PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 19 July 1909)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Loan LOREBURN)
My Lords, I have to inform the House that on Thursday last the question was put "that this Bill be now read a second time," and that after that an Amendment was moved to leave out the word "now" in order to insert the words "this clay six months." The question put was that the word "now" stand part of the question, when the Contents were fourteen and the Not-contents fourteen. Accordingly, under Standing Order XXXIII it was my duty to declare that no decision had been arrived at, and that the matter would stand over until the next meeting of the House. I propose now to put the question that was then put and upon which no decision was arrived at.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
Might I suggest that under the Standing Order the debate goes on—it is not the adjournment of the decision that was attempted to be arrived at, but the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I have expressed no opinion on that subject one way or the other. If any one desires to continue the debate well and good. I shall not call him to order. But if no one rises I propose to put the question.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
I believe most of your Lordships have already spoken, but I have not. Therefore I am in order. I think the proper course would be that I should move the adjournment of the debate, and I accordingly do so.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am under a singular disadvantage, like most other 607 noble Lords who are here, in not having been present on the previous occasion. My work took me away from the House, and though I have a general idea of what occurred I was not present and did not hear the speeches that were made. Therefore if I say anything which has been said before, or which is different from what any noble Lord behind me said on the former occasion, I hope I shall be excused by the House. I understand the position is this. This is a Bill which in substance is not disapproved by the House at large. It is looked upon with a favourable eye by the Department concerned.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The Government announced that it was only looked upon with cool approval.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I hope I shall have the advantage of similar corrections as I go on if I mis-state the case in any way. It is regarded, I may say, with temperate approval by the Department concerned.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
The words used were "cool and correct."

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
And they considered that the most reasonable way to deal with it would be to send it to a Committee. Its rejection was moved by the noble Lord opposite, I understand, on the ground of a particular clause relating to Scotland.

LORD SALTOUN
My objection is that this Bill is absolutely impossible of amendment to include Scotland and Ireland. That is the reason I object to its going to a Committee. Again, the title of the Bill precludes amendment in that direction.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I should have thought that point could have been met by enlarging the reference to the Committee to some extent in order to include consideration of the subject, which is not an infrequent course. It certainly does seem to me that the course proposed is a hard one to apply to a Bill which in its main operation apparently meets with little or no opposition.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
That is not so.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
Perhaps I put it too highly. At any rate it is approved by a very large number of people, and it seems hard to deem it impossible to consider the Bill merely on the absolutely subsidiary issue of a particular clause relating to Scotland. As I understand the matter, it is this. There are several bodies of accountants in Scotland who have a chartered right to practise in England. This Bill provides that on application they may be registered accountants to practise in England. Well, that hurts their amour propre. It apparently takes away something from them which they already possess. That may be so. I should think that their amour propre could be saved by their starting a register of their own and saying no English accountant should be permitted to practise in Scotland unless he asked for leave to be placed on that register. That would involve complete reciprocity between the three countries. But whether that is a feasible plan or not it certainly does seem to me to be a very strong order to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill on this very minor point. I should have thought a reasonable course would have been to have read the Bill a second time and not to have proceeded further with it this year if it be so desired, because there are, I think, very strong objections to sending any Bill even of this moderate degree of complexity to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament at this very late season of the year. I should think that a reasonable course would be to read the Bill a second time on the understanding that it would not be proceeded with further, and then for the whole matter to be brought up again in the ensuing session with a view of then sending the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses.