HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES] (No. 2). (Hansard, 8 May 1918)

§ Mr. KING
I do not rise to oppose the proposal, but I believe that I shall be in order in making a few observations with the object of supporting this Motion. We are in a very peculiar position, almost unprecedented, because last Wednesday we were in Committee and a Motion was made to provide money for this Horse-Breeding Bill, but owing to some curious lack of judgment on the part of someone—I am sure that it could not have been on the part of the capable representative of the Board of Agriculture, who is here—the Committee's Resolution was not adequate for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman accepted a limiting proposal which I made limiting the total sum to £10,000. Then it was found that, as Scotland and Ireland were to be provided for, the £10,000, which would have been adequate for England—

§ Mr. PETO
As the hon. Member rose for the purpose not of opposing this business, but of supporting it, is it in order for him now to debate a Government Motion made after eleven o'clock? Does this not constitute contentious matter to which there is effective opposition?

§ Mr. KING
This business can only be prevented by objection being taken. Nobody has taken objection, and certainly I do not do so. The position is unique so far as I know. A new Money Resolution is 2296 being put forward for a Bill for which we in Committee provided the money last week. It raises a point of Order, which I hope this decision will not prejudge. There is a rule in this House that you cannot affirm the same thing on two occasions in one Session. We have affirmed once in a Vote of money for this Bill, and even though the form of words is changed, giving it to different Departments not specified before, I should feel inclined to hold that this was an identical Resolution, but I pass that by. I only wish to observe that it is an unusual circumstance, and I hope the fact that we do not object to this money will not be taken as a precedent for having practically identical Motions made either in Committee or in the House twice in the same Session. With these observations and assuring my hon. Friend of my entire benevolence towards his project and the objects of his Bill, I beg to support it.

§ Mr. WATT
I do not intend to oppose this, but to draw attention to the fact, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. King) has already alluded, that this Resolution, or a similar Resolution, was brought in two or three nights ago, but on that occasion the money was allocated to the English Board of Agriculture, and no provision was made for Scotland or Ireland. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary that such an omission was made, and I regret that on that occasion he treated my observations with contempt although all the time I was right. Scotland had to be provided for, and had the money been handed to the English Board of Agriculture it would have been impossible for Scotland thereafter to share it. Now provision is made for Scotland, and in that respect I am satisfied, but I desire to ask the Under-Secretary what proportion of this money is Scotland to get? Has the sum that is to be allocated been apportioned to three countries. Has England and Scotland each got its share? If so, how much is Scotland to get? I want to know that Scotland gets her rights. I am sorry that my hon. Friend (Mr. King) has allowed this to pass without putting in his limiting proviso. On the former occasion he limited it to £10,000, and on this occasion I thought he would limit it to £20,000. I feel that he has been approached by influences which I do not presume to indicate, but I think it would have been an improvement had the Committee kept its control over the sum by 2297 naming a figure beyond which it should not go. However, if my hon. Friend will indicate to me how much of this money is to be allocated to Scotland I shall be glad.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey)
Under the Resolution as it stands there is no limit to the amount, and we desire that it should stand in that position, if hon. Members will agree, because it is very difficult to tell what amount of money exactly will be wanted, say, ten years hence in the administration of this Bill.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Ten years?

§ Sir R. WINFREY
We hope to increase the horse-breeding industry of this country very considerably, and the amount of money that may be required this or next year may be exceeded very considerably ten years hence. We do not desire to limit it unless the Committee really thinks it necessary to do so. If it is desired to limit it, we are prepared to limit it to £20,000 for the three countries.

§ Mr. BOOTH
If that is so, I should feel inclined to oppose the Motion, but I do not wish to do so if my hon. Friend will put in a limit himself.

§ Mr. KING
I suggest that we should put in a limit on Report.

§ Mr. BOOTH
It is offered now—£20,000.

Mr. PRICE
The hon. Member suggests £20,000. I wonder whether he realises how much Scotland will get of this! It amounts to £275. That is the proportion of the £20,000. That will not keep our stallions going. If my hon. Friend will tell me what limit is going to be 2298 placed on this sum, we shall know what we are going to get. As it is, out of the £20,000, all we get is £275.

§ Sir R. WINFREY
Where do you get that from?

Mr. PRICE
Out of the proposal.

§ Mr. BOOTH
If the Government does not move the limitation, I beg to move that it be not exceeding the sum of £20,000.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not know whether that means in the sum total, in one year, or in a number of years.

§ Mr. KING
I would like to suggest that the Amendment should read "Provided that no more than £20,000 be paid in any one year."

§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to move, at the end of the Resolution, to add the words, "Provided that no more than £20,000 be paid in any one year."