such action as has been indicated in the question?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWOf course, the House knows that I have not examined— I have not had time to look into—the question, but it does not seem to me 578 that that is necessarily an improper course for a Minister to take. I have seen cases myself in the House in which private Members' Bills have been dropped on Second Reading when the representative of the Government said that there was no chance of them becoming law, and no reason, therefore, for incurring a further waste of time.
§ Mr. BILLINGWhat opportunity have hon. Members of attending the Committee and giving in Committee the support which they gave on Second Reading? If there is a Committee in this House we get the notice on the usual Order Paper.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Member presumably is not a Member of the Committee. They do get notice.
§ Mr. BILLINGAre we to understand that when the Second Reading of a Bill is passed by this House the Bill can be strangled by a Committee without the knowledge of hon. Members?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe same thing can happen in a Committee of the whole House if there is a majority of Members in favour of that course.
§ Mr. DEVLINWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering this Bill itself?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is an entirely different question. I can give no pledge whatsoever that the Government will find time to deal with this matter this Session.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEMay I ask your ruling on a point of Order, arising out of an incident which occurred this morning in Standing Committee D. That Standing Committee was not officially reported, and the question arose as to whether a financial resolution was necessary before the Committee continued to consider the Bill. The ruling of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. W. Nicholson) was that
The Representation of the People Act, 1918, in Section 15 provides for the expenses of registration. The proposed Bill does not create any new and distinct charge, although if passed into law it is true that the existing charge would be increased in amount and half of this increase would appear in the annual estimate, not as a new and distinct item, but under an existing heading to be passed by this House. Consequently as no new charge is imposed by this Bill a financial resolution and clause are not required.579 May I ask whether a private Member-s Bill, imposing subsidiary charges, as in the case of the Representation of the People Bill, when these charges amount to a considerable sum, will in future be understood to be eligible for discussion by Standing Committee, without any financial resolution having been passed by the House, provided that the Bill be an amending Bill to a previous Act, the financial resolution of which Act expressly limited the resolution to the Bill in that Session?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs I understand, the question of the hon. and gallant Member is not put forward in any way as an appeal from the decision of the Chair man? If it were, I should have to decline to give any ruling about it. I am not a court of appeal from the Chairman of a Standing Committee. In regard to the questions which the hon. and gallant Member has put, I can only say that the question in each case must depend upon the nature of the particular Bill, and I cannot possibly give a ruling which would deal with all Bills for all future time. Each Bill must be considered on its merits. Having looked carefully into this particular case I am bound to say that I agree thoroughly with the ruling which the Chairman gave, which seems to be quite correct.