HC Deb 28 July 1927 vol 209 cc1623-5

Lords Amendment:

In page 4, line 7, leave out the Clause, and insert a new Clause.

Viscount WOLMER

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

This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. There have been many—

Mr. CRAWFURD

On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order that this Bill should be taken when it is not on the Order Paper? A similar point occurred the night before last, and you gave the ruling that, using your discretion, you had decided that the Amendments concerned were purely drafting Amendments. The House, naturally, bowed to your ruling. I do not, however, think it can be suggested that these Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. We have had no notice, and it seems to me to be going rather far to take them, since they are not on the Order Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point, because I find that I was mistaken in the Ruling that I gave on the occasion to which he has referred. The discretion with regard to Amendments which, in the opinion of the Chair, are purely drafting Amendments, applies to the taking of Lords Amendments at the time of Private Business at the beginning of the Sitting. At the stage at which we have now arrived, the remedy is not with the Chair, but with the House. When I put the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," it would have been competent for an hon. Member at that stage to move that the Debate be adjourned. I put that Question to the House, and it was agreed to by the House.

Mr. CRAWFURD

I accept your ruling, of course. May we take it that it is within the competence of the Government to bring forward any business, whether it be on the Order Paper or not, and leave it to hon. Members to resist?

Mr. SPEAKER

It is competent for the Government to make the proposal to the House; it is for the House to say whether they will accept it or not.

Captain GARRO-JONES

On that point of Order. I should like to submit that this is a case where the rights of the minority are in danger. It is well known that, if the minority were to bring forward a Motion that the Debate be adjourned, they could not pass it, and, therefore, it appears to me that the large majority of the House could always take advantage of the ruling you have just given to carry business which is not on the Order Paper. I should like to ask you Sir, whether there is not some other safeguard against an infringement of the rights of the minority, such as this, I submit, undoubtedly is.

Viscount WOLMER

Perhaps I can allay the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member by assuring him in the most positive and explicit manner that there is nothing in this Amendment that is not of a purely drafting nature, as I can explain directly the point of Order has been disposed of.

Mr. CRAWFURD

I should like to say at once that I would not for a moment suggest that the Noble Lord is trying to take advantage of us in any improper way, but I do think that, apart from this particular Measure, the general point is one of very great interest, and that the considerations advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend are very relevant and powerful. It does seem to me to be wrong that any Government should be able to bring forward any Measure which hon. Members cannot possibly have a chance of considering, because they have a majority and can force the discussion through.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member may take it that I should do what appeared to me to be necessary to protect the rights of the minority if it appeared to me that they were being infringed. I have looked at these Amendments, and I can see nothing in them that really affects the rights of the minority in this House.

Viscount WOLMER

Dealing purely with this Amendment, and without touching on the much larger question which the hon. Member has raised, I should like to assure him that the putting in of this new Clause by the House of Lords, instead of Clause 7, is merely a drafting Amendment. The origin of it is simply this: For some years past there have been Post Office Sites Bills, and they have always contained, roughly speaking, the same provisions. This year, our draftsman, in regard to two Clauses, Clases 7 and 9, although the provisions were in substance exactly the same as they have been in previous Post Office Sites Bills, adopted a somewhat shorter and simpler phraseology. No exception was taken in this House or by the Select Committee to that phraseology, and I do not think there is any question at all that those Clauses as they were drafted gave effect to the intention. But the House of Lords has certain model Clauses for Private Bills, and it was there considered desirable to revert to the old form. All that has been done in regard to Clause 7 is to strike out the draft as it passed this House, and revert to the draft that was employed in previous Post Office Sites Bills, such as the one that we passed last year. There is no alteration of substance of any sort.