HC Deb 30 July 1935 vol 304 cc2529-30

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 38, after "Berar" insert "or the voters for the Council of State."

5.38 p.m.


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

I had better give a word or two of explanation about this Amendment, which is one of two small consequential Amendments resulting from a decision in another place to substitute direct for indirect election for the Council of State. I understand that it will be more convenient if I make my explanation on the more important Amendment which will be reached later. This Amendment is a small one which has to do with the direct constituencies for the Council of State in Berar. Paragraph (c) of Clause 47 (1) of the Bill provides at present qualifications for voters to the Provincial Legislature; these are also to apply to voters for the Council of State, in view of the decision which has been taken in another place and which we must discuss here substituting direct for indirect election to the Council of State.


On a point of Order. This Amendment is consequential on the change from indirect to direct election for the Council of State, and if we pass it we might prejudge the issue. Is it not necessary that we should consider the whole question together? If the House were to reject the change which is proposed in subsequent Amendments, this Amendment would become unnecessary, or at least be nugatory. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would not be well either to postpone this Amendment or else to take now the discussion on the whole question of that substitution of direct for indirect election for the Council of State?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

According to the practice of the House, if it were intended to postpone this Amendment notice should be given of that before the Question, that the House agree with the Amendment, is put; otherwise I am bound to put it. The hon. Member may take it as quite certain that he and other hon. Members will not be regarded as having in any way prejudged the matter or prejudiced their position on the more important Amendment later; if they have made, as the hon. Member has done, a protest on the subject. As he says, if the other Amendment were disagreed with, it would no doubt render the present Amendment nugatory; probably not more than that. I would point out to him that in the event of any difficulty arising, it could be put right in another place, when the Bill goes back to them. In the circumstances I suggest that the hon. Member should make his observations on the later Amendment.