Mr. SpeakerI was going to make a statement to the House about the scope of debate on the Second Reading of Private Bills, bearing in mind what happened with regard to Railway Bills the other day, but in view of the time I will circulate the statement. I will only say that if hon. Members will read the statement—there is no urgency about it—I am prepared to receive representations in case I have not interpreted the rule correctly. The statement will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the statement:
§ The principle which regulates the scope of debate on a Private Bill is the same as on a Public Bill. On the Second Reading of either class of Bill debate can extend beyond the contents of the Bill, but must remain relevant to its purposes. It may be further extended by a reasoned Amendment. But such Amendment must itself be relevant to the Bill.
§
In applying this principle to Railway Bills I am guided by two Rulings given by my predecessor in the Chair. On 24th February, 1938, he said:
… I must rule that the hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of the fact that there is an omnibus Bill of a particular railway company to raise a grievance which applies not to that particular railway company alone, but to all other railway companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1938; Vol. 332, C. 648.]
§
On 19th February, 1936, when asked how far it would be in Order to discuss important matters connected with a railway company, such as excessive working hours and trade union negotiations, which wore not dealt with by a Bill authorising the construction of railway works, Mr. Speaker made the following answer:
This Bill deals with specific things. It is a Bill to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands, and to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works. Those are the only things which hon. Members may discuss."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1936: Vol. 308, C. 1868–72.]
§ He added that the matters which Members were seeking to raise could be discussed on a General Powers Bill.
§ I think these Rulings clearly apply the principle I have referred to. It is true that on the occasion of these Rulings no reasoned Amendment was before the House. But I do not think this makes any difference, as a reasoned Amendment should not extend the Debate beyond the limits laid down in these Rulings.