§
Order read for consideration of Report of Resolution,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present, Session to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes provided that the total amount payable shall not exceed ten thousand pounds in any one financial year.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."—[Lord E. Talbot]
§ Mr. KINGThe Government have got themselves into difficulties, and are trying to sneak out without telling us how they are going to face the consequences of 1957 their own inefficiency and mismanagement. I am very glad to see the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps he will tell us the real reason for the extraordinary proposal that this Money Resolution which was passed on Wednesday night last, in order to promote horse-breeding in this country, is suddenly to be discharged. It may be remembered that on that occasion, when we discussed this matter, I moved an Amendment limiting the sum to £10,000, and it was promptly accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Sir R. Winfrey), who assured me that £10,000 was quite ample, and that they would not expect to have anything like that amount. If that is so, why is this Resolution now to be discharged? Is it because the amount is inadequate?
§ Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)I am sorry my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is not here. I understand that when the hon. Gentleman opposite moved the £10,000 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was under the impression that it was quite enough, and, I believe, it is quite enough for England, but this Bill applies also to Scotland and Ireland, and it is not sufficient to cover those two countries. Therefore the situation, as I understand it, is this: It is proposed to withdraw this Resolution and set up a new one to cover Scotland and Ireland.
§ Mr. KINGWe are very glad to have that explanation, but it shows how even more inefficient the Government is than I expected, because when my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) interposed an inquiry as to whether Scotland would get money from this Resolution and the advantage of this Bill, he was promptly answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that that was so. Of course, I shall not in any way try to prevent whatever solution of this difficulty the Government may be able to put forward, and I shall not, of course, divide the House; but I think I am entitled to say that the Government have mismanaged this little affair very badly indeed. If they cannot manage the little affairs well, how can they manage the great affairs? I hope this will be a lesson to them.
§ Mr. WATTThe House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) in having elicited from the Government an explanation of their withdrawal of this Resolution. As my hon. Friend has said, this Resolution had been made the very best of from its initiation in the House. It was a Resolution handing over money by the House to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which is the English institution, and no mention was made of Scotland and Ireland. It is withdrawn with a view to bringing another Resolution in, I have no doubt. I should like, therefore, to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question as to whether a similar Motion to that now withdrawn can be brought in in this present Session of Parliament? Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" says:
It is a Rule, in both Houses, which is essential to the due performance of their duties, that no question or Bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current Session.Further on it says:A mere alteration of the words of a question without any substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to evade this Rule. On the 7th July, 1840, Mr. Speaker called attention to a Motion for a Bill. …Its form and words were different from those of a previous Motion, but the object was substantially the same; and the House agreed that it was irregular, and ought not to be proposed from the Chair.I submit that when this Motion comes up again, as it is bound to do, in perhaps a little altered form, it will be against the Rules of the House to consider it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand the Resolution that will be proposed will be different. It will have reference to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. It will be, therefore, a different Resolution from that to which the Committee agreed on Wednesday.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs it not a "substantial change"? Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say there is no difference between Scotland and England?
§ Order accordingly discharged.