Private Members’ Bins

Southland Times, Issue 23179, 21 April 1937, Page 4

Private Members’ Bins

Mr A. P. Herbert has had manyvicissitudes in introducing his Marriage Bill in the House of Commons, and he will not be surprised at the “determined resistance by the minority” which, according to a British Official Wireless message printed yesterday, now threatens to upset it. The case is interesting in its immediate features. Divorce in England is so difficult to attain that countless victims of unfortunate or tragic marriages have been condemned to sufferings which should have no place in a civilized community. This is a truth recognized and supported within the churches as well as outside, and there will be many people who will feel that the obstruction of reactionary groups should not be allowed to defeat the Bill when it is believed to be opposed by no more than 40 votes. And this leads to wider implications that take in the whole question of Bills brought forward by private members. The present system, under which private members’ Bills can be held back indefinitely from the final decision of the vote by a mere continuance of argument, is a survival in parliamentary procedure of a reluctance in governments to identify themselves with non-poli-tical and controversial measures. Under modern conditions, notable for the increase of official control in many phases of society, it is 1

difficult to see why badly-needed reforms should be left to the advocacy of individuals. The fault is not merely a cultural one. A system of government which allows the right for private members to introduce Bills but clings to a technicality that amounts to passive obstruction is insisting too closely on party monopoly. This is understandable in political measures; but there seems no reason why a Bill that aims at the reform of social evils or at an innovation which may be expected to benefit all sections of the people should not be discussed on its merits and allowed a fair passage towards the vote. In New Zealand the classic example of delay in putting through a private member’s Bill was the summer time” measure brought forward in many sessions with an admirable persistence by the late Sir Thomas Sidey. It is unfortunate that, although most people now enjoy the extra half-hour of daylight in summer and are willing to speak of Sir Thomas Sidey as a benefactor, the history of his Bill has not become an influence working towards the official endorsement of reform. Perhaps the reason is that the measure did not strike deeply enough into the life of the people and raised no issue of emotional strength. The case is different in Britain, where public opinion has already been aroused in favour of the Marriage Bill. If the present position leads to parliamentary reform Mr Herbert’s Bill may achieve an historic significance far beyond the intention of its sponsor.