LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 15 December 1926)

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
My Lords, this Amendment is the one that I have just commented upon—namely, the insertion of the words "and subject to such conditions". I do not wish to add anything 1683 to the observations which I have made, and I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment.

§ LORD ASKWITH
My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this. I moved the Amendment for my noble friend Lord Danesfort. He had pressed it very hard before and it was accepted here by the Government. It then goes down to the Commons, the question being the power of the Treasury to guarantee loans to the Board. The words previously in the Bill, before the Amendment was inserted, were "in such manner" and my noble friend Lord Danesfort proposed to insert "and subject to such conditions." What happened? The Attorney - General moves and says that he desires, with the concurrence of the Government, to accept the Amendment. The Speaker then interposes as follows: I wish to call the attention of the House to this Amendment. It is a privilege Amendment. It proposes to vary the conditions on which the guarantee of the loan can be given". Immediately the Attorney-General says: I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment". This is one of those cases where, in regard to what appears to be a perfectly innocuous Amendment, the Speaker—of whom. I wish to speak with all the great respect due to him—appears to have a Bill gone through and to nose around and to smell out a breach of privilege.
It is almost impossible for this House to make sensible alterations in any of these Bills which at all touch upon finance even in the most remote manner, without this question being brought up in this way, whereupon everyone at once runs away from what is supposed to be a breach of privilege. It only shows the importance of the matter being settled as between the two Houses and some opportunity being given for reasonable Amendments to be moved in this House.

§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATER
My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord should have made the observations which he did, which seemed rather to reflect upon the Speaker of the House of Commons.

§ LORD ASKWITH
No.

§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATER
The noble Lord talked about smelling and nosing round to find out something. Why, that is the Speaker's duty, that is what he is there for. He is there to protect the privileges of the Commons against the Lords, and it is his duty, and always was my duty, as soon as Amendments came down from the Lords, to investigate them very carefully to see whether they did or did not violate the old privileges and traditions of the House of Commons, which were that they, and they alone, had to deal with questions of grants of money. I can assure Sour Lordships' House that as long as you endeavour to impose shackles, or conditions, or restraints upon the grants of money which come from the Treasury, and which are voted by the other House, you are beating your heads against a stone wall; and it has been the duty, and it always will be the duty, of the Speaker of the House of Commons to protect the House of Commons against such Amendments as those, even though they may be accepted by the Government.

§ LORD OLIVIER
My Lords, I supported the Amendment of Lord Danesfort, but on both occasions I expressed a doubt whether it was not entirely a matter far the other House. Consequently, in view of the position that has been taken, we on these Benches cannot for a moment dissent from the view taken by the Commons.

§ LORD GAINFORD
My Lords, it was open to His Majesty's Government, in another place, in a case of this kind, to move to have the privilege of the Commons waived, if they thought it expedient, and I think it is rather a pity on the present occasion that they did not exercise that right.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD)
My Lords, I rise, not to take part in a discussion of the merits of this question, of which, I am afraid, I am not in a position to speak, but merely to say that I entirely agree with what has just fallen from Lord Gainford on the general principle. It would be almost impertinent to disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on any question of procedure in the House of Commons, 1685 of which, of course, he is a past master. It is perfectly true, no doubt, that it is the duty of the Speaker to call the attention of the House of Commons to any Amendment which is, in his judgment, a breach of their privileges, but it is also, as I am sure Lord Ullswater will agree, quite a common practice for the House of Commons to say that in the circumstances they do not propose to insist on their privilege, and that they will agree to any Amendment which has been suggested from this House. So far as I know there is no limit to their power of not insisting in a particular case. It is not a question whether the Government, should do it or should not do it; it is a question entirely for the House itself to take whatever action it likes on the Motion to any member.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
My Lords, I will not comment on, or criticise, what has been said by my noble friend Lord Ullswater about the privileges and rights of the House, about which he knows much more than I do, but I do criticise and venture to differ from the observations that he has made as applying to some action that I took as regards this Amendment. He says this House will always fail if it attempts to put shackles on the rights of another place to deal with finance. I never attempted anything of the kind, but I affirm the right, of this House to make Amendments and suggestions, which can go to the other House, and the other House then has the right to deal with them as it likes, or to assert its privilege; but it ought not to be supposed that, this House has no right to deal with these things. It has a right to put in the Amendments. And, moreover, I most carefully stated my position when I dealt with the Amendment. I did not say exactly that I accepted it on behalf of the Government; what I said was that I was quite ready that the Amendment should go in and take its chance in another place. I used those words advisedly, and they are not open, I think, to the criticisms of my noble friend.

§ LORD ASKWITH
My Lords, may I ask leave, in view of one phrase in Lord Ullswater's speech, to say that I must entirely disclaim any suggestion that I was disrespectful to the Speaker in what he has done. I purposely used words 1686 which showed that I was not attacking the action of the Speaker from a personal point of view.