COAL BILL. (Hansard, 22 June 1938)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY
My Lords, before we proceed to the business of the afternoon I want to ask your Lordships' permission to make a protest against the very unorthodox and, in my submission, rather discourteous manner to your Lordships' House in which the Government hustled through an Amendment last night which stood in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and claimed it as one of their own. The Amendment in question appeared to be a consequential Amendment to the main Amendment of the noble Marquess, who did not move his Amendment, and who was not indeed in the House and therefore the Government, I presume, had not his permission to move this Amendment. It was in fact, I understand, a misprint and should have been standing in the name of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. In view of the fact that it was a misprint, and of the fact that the many officials that the Government had at their disposal had failed to see that the Government's Amendments were properly marshalled on the List, it would have been more courteous of the Government to have deferred this Amendment to the Third Reading.
It was hustled through before anyone had time to realise that it was a Government Amendment or to look it up, and as it happened it was an Amendment to which I take exception myself. The difficulty I myself am in now is that, al- 135 though I can move to re-impose the original Amendment on the Third Reading, I am faced with the precedent that your Lordships will not reverse your previous decisions. This Amendment which, as I have said, stood in the name of Lord Lothian should only have been moved by him and I hope, when I seek to reverse your Lordships' decision on Third Reading, the unorthodox method of the Government will be taken into account and that I shall not be told that it is impossible to reverse the previous decision.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I would like in a word to emphasize what my noble friend Lord Dudley has said. A position of very real difficulty has arisen here. My noble friend Lord Lothian had put down in his name this particular Amendment, and it had been my intention and the intention of others of us to ask whether that Amendment could not be changed to cut out the words after "coal" in line 31 instead of the words after "coal" in line 30. We should have found ourselves in agreement with the omission of the words "or machinery or plant for coal mining."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)
To which page is the noble Lord referring?

§ LORD HASTINGS
Page 51, line 30. It does create a position of very considerable difficulty. I repeat that we felt the omission of the words "or machinery or plant for coal-mining" was desirable. We were in agreement with the Amendment, but we were not in agreement with the omission of the words—

§ EARL STANHOPE
On a point of order, I suggest to the noble Lord that he is not entitled to go into the whole question of this Amendment which has already passed the House.

§ LORD HASTINGS
That is the difficulty. The Leader of the House emphasizes the difficulty in which we find ourselves. It is a very grave difficulty. The Government themselves created the difficulty by taking up the Amendment which we thought to stand in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who was not in the House and was not available for discussion about his own Amendment. I am truly at a loss to 136 know what to do about it. I quite admit that the Leader of the House is right in telling me that the matter has been disposed of and that it is no longer open for discussion. That is unquestionably so. At the same time I do not think the Government would like to leave the matter where it rests.

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has raised a question about the Amendment which stood in Lord Lothian's name on the Paper and which should have been in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I very much regret that this unfortunate printing error should have been made, but nevertheless I must say this. I fully believed that the noble Earl, his colleagues, and his advisers had carefully examined every Amendment which appeared on the Marshalled List in order to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with all the matters that were to be raised.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY
I have here a list of comments on all the Government Amendments which have been prepared by those Associations whom we are representing, but naturally that particular Amendment is not included because it appeared to be a consequential Amendment to the noble Marquess's Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
The noble Earl might have made himself acquainted with all the Amendments on the Paper and not merely with those standing in the name of the Government and himself. When I moved this Amendment last night I drew attention to this unfortunate error, and I mentioned that the Amendment was put down to meet criticisms that had been made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who originally drew attention to this subject. Moreover, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was in the House, and I have the clearest recollection that he remained most firmly embedded in his seat and said nothing at all on any point of this Amendment. I could therefore only conclude that it was an Amendment which was satisfactory to him. As your Lordships passed it without discussion, I should be very sorry to see this matter raised again and the House asked to alter a decision at which it has already arrived.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, there is no doubt we shall have to accept that statement because it is in accordance with the rules of the House, but I can only say that it is most arbitrary. The action of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, in taking up an Amendment which was not in the name of the Government and passing it through the House in the way it was done was in accordance with the rules, perhaps, but it was not in accordance with the custom of this House.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
My Lords, may I plead with the Leader of the House for a little elasticity in this matter? We are not great sticklers for rules of debate in your Lordships' House and, after all, this is a point of very minor importance—quite an academic point—as to what the qualifications of these good gentlemen should be. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, whether he cannot give my noble friend Lord Dudley the assurance for which he has asked, and that is that when we come to discuss this matter on Third Reading we may reach a decision with a completely open mind.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, may I ask the Paymaster-General whether he has satisfied himself that all the Amendments on to-day's Marshalled List are under their proper names? I happened to be present when this episode occurred last night. I did not protest on behalf of my noble friends, but I should like to know whether there is any one who has the duty of going through this Marshalled List and seeing that everything is under the proper names before we start business.

§ LORD GAINFORD
My Lords, I was in the House at the end of the sitting last night. There were very few members present, and this Amendment was run through rather quickly by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, with the explanation he has already given to the House, but it was very difficult for us to see exactly what the point was at the moment. There have been precedents, I think, where a decision of this House has been reconsidered at a subsequent stage, and although we do not like that practice I think that in these exceptional circumstances it might be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, to raise this point on the Third Reading.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
My Lords, this Amendment is one in which I am interested. It was based on observations I offered during the Committee stage of the Bill. I am bound to say in justice to Lord Munster that he told me the Amendment had been misprinted in the name of another noble Lord and that he was going to move it in his own name, thereby preventing me from moving it in the name of Lord Lothian. I do not think it is a very serious state of affairs. Any Peer is entitled to reopen the subject on the Third Reading, as was indicated in unusually clear and explicit form by the Leader of the House last night. In these circumstances I think I may remain embedded in my seat.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY
My Lords, the only assurance I seek is that when I do raise the matter on the Third Reading I shall not be told it is impossible to reverse your Lordships' decision. I sought to find out what the point of the Amendment was as quickly as possible, but it was hustled through in a minute, and it was virtually impossible to look up the passage of the Bill referred to in time. I hope in the circumstances the Leader of the House will give me that assurance.

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, may I begin by pointing out to Lord Dudley that this Amendment stood in the name of the Lord Chancellor and myself in the list circulated on Saturday? It was only in the Second Marshalled List that it was put down, unfortunately, under the name of Lord Lothian. Therefore, if the noble Earl had gone through the list on Saturday he would certainly have found all the criticisms necessary for the occasion. Apart from that, as I remarked yesterday and as my noble friend Lord Crawford has reminded the House, it is very much better to deal with these things on the next stage of the Bill. This is another case in point. There is no reason whatever why the House should not make an Amendment to an Amendment made on a previous occasion. We do not of course rescind decisions of the House which have been arrived at, but there is no reason why we should not make an amendment of some change made in the Bill already. Therefore my noble friend will have ample opportunity on the Third Reading to put forward suggestions in regard to this Amendment or other changes in the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY
I am very grateful to the noble Earl.