HC Deb 22 July 1936 vol 315 cc948-51

Lords Amendment, in page 7, line 23, after the word last inserted, insert "whether directly or indirectly".

Mr. SPEAKER

I would point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. STANLEY

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

This Amendment is the only one which raises a point of substance. It is one about which I must say a few words even at this late hour. The effect of this Amendment is to extend the possibility of grants, which are at present confined entirely to schools for senior children, to schools for the education of junior children. The mover of this Amendment in another place put it forward on the ground that it was restricted in its application. I must warn the House that a court would hold that in fact this Amendment might not be construed in such a limited sense.

But really the point which is the decisive point is not that but the question of Privilege, to which Mr. Speaker has referred, because an Amendment exactly similar to this was ruled out of order by the Chairman of Committee upstairs on the ground that it was outside the Financial Resolution. The words of the Financial Resolution were "for the education of senior children". It was held that this was in conflict with the Resolution. In fairness to myself, and in view of the strong feeling this House has about Financial Resolutions being drawn so as to exclude legitimate Amendments, I would say that the Financial Resolution was in simple form; that no one took any exception to it and that the words "for the education of senior children" expressed the feeling intended. To have omitted these words from the Resolution would have given no idea of what the scheme attempted to do.

The examination of this Amendment would raise the great question of privilege and, even if privilege were waived, it would be doubtful whether it would be possible to accept this in the Bill. It would be doubtful whether we could accept it without withdrawing the Financial Resolution and substituting another. That, of course, the Government are not prepared to accept. Even if it were not for this, I should not be able to advise the House to agree with the Lords. The mover of this Amendment was misled into telling another place that this was an Amendment which other interests in this controversy would regard as quite acceptable.

Earl WINTERTON

Under the rules of the House is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise a speech made in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER

In the case of statements of policy made in another place you are allowed to refer to them but criticism of speeches in another place or references to them with a view to influencing the Debate in this House is not allowed.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Is not the rule against any quotation of a speech, but not against a reference to it?

Earl WINTERTON

I have been checked by the Chair on more than one occasion in the past on the ground that it was out of order.

Mr. STANLEY

I am sure I can avoid any difficulty by simply saying that if this House were to accept this Amendment we should find it would arouse bitter feelings among many sections of opinion, and entirely destroy the basis upon which the whole of this part of the Bill rests.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I think the right hon. Gentleman has accurately stated what occurred on the Committee, and that he has taken the best possible course.

12.50 a.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

I wonder if anyone has been as unwise as I have been in remaining here 33 hours in order to make a speech a half a minute? The Minister has most thoroughly adhered to the position he took up in Committee upstairs, both in the letter and the spirit, and I think that is wise. If he had accepted the Amendment, the whole basis of our assent to the concessions that were made from the denominational point of view would have been upset, and I would like humbly to support him very heartily in the attitude he has taken up, that it is impossible within the understanding arrived at in the House of Commons to accept the Amendment.

Lords Amendment, in page 7, line 41, after "required," insert "wholly or mainly."

Mr. STANLEY

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

This is purely a clarifying Amendment. A particular point was brought to my notice which I had always believed was covered by the drafting of the Bill, but this Amendment makes that doubly sure.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with one of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Lees-Smith, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Annesley Somerville, the Attorney-General and Mr. Stanley.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Stanley.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing with one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Stanley.]