HL Deb 07 March 1913 vol 13 cc1507-15
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House what has become of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, because it is not one of the Bills which has reappeared here to-day. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was returned from the House of Commons to this House on February 17 with some Amendments which your Lordships had made disagreed to. According to the usual course of the relations between the two Houses, your Lordships insisted on your Amendments in certain cases and in certain other cases agreed not to insist on them, and returned the Bill in that shape to the House of Commons. The Bill has not been mentioned to-day, and officially we have no knowledge of what has occurred to it. But on referring to the ordinary channels of information I see that yesterday a Question, no doubt a friendly Question, was put to the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the course which he proposed to take with this Bill. He was asked what action, if any, the Government proposed to take with regard to the Lords Amendments to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and Mr. McKinnon Wood replied— I regret to say that the Lords do not see their way to meet the views of this House as to the Amendments on the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and therefore when the Message is read I do not propose to make any Motion. So far as I am aware, that course is absolutely without precedent. Your Lordships, of course, know the ordinary manner in which relations between the two Houses are conducted—that when Amendments go from one House to the other the Message is considered and then such course is taken with regard to the Amendments as is deemed convenient. But in this case, so far as I know, no course appears to have been taken at all, and no Motion was made. Therefore the Message which your Lordships House sent back to the House of Commons remains without any answer, and apparently has been entirely ignored. As I say, I have not been able to find any precedent for such a proceeding.

I can see only two interpretations which can be placed upon the conduct of the Government in this case. The first is that they intended discourtesy to your Lordships' House, to which we are not entirely unaccustomed. But I have endeavoured to find some other reason for it, and I think the Government must be proceeding on Section 2, subsection (3), of the Parliament Act, which says that a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses. But this section has not been strictly complied with, because the House of Commons have not finally ascertained that your Lordships will not agree to Amendments. That negotiation has not been concluded. But I ask whether this is the section under which the Government intend to proceed, and, if so, whether it may be regarded as an intimation to this House that the Government intend to proceed with this Bill under the Parliament Act. If that be so, it is a new development and a new application of the Parliament Act which at the proper time may, and no doubt will, call for some remarks; but in the meantime I merely wish to ask His Majesty's Government what is the meaning of the novel and unprecedented course which they appear to have taken with regard to this Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

There are, as your Lordships know, several methods by which in another place it is possible to express disagreement with Amendments inserted in any particular Bill by your Lordships. In the classic on the subject, the work of Sir Erskine May, I read that when it is determined to disagree to Amendments made by the House of Lords an Order may be made that the Bill or the Lords Amendments be laid aside, or the Order for the consideration of the Lords Amendments may be discharged and the Bill withdrawn, or the consideration of the Amendments may be put off for three or six months or for any term beyond the probable duration of the session. What has been done on a few occasions, though very seldom, is that a message has been sent to the Lords that the Commons insist on their disagreement to the Lords Amendments. These are all courses for which I have no doubt a number of precedents could be found.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

But none of which has been taken in this ease.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I confess I do not see, as a matter of respect or consideration for this House, that any material difference exists between the making of no Motion in another place or asking for an Order to be made that the Lords Amendments be laid aside. I cannot see, if the latter course had been taken, that it would have shown any greater consideration for the Amendments inserted in this Bill by your Lordships' House. The course, therefore, taken in another place—of which, by the way, we have no cognizance whatever as no communication has been made to us, which I suppose is really the subject-matter of the noble Earl's complaint—but equally if it had been moved—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My complaint was not that no communication had been made to us. I asked the noble Marquess, because presumably he knows what the Government intend and mean, whether he could inform us why they took this which appears to me rather peculiar course.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

To answer the noble Earl quite frankly, I have no reason to suppose that the existence of the particular section of the Parliament Act which he quoted, subsection (3) of Section 2, which runs— A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses, was the reason; but that subsection undoubtedly has a bearing upon the future of this Bill. The Bill will undoubtedly be deemed to have been rejected because the Amendments were not agreed to. But I have no reason to suppose that the presence of that section in the Parliament Act had any bearing on the particular procedure adopted in another place, or that any reason can be suggested why it should. Precisely the same result, I think, would have come about if my right hon. friend in another place had adopted one of those methods which I quoted from Sir Erskine May—namely, that the Order for the consideration of the Lords Amendments be discharged. The result would, I take it, have been precisely the same, and the effect of the section in the Parliament Act would also be the same. I do not know whether the noble Earl will consider that I have answered his question, but I have done so to the best of my ability.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The only doubt which the noble Marquess has left in my mind is this. If the regular course would have had the same effect, why did the Secretary for Scotland adopt a course which is irregular and absolutely without precedent?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, so far as the question of precedent is concerned, I did not gather that the noble Marquess was able to bring forward any illustration which really was relevant to the arguments of my noble friend behind me. What remains fixed upon our minds is that this House has not been treated in this matter with the usual courtesy which prevails as between the two Houses of Parliament. It was, I think, due to us at any rate that if the whole of our Amendments in this Bill were to be, as they have been, virtually rejected by the House of Commons, we should have been given some kind of explanation of the reasons why this course was adopted. But my noble friend, who has had some experience of public life, must be perfectly well aware of the real reason why His Majesty's Government abstained from taking any of the courses which are usual in such cases. They no doubt had in their minds the recollection of previous discussions upon the question of disinterested management, which discussions had not gone altogether very well for them, discussions in the course of which some of the heaviest artillery was directed upon them from their own Benches; and having allowed a few hours only for the consideration of the Amendments made by your Lordships' House in this Bill, and in a whole group of other Bills, they obviously did not want to encore the debates which had previously taken place on this particular point.

My noble friend raised another point which I think is of some importance, and which has not perhaps been entirely cleared up. I gather, however, that the noble Marquess admits that the result of what has taken place has been to bring this Bill under the operation of Section 2 of the Parliament Act—that is to say, that what has happened with regard to it is to be taken as implying the rejection of the Bill by your Lordships' house. If that is the case, I must say that it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have been guilty of what I can only describe as a flagrant misuse of the Parliament Act. Why was the Parliament Act introduced? For the purpose of meeting cases where there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two Houses; where, as it used to be put, this House had obstructed legislation which was desired by the country and advocated by the representatives of the people. But here is a Bill which is not a Party Bill so far as I am aware. It has not been treated as a Party Bill in this House. It is a Bill which we amended in a manner desired, not only by our own friends, but by a great many of those who habitually support His Majesty's Government. I cannot conceive a case in which there is less justification for using the steam-roller procedure of the Parliament Act than the case of this Bill. Surely this is a case where, by good-humoured discussion and interchange of ideas and a certain readiness on each side to compromise, it should not have been beyond the possibilities of the case to arrive at a solution acceptable to all concerned. What I am afraid His Majesty's Government are about to do in the case of this Bill is to fasten a quarrel upon your Lordships' House, and then to use the drastic machinery of the Parliament. Act in order to extricate themselves from the difficulty.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I should like to add one word before this discussion concludes, because it does seem to me that those of us who tried to make the provisions in the direction of disinterested management as little disagreeable to His Majesty's Government as possible have not been quite fairly used. We proposed a scheme in the first instance which we thought in the abstract the best—in other words, giving a monopoly in particular districts which happened to vote for that option. That scheme was criticised somewhat severely in the other House by the Secretary for Scotland. I studied those criticisms with such care as I could bring to them, and the Amendments which I was responsible for asking this House to make in the original scheme were moved with a sincere desire to meet the criticisms, so far as it was possible, of the Secretary for Scotland. Every Amendment which this House made on the second occasion was made, so far as I am concerned, for the sole and only purpose of meeting those criticisms in so far as it was possible to do so.

I am bound to say that I associate myself with what has been said by the noble Earl behind me that we have not been quite fairly treated, for not even a single remark is made to the other House by the Government with regard to what we have done. Of course, we can understand that there were reasons. In the first place, I venture to suggest that one of the reasons which actuated the course taken—unfair as I think it was—was this, that the first of the Amendments which would have had to be considered in another place was one which we had made which the other House had refused to accept, and if they had insisted that would have killed the Bill—I refer to the time limit. That would have come up first before they reached the clause which dealt with disinterested management, and the Government were no doubt faced with this dilemma, that they had either to give way on that Amendment or themselves kill the Bill. I venture to think that that is a possible solution of the unusual course which was taken. I profoundly regret that we have not got nearer than we have to an agreement, and I am still hopeful that if fair minds are brought to this matter on a subsequent occasion a solution of the difficulties may be found. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are as careful students of the Press in London which support them as I am, but I venture to think that if they peruse the leading article in the Daily News to-day they will find some cause for regretting the action they have taken.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are as sorry as he is that it was found impossible to come to a compromise on this Bill, and that for the present at any rate we cannot expect to see it receive the Royal Assent. As for the future, I am bound to say that I think it is far more likely that the Bill will meet with general approval if the suggestion which I threw out on a previous occasion were adopted. My suggestion was that a Bill dealing with disinterested management generally should be introduced, and that the question of this principle being added to this Bill dealing only with Scotland should be eliminated altogether. I must remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that to the various Amendments which had been introduced in this House the Secretary for Scotland took objection, not only on points of detail, but also on points of principle. I gladly recognise the attempt which was made by the noble Lord to meet my right hon. friend's criticisms on points of detail, but he will see himself that, although he may have met them successfully by the Amendments which he moved on the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships, those Amendments did not touch the matters of principle, which are more important, naturally, than questions of detail.

The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition referred once more to a matter on which some discussion has already taken place in this House in connection with this Bill—namely, that some of the supporters of His Majesty's Government in the other House were anxious that the Amendments to which he referred should be introduced. Perhaps he will allow me to again explain that the discussion on that occasion was naturally short; that, as very often happens it was those hon. Members who objected to the course proposed who took part in the debate; and that there were a great many Members who were perfectly willing to express their support of the Government but who did not do so in order that the business of the House might be expedited. The Division which took place after the discussion shows how well founded is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that the representatives of Scotland desire this Bill in the shape in which they themselves introduced it.

Further objection was taken by the noble Marquess to the action of His Majesty's Government on the ground that if the Parliament Act was resorted to it would be using that Act for a Bill for which it was not originally intended, and that this was in no sense a Party Bill. I think it is difficult to define a Party Bill. Nor was it ever attempted, during the discussions of the Parliament Bill, to in any way define or limit the class of measures to which that Act should be applied. It was with some astonishment that I heard the noble Marquess express surprise at the possibility of the Parliament Act being applied to this Bill. Such a possibility has been in the minds of His Majesty's Government ever since they saw the Amendments which were introduced by noble Lords opposite. We felt them to be of such a character that if this House insisted upon them this was certainly one of the courses which His Majesty's Government would be obliged to take into consideration; and I think the noble Marquess will admit that on more than one occasion I did express the serious view which His Majesty's Government took of the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite, which I said were, in our opinion, tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that sonic of the noble Marquess's supporters at any rate must have had it in their minds as a possibility that the Parliament Act would be used in connection with this Bill.

When all is said and done, the use of the Parliament Act in connection with this Bill does not prevent further discussion on the subject. There will be in the next session which begins all too soon for many of us, ample opportunity for discussing the Bill, and when it comes before this House again your Lordships will be able to propose Amendments and to discuss it for such a length of time as may seem desirable to you. My point is that this does not shut the door entirely upon a compromise; that it does leave it open for discussion on a subsequent occasion; and that it is not impossible, if your Lordships will be content with Amendments less stringent than those which have been inserted during the present session, that agreement may be come to upon the Bill before the end of next session. With regard to the action in the House of Commons which has given rise to this discussion, there are many different ways in which your Lordships' Amendments might have been treated; but I do not think there is any very serious reason for complaint that the House of Commons should have chosen this particular one out of the many alternatives which presented themselves.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The noble Earl has advised noble Lords interested to bring in a Bill of their own with reference to disinterested management. Upon that I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Supposing that his advice is taken, will the noble Earl undertake that facilities will be given by the Government? Because unless he will give such an undertaking he must be well aware that to give such advice is really a farce.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am quite sure that the noble Earl would be one of the last to expect me to give a contingent promise in regard to a Bill which I have not yet seen.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.