HC Deb 01 April 1935 vol 300 cc128-9

There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 109, line 12, to leave out from "tribunal," to end of the Sub-section—but in view of the fact, as the Committee are aware, that the Government propose that this Clause should be omitted, I do not propose to call the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


I beg to move to leave out the Clause.


No, I cannot take that. I have put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.43 p.m.


From what the Secretary of State told us earlier in the evening, I gathered that the Clause was going to cover two points to extend the scope to deal first with disputes, whether concerning the Princes or British India, and, secondly, with the appointment of a permanent chairman and a panel of six members.


I am afraid that we must not discuss the proposed new Clause. When the proposals of the new Clause were indicated, the hon. and gallant Baronet may remember that I said that the Clause must not be discussed, and certainly it must not be discussed here. The only question at the moment is whether the Clause as printed in the Bill shall stand part or not.


I do not want to press the Government on the Withdrawal of this Clause, but I must state at this point that it does not appear to me that the points which were outlined—and I know we cannot ask for any, further explanation from the Under-Secretary—in any way cover the main objection of the Princes in the White Paper. I gather that we shall have a full opportunity of discussing this question at a later period in the Bill and I can only say that, unless the position is satisfactorily explained, we shall certainly have to oppose the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 188 ordered to stand part of the Bill.