HC Deb 01 July 1920 vol 131 cc653-5
Sir D. MACLEAN

I should like to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Ministry of Mines Bill, and Clause 17, which sets up a fund to be applied to the social well-being and conditions of living of the workers in the mines. That fund is to be financed by a levy upon the owners of the coal mines, to the extent of one penny per ton of output. The levy is recoverable either as a debt due to the Crown or as a civil debt recoverable by the Minister of Minas. The next point in connection with the proposal of the Government is that the duty of allocating the money is to be vested in a Committee, and that Committee is to be under the entire control of the Minister of Mines. Payments out of the fund for the various matters relating thereto are to be made and allocated in such a manner as the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, may direct. This is a very important point, because each year the Minister of Mines is to present an account of what has been paid into the fund and how the money paid out of the fund has been dealt with. He will have to present what is practically an Estimate, and account to this House. Standing Order 71, which, as hon. Members know, is one of the safeguards of the House and the public against the Executive, says: If any motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof … shall be adjourned … and shall be referred to a Committee. That is a Committee which is known to us; I suggest the Committee of Ways and Means. My submission is that notwithstanding the fact that the Government do not propose that this money is to be paid into the Exchequer and thence out again to the Committee for the user in the way indicated in the Clause, it is none the less well within Standing Order 71. It may be put against me that there has been something in the nature of a precedent in connection with the coal trade by the 15 per cent. levy; but that 15 per cent. was paid into a pool for the purpose of readjusting varying positions between members of that pool, and in no sense is it really on all fours with the present proposal of the Government. The nearest analogy to this proposal is the petrol tax in the Finance Bill of this year. There the tax is levied upon a specific, clearly-defined body of subjects, those who have motor-cars, and is to be applied in a specific way, namely, in the upkeep of roads. That sum goes into the Exchequer and is paid out again, and the only difference between this proposal of the Government and that proposal of the Government in the Finance Bill, which, of course, has its authority in Ways and Means is this, that they do not propose here to pay it in and out of the Exchequer.

I submit that if the Government or any private Member by means of this Bill is allowed to evade Committee of Ways and Means in this way, they are circumventing one of the greatest safeguards of this House for checking charges upon the subject. I submit respectfully that the case I am putting does not conflict with the decisions you have already given from the Chair, because here is a sum which is levied upon one body of persons, members of the public, to be applied to another body of persons for well-defined subjects. The subjects to which the money is to be applied are conditions of social well-being. One of the conditions is technical education, mining education. If this procedure is to be allowed, I do not see what is going to prevent the Executive making a charge upon special bodies of His Majesty's subjects for the purpose of education and paying that into the Ministry of Education and administering it through the Ministry of Education, thereby avoiding the process of Ways and Means. I have tried to make myself clear on a somewhat complicated subject, and I ask for your ruling.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear. It seems to me that this Bill follows the precedent that has been repeatedly set. We have had many cases of funds which were established in respect of certain industries. I can recall the liquor trade compensation levy. That was a levy upon the owners of licensed houses and of hotels, and it was applicable only to certain people within the ambit of that trade. As the right hon. Gentleman has also indicated, we have recently had cases of that kind, one in regard to the coal industry, which was the Coal Control Compensation Act of 1917, where a certain levy was made on certain individuals engaged in the industry, and the proceeds were paid out to others engaged in that industry. This follows exactly on the same lines. In this case the owners of the coalmines will be taxed for the benefit of a fund to be employed for the social welfare and improving the conditions of the workers in the industry. That is not a public charge upon the people; it does not go into the National Exchequer, it is not used for a public purpose. It comes within the definition of funds set apart for purposes of public utility, and not for the public service, and therefore does not come within the scope of Standing Order 71.