§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUROn a point of Order. With reference to the Third Reading of the Methodist Church Union Bill early this afternoon, was it in order that this procedure should have been adopted before we had available the Committee's Report, which might bear upon the representations made before the Committee, concerning an issue which has not been considered by the Committee?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is a private Bill, and if the hon. Member had any objection to it he should have raised it at the proper time.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe point is this: After the representations which have been made to me, and, I suppose, to other hon. Members, I thought we 1868 should find an explanation of these representations in the Committee's Report. Is it in order to bring on the Third Reading before Members have had an opportunity of seeing the Committee's Report?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can object on Third Reading.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIt was passed to-day.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member should have dealt with it then.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIt did not come on yesterday, and was put down for to-day. I am not making any point about that. My point bears on the ratification. I submit that, contrary to the point put from the Labour Front Bench, there is a Committee Report concerning another Measure without any opposition. Why, then, did this Bill pass through without that Report, which, I think, ought to be available to enable Members to deal with the Bill? The Report is not even yet available.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman must remember that the Bill was considered last Monday, and ordered for Third Reading. The hon. Member could have raised an objection on Monday, and again to-day.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe representations to which I refer have been made only within the last few days, and I thought we might have found from the Committee's Report an explanation which would have avoided any objection when the Third Reading stage was reached. I have not been able to get any information which ought to be available to guide me or any other Member as to those particular representations.
§ Mr. AMMONMay I ask whether it is not a fact that the representations to which the hon. Member refers were simply those of persons who opposed the Bill, and were heard before the Committee, and that the Committee were not satisfied that those representations should be carried out?
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIn answer to that point, I may say that the repre- 1869 sentations were refused by the Committee, and the hon. Member on the Front bench should know that better than I do. They were refused an opportunity of being heard. It is a scandal in connection with a Church Bill.