§ 50. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, seeing that certain Members of this House commonly take part in voting certain payments to themselves, apart from salaries, involving consequences, if challenged, in the House or in Court, and that, the Comptroller and Auditor-General disregards the vitiating circumstance and allows the questionable payments, whether he will introduce on this subject a new and uniform rule not open to challenge?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am confident that, if any payments properly calling for question were made, the Comptroller and Auditor-General would not fail to draw-attention thereto.
§ 51. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England, the defence was undertaken on the advice or with the concurrence of the Law Officers; and whether, the result of that case being to affirm the existing law instead of a Departmental custom, he will say on what law, custom, or precedent the Comptroller and Auditor-General relies in allowing the payment to the Law Officers of extra fees consequent on their own error; and, the Law Officers being interested parties, from whom did the Auditor-General obtain independent advice on the legality of the payment?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the other branches I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to his previous question.
§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it was on the erroneous opinion of these two Gentlemen that he ruled my Labour Bill out of order recently?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. It was on my own opinion.