§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYArising out of an answer given last Wednesday by the President of the Board of Trade, may I ask you, Sir, whether the Government have any power to divert money from one item in a Vote to another item which is not included in that Vote, and whether the spending of money upon a new service is not illegal until the authority of Parliament for that expenditure has been obtained?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe matter to which the hon. Baronet refers arises in respect to the payment of salaries and expenses of the arbitrators appointed under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act. It is true that no provision has yet been made by Supplementary Estimate, or otherwise, for that payment, if any is to be made; I do not know whether any such payment has been made or not. The hon. Baronet suggests that it is my duty to say whether the Board of Trade would be justified in making any such payment. It appears to me that if I were to do that I should be anticipating the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee. It is their business to say whether an expenditure made has been made under the authority of Parliament, that is to say, whether each particular Department has got authority to spend money which it has spent. It does not seem to me to be part of my duty to say whether or not that has been done. The only point at which my duties come in at all is this: If the Board of Trade were to lay upon the Table a Supplementary Estimate, and if the point were raised, it would be my duty to say whether that was or was not a new service within the Standing Orders dealing with Supply. Of course, as the hon. Baronet and the House know, if it were a new service the Supplementary Estimate would have to lie upon the Table or be submitted to the Committee for consideration before the final closure for a certain number of days. If and when that Estimate is submitted then I shall be quite prepared to say whether it is or is not a new service. Until that question arises, I do not think that I am called upon in the exercise of my powers and duties to express an opinion.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIn view of the ruling of the Speaker, I desire to ask the Prime Minister what course 64 the Government propose to take. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, in order to make the matter clear to the House, it is within the knowledge of the Prime Minister, that when a Bill before Parliament involves new expenditure it is customary to have a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means authorising such expenditure, and stating that the House will make good whatever expenditure is incurred under that Bill. In the case of this particular Act there was no such Resolution. I am not sure that there was any notice given to the House—I think there was not during the passage of the Bill through the Committee—that any expenditure was contemplated under the Act, and I think it was not until the Committee stage had passed that we had the first intimation that these posts would be salaried posts. I am told that it was after the Committee stage and after the Act had been passed. In those circumstances I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not make good the omission at the earliest possible moment, in so far as he can, by presenting a Vote for this new service. I assume there as no doubt that it is a new service. It is not a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide now, because this is a service created by an Act during the present Session of Parliament, and there is nothing in the Board of Trade Vote, and no heading in that Vote, under which such service can properly be charged or under which such service is included.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is a very technical matter, and I should like a little more time to consider it before pronouncing a final opinion. My first impression is that the proper course would be to present a Supplementary Estimate, and leave the House to pass an opinion upon the subject. There are various other questions which arise and which involve the powers of the Treasury to apply the savings from one subject to another. It is a matter upon which I should like some time for consideration.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think that is a very fair answer, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to take time to consider it. May I take it that in the meantime the omission to move a Resolution in the case of this Act was due to an oversight, which was, perhaps, due to the necessity for payment not being known at the moment. I take it that it is not to be taken as a precedent for dealing with further Bills which impose new charges?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI did not think money would be needed for the purpose.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYMay I ask whether it will not be necessary not only to put a Supplementary Estimate upon the Paper, but also to take a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House authorising the expenditure? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is so. May I ask also whether he will give us an answer within two or three days, because I intend to move, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has committed a breach of the privileges of this House in spending public money without any authority from Parliament, and I have here all the precedents. I do not think we should dispense with the General Orders and Rules of this House. It is an extremely important matter. I do not in the least wish to take any advantage of the temporary forgetfulness of hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the Rules which we have had in this House and have observed for many centuries should be preserved, and if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, will in two or three days give us an answer I will not move as I am entitled to move that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade committed a breach of the privileges of this House. I wish to safeguard myself, Mr. Speaker, because my recollection is that a Motion declaring that a Member has committed a breach of privilege of this House must be brought forward at the moment that the Member bringing it forward is seised of the fact that, in his opinion, a breach of privilege has been committed. As in deference to the right hon. Gentleman I do not now move that Motion, may I ask if my right will be safeguarded should the right hon. Gentleman not give us a satisfactory explanation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am prepared to consider the Motion. I will not count against the hon. Baronet the fact that he did not make it to-day. I do not wish to be held as saying that I would accept that as being a breach of privilege.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not minimising in the least degree the importance of this matter. I take a most strict view of the necessity of preserving the control of the House of Commons. Whatever steps are necessary in accordance with 66 our traditions to vindicate that principle in this case, the hon. Baronet may be assured that I am as anxious as he is to take them.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer my hon. Friend's question and my question on Wednesday—will that be reasonable time?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI may be away myself, but somebody certainly will be here to answer.