BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 15 November 1932)

§ Mr. MABANE
This Motion will prevent any Members handing in Amendments that will appear on the Paper. This is a financial Bill, and it seems to me that, if this were to become a precedent, it might be very undesirable. There are two points at issue. The first is that Members desiring to move Amendments wish that other Members should see them in order that they may decide whether to oppose or to support them. Moreover, on this Bill it is difficult to move Amendments that are in order owing to its very narrow scope. If Amendments are moved in manuscript immediately after the Second Reading, the Chairman is in the difficult position of having to decide on their merits in a matter of seconds after they are put before him. Therefore, I feel that the House is entitled to ask for some explanation as to the reason for the Motion and also for some assurance that in the case of financial Bills this may not become a precedent.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I think we ought to protest against this growing habit of asking the House to go through all the stages of a Bill without any explanation, without any time to put down Amendments, with the inevitable result that the House is called upon to deal with manuscript Amendments. There may be justification for it in this particular case, but the work of the ordinary Member of the House of Commons is going to be made almost impossible and the position of the ordinary back bench Member is going to be made very hard indeed if we are to have the three stages particularly of a Bill of a financial character taken together in this way. I realise that this is a matter of urgency and that a little while ago everyone thought there was an agreement to get all the stages through. Whether that is so now or not I should not like to express an opinion, but it is a very bad thing for the House of Commons as a whole that we should have Bills of this character going through without a chance for the ordinary private Member, who has not the facilities of the Front Bench for getting information and putting down Amendments. It will make our position very difficult if this habit is pursued.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
When we first heard that the Government proposed to introduce this legislation, we said we should not obstruct but would assist the Government so far as lay in our power to get their Bill, provided we made our own position quite clear. We feel that we did that on the Money Resolution, on which the Bill is closely founded, and we understand that the Bill cannot be amended in any vital respect whatever from the financial point of view. We cannot add to the charge on the Exchequer. In the circumstances, we shall not obstruct the Bill although we are against it. We shall vote against it, as we have spoken against it. We hope that future Oppositions will follow our example and will not go in for continual repetition of arguments.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I do not know that I need say anything after the last two speeches that have been made. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) quite rightly interprets my proposal. The House will remember that, when I announced the business last Thursday, the suggestion was made that time should be found for a discussion of the very important question of education before we adjourned. My reply was a very cautious one. It was based upon the assumption that complete agreement could be found regarding the disposal of time. I have been informed in the usual way that that agreement exists, and only upon that assurance has this Motion been put down. I am as keen regarding the rights of both Front Bench and Back Bench Members as anyone, and it was only when I got that assurance that I gave notice of the Motion.