§ Mr. ATTLEEI beg to move, in page 14, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).
The question of the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation which is dealt with in this Clause is a little complicated. We have already had an Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to administrative expenses incurred by the corporation in connection with the purchase and disposal of stocks. I do not know exactly what will be the other administrative expenses "incurred for the purposes of the Act" by the corporation. I suppose that in order to find out exactly what those expenses would be one must look to the Second Schedule of the Bill. There we find that the corporation is to have power to hold land, for instance, and that it has to make arrangements for the registration of all millers of flour who make application, and so forth. I can understand that if we are setting up a big milling trust, if this corporation is going to be the instrument for unifying the whole operation of milling in this country, there may be administrative expenses but we do not know exactly what 560 these "other administrative expenses" are to be. I presume that, at all events, it will be necessary for the corporation to have officials. But when you are setting up machinery whereby you are going to solidify into a trust a large portion of the milling business, I cannot for the life of me see why the expense should be borne by the purchasers of bread and flour. That is what happens if you make the expenses payable by the Wheat Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman's last Amendment as I say dealt merely with administrative expenses in connection with the purchase of stocks. He would simplify the whole Bill if he cut out Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 9 as we are asking him to do. We have had no explanation of why the expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation should be borne by the purchasers of bread. It may be possible to make out a, case for subsidising the farmer at the expense of the body of consumers, but I do not see why it should pay for the Flour Millers' Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman has already rejected an Amendmnt which we brought forward with a view to making it perfectly clear that the verbal agreement with the millers already referred to should be written down in black-and-white, and made enforceable, and I have no doubt that under this Bill a certain amount of money is going to stick in the hands of the flour millers. But they ought to be made to bear the expenses of their own corporation. I would like the right hon. Gentleman therefore to explain two things. First, what will be the nature of these administrative expenses and what is the amount likely to be; secondly, why should the expenses of the flour millers be borne by the consumer?
§ Earl WINTERTONI may be wrong, but should not the word "also" come in after the word "and" in line 3, so that it would read:
Subject to the provisions of this section the administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act by the Flour Millers' Corporation and also, if by-laws"—and so on. Otherwise, what does the Subsection mean?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation will fall under two heads. First of all, there are the primary administrative expenses, which will be those incurred to enable them to 561 comply with their obligations under Clause 1, Sub-section (3), to buy unsold stocks of wheat if so ordered by the Minister. That is what we have been discussing just now. It is not intended that these administrative expenses shall he paid by the Wheat Commission, and Amendments have already been moved in Clause 8, Sub-section (3), and there is a subsequent Amendment to be moved in this Sub-section, the effect of which will be to exclude such expenses from the expenses under this Sub-section. The other necessary administrative expenses of the corporation will include those connected with the registration of millers, which is part of this scheme, under the third paragraph of the Second Schedule, and the election of members of the corporation, under the sixth paragraph of the Second Schedule. It is intended that these costs, which will not be large, shall be payable by the Wheat Commission as comprising an essential element in the machinery of the Bill. I think it is clear that those should properly be so charged, because they are essential to the setting up of the machinery.
In addition, the Wheat Commission might, under by-laws to be approved by the Minister, under Clause 4, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), enter into arrangements with the Flour Millers' Corporation whereby the corporation might accept responsibility, first of all, for arranging for the audit of the deliveries of flour, and, secondly, for the collection of the relevant quota payments due to the Commission. Both those headings may or may not be made, and they may or may not prove to be acceptable to the Millers' Corporation and the Minister, but if they are, the expenses which are properly incurred by the corporation would be payable by the Commission, which would otherwise have been relieved of that amount of expenditure.
Clause 9, Sub-section (2), provides that the Flour Millers' Corporation shall first submit to the Wheat Commission estimates of their administrative expenditure for approval. They have to frame estimates and have them submitted for approval, and under Clause 9, Sub-section (4), these estimates will form part of the estimates of their own administrative expenses, which the Wheat Commission are required to submit to the Minister for approval, and no administrative ex- 562 penses may be incurred by the Wheat Commission except in accordance with the estimates approved by the Minister. The Bill does not actually require flour importers to form an association for the purpose of assuming collective responsibility for quota payments, but if such an association is formed and approved, it will be subject to by-laws made by the Commission, with the Minister's approval, under Clause 4, Sub-section (3), and its administrative expenses will come before the Wheat Commission and the Minister for approval in the same manner as the expenses of the Millers' Corporation. There is thus, I think the House will agree, complete control by the Commission and the Minister of the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation, and indeed of any association of the importers, if such is formed, and these will be payable by the Wheat Commission. The control, I think, will be adequate and will ensure that only such expenditure as is approved by the Minister and will lead to the satisfactory administration of the fund shall actually be incurred.
My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has asked me whether I think the wording of Sub-section (1) will adequately cover what we desire to achieve. I think it does, though, of course, like all drafting problems, it is open to question from one angle or another. All that I can say to my Noble Friend is that I have been advised by a qualified draftsman upon this subject, but that I will draw the attention of the draftsman to the criticism which has been made, and that we will look at it, and if we think it can be improved and yet retain what we believe to be desirable, we will adopt that method. Under the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSAs regards the last point, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the right words here, because if the word "also" were added, it would not read sense, as I read it. Because of the very large sentence included between the commas, it would make rather a clumsy drafting sentence. May I not suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this Clause was quite sensible so long as it was provided that the w hole of the Flour Millers' Corporation administrative ex- 563 penses should be paid by the Wheat Commission? One can understand that this rather elaborate procedure may then have been necessary, but now that he has taken out the provision that 99.9 per cent, of those expenses will be paid by the Flour Millers' Corporation themselves, is it really worth leaving in the whole of this clumsy procedure, in order to deal with the 0.1 per cent. that is left over?
The two items that he has mentioned, the register and the election of some members of the corporation, could hardly occupy the time of one lady typist for more than about three hours in the year, and is it really worth while that there should be a budget statement as to the lady typist's hours and that it should be submitted to the Wheat Commission, that there should be an arbitration before the Minister as to whether it is right, and, if it is not right, that the Wheat Commission should alter it? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do what we suggest is the sensible thing to do, having himself, as regards what obviously is the vast bulk of the administrative
§ expenses, decided that the corporation are to pay them themselves, and say, "Let the other little bit go in"? Nobody could object, and it would save the whole of this very complicated procedure as regards budgets and approvals and so on. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would save money if he did it, and that the Flour Millers' Corporation would bless him for leaving them alone.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe Sub-section, as it stands, may be in legal phraseology, but, from the point of view of pure grammar, I am still convinced that it is wrong. That may not be a desideratum which should be sought when drafting an Act of Parliament which is to be interpreted in the courts, but, though I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his promise to look into the matter, I do think it is desirable to ensure as far as possible the observance of grammar in an Act of Parliament.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 241: Noes, 39.
565| Division No. 121.] | AYES. | [9.26 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Gillett, Sir George Masterman |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) | Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Charlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Christie, James Archibald | Golf, Sir Park |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Clarry, Reginald George | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Colville, John | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas |
| Atkinson, Cyril | Conant, R. J. E. | Greene, William P. C. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cook, Thomas A. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Cooke, Douglas | Grimston, R. V. |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Craven-Ellis, William | Guy, J. C. Morrison |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Crossley, A. C. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Bernays, Robert | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Hartland, George A. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Davies, Ma], Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) |
| Borodale, Viscount | Denman Hon. R. D. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Donner, P. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Drewe, Cedric | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Duggan, Hubert John | Holdsworth, Herbert |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Eastwood, John Francis | Horsbrugh, Florence |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Howard, Tom Forrest |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Elmley, Viscount | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Iveagh, Countess of |
| Caine, G. R. Hall- | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Everard, W. Lindsay | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Fermoy, Lord | Jennings, Roland |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Fox, Sir Gifford | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Kerr, Hamilton W. |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. sir Hugh | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Ormiston, Thomas | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Soper, Richard |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Pearson, William G. | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Penny, Sir George | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Leckie, J. A. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Leech, Dr. J. W. | Petherick, M. | Stones, James |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) | Storey, Samuel |
| Levy, Thomas | Pike, Cecil F. | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Lewis, Oswald | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Templeton, William P. |
| Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Loyat-Fraser, James Alexander | Ramsden, E. | Thompson, Luke |
| Mabane, William | Ratcliffe, Arthur | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Mac An drew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr) | Rea, Walter Russell | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| McEwen Captain J. H. F. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| McLean, Major Alan | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| McLean, Or. W. H. (Tradeston) | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Maitland, Adam | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Marjoribanks, Edward | Robinson, John Roland | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Marsden, Commander Arthur | Hopner, Colonel L. | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Martin, Thomas B. | Rosbotham, S. T. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Runge, Norah Cecil | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Mitcheson, G. G. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Moreing, Adrian C. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Salmon, Major Isidore | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Moss, Captain H. J. | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Muirhead, Major A. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Womersley, Walter James |
| Munro, Patrick | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Savery, Samuel Servington | Wragg, Herbert |
| Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Scone, Lord | |
| Normand, Wilfrid Guild | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| North, Captain Edward T. | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin | Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Blindell. |
| Nunn, William | Skelton, Archibald Noel | |
| O'Connor, Terence James | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Edwards, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lunn, William |
| Batey, Joseph | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Briant, Frank | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Buchanan, George | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Price, Gabriel |
| Cape, Thomas | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hirst, George Henry | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, William G. | Jenkins, Sir William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Cowan, D. M. | John, William | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Daggar, George | Kirkwood, David | |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawson, John James | Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves. |
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in connection with the purchase and sale or disposal of any stocks of wheat which they are required by an Order made by the Minister to buy shall not be payable by the Wheat Commission.This Amendment speaks for itself. It is connected with a matter already dealt with in Clause 8, page 13, line 19, which requires the administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in connection with the purchase and sale 566 or disposal of unsold stocks of wheat under an Order made by the Minister to be kept in a separate account. These expenses will not be payable by the Wheat Commission, and are therefore not deductible from the deficiency payments.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§ In page 14, line 8, to leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. Attlee.]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWith regard to this Amendment, I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. 567 Attlee) will explain its purpose. I take it that it is consequential on the one that has been discussed.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIt is consequential, and I do not move it.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after the word "year," to insert the words:
being expenses which are so payable as aforesaid.This is consequential upon the Amendment which we have just passed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 14, line 31, to leave out the words "whether before or."
The implications of this Amendment can be seen very quickly. Sub-section (3, a) states
any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation.We seek to delete the words "whether before or" for we see involved in this paragraph all sorts of uncanny expenditure which hitherto has never been embodied in any Parliamentary Measure. It is well known that some sort of quota scheme was in contemplation 12 months ago. All sorts of work was done by departmental officials and by the ex-Minister of Agriculture in attempting to produce a wheat quota scheme which could be made applicable. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the expenditure incurred during the past 12 months by his departmental officials and the people with whom the ex-Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture came into contact during the discussions, are to be included under this paragraph? It is not unfair to argue that, if these words are carried to a logical conclusion the expenses of every interview which the Minister has had with millers, farmers and accountants, and indeed with every section of the community with whom he may have had any conversations, can be met.We see the possibility of all the expenses of the ex-Minister being paid, since we understand that the taxpayer is not to be called upon to meet any expenses at all. Before the right hon. Gentleman produced the Bill he must 568 have consulted Customs officials for the purpose of drafting Clause 5. All the expenditure with regard to those conversations will form part of the expenditure in bringing this Bill to the House of Commons. The words of the paragraph clearly imply that the expenses of very first conversations that ever took place with millers, farmers, bakers middlemen and merchants can be included. If that is not what the Minister intends, it is easy to remedy the difficulty by deleting the words suggested. If the expenses of the millers, the farmers and of every section of the community who in any way contributed towards producing the Bill are to be met, the expenses for the first year will be abnormal, and the first year's deficiency payment will be reduced to a small minimum.
Such retrospective legislation for the payment of administrative expenses is quite unusual. We are not unwilling that all expenses incurred from the passing of the Act shall be borne by the consumers of bread, but we are unwilling to allow all the expenses incurred by all sorts of officials and interests during the past several months while the Bill has been in course of construction. Our reading of the language in this paragraph is that all the expenses incurred will form part of the expenses to be met out of the quota payments. In that case, we can see that the deficiency payments will be reduced very considerably, because of the large increase over and above what is contemplated as the normal expenses. If these words must remain, there should be some words limiting the period of the retrospective payments, and some limiting terms to indicate to whom the payments are to be made. Otherwise, the words are so wide that no one will know where the expenses are to stop.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI think it may shorten the discussion if I explain that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do anything such as the hon. Gentleman fears, nor would the Minister certify anything of that kind. We see a very wide and clear distinction between the phrases "bringing the Bill before the House of Commons" and "bringing the Act into operation," and the words in the Bill are "bringing the Act into operation." It so happens that this is the only Sub-section which directly and mainly affects my own Department. 569 The principal object of inserting the words "whether before or after" is that the Minister may, without delay, certify expenditure in connection with getting the necessary office accommodation, through the Office of Works, for the Wheat Commission, together with a certain amount of office furniture and stationery, so that the moment the Wheat Commission is appointed and the Orders have been issued by the Minister there will be no delay in beginning operations.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWhile I readily accept the statement of the intentions of the Government, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the last two lines of the Memorandum he will see that it states:
No charge upon the Exchequer or local rates will be created by the Bill.If that is the case, clearly the expenses incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture will have to be met from the only source from which such expenses can be met if they are not to be a charge upon either the Exchequer or the rates. Where will all the money for the expenses incurred in the production of the Bill be found? That point, at least, calls for explanation. It seems to me that any expenses incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's Department or the Minister of Agriculture could be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of bringing the Act into being.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe hon. Member reads the explanatory Memorandum of the Bill as if it were a part of the Clauses which will eventually be the Act. Of course, that is not so. The word "Bill" is used in the Memorandum, which explains the general contents of the Bill. What is perfectly clear is that there will be no charge on the taxes or the rates to meet this expenditure upon office accommodation, furniture and stationery for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, and it will be met out of the Wheat Fund. The Minister, upon the establishment of the Wheat Commission, will earmark the necessary preliminary expenditure upon bringing the Act into operation.
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe right hon. Gentleman has cleared up this matter to a, certain extent, but I would point out that 570 we are being asked to depend to a great extent on good intentions. In a speech delivered yesterday we had a considerable disquisition upon good intentions, their use and abuse, by an expert on the subject. We are here asked to do something which is not usually done in a Bill; we are providing that certain payments shall be made and also providing a special means of taxation. This is analogous to the case of the Road Fund. We are providing for certain things to be done and for certain people to bear the expense, in this case the consumers. The Clause refers to expenditure
certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, in bringing the Act into operation.The right, hon. Gentleman says that is not their intention, and I do not suppose it is their intention, to include this other expenditure which has been referred to.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe expenditure would not be certified.
§ Mr. ATTLEEYes, but at the moment the over-riding object of this Government is to secure economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try to get every expense he can taken off the taxpayer in his Budget and put on to the consumers, and here will be a chance for him to do so. Under the Clause as it stands a great deal of the cost of the Ministry of Agriculture and all these elaborate negotiations with millers—any number of meetings, refreshments, and all that kind of thing—can be held to have been necessary to bring the Act into operation. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to provide housing accommodation and stationery for the Wheat Commission, let him say so, and let us have a Fourth Schedule setting it out.
Mr. PRICEI regard this Amendment as a very important one. Whether or not it is the intention of the Minister to abuse this power, the Clause as it is worded does permit him to charge certain expenditure in promoting the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, let us read it:
Any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation.[HON. MEMBERS: "This Act."] I suggest that this is a very dangerous procedure to introduce. Many Ministers 571 have held office who are fanatics. I think there are some on the Treasury Bench now. According to this Clause, a Minister could incur expenditure on some ideal he might have which Parliament has not sanctioned, and put that expenditure on to the fund. Meetings have been held between the Minister and farmers, supporters of the National Government, and other people associated in the promotion of this Measure. This procedure was not adopted when the Coal Mines Act was passed and a subsidy was given to the mining industry. It was definitely stated that no subsidy should be paid or expenditure incurred upon machinery to operate that Act until the Measure had actually been passed by Parliament; and to give a Minister power to certify expenditure to come out of the fund before the Measure is in operation is a very dangerous proceeding. It is a retrospective payment in respect of negotiations that took place before Parliament gave consent to the Measure, and is a dangerous proceeding.Not only is it dangerous in the case of the Wheat Bill, but it may form a dangerous precedent, because there may some a time when we shall occupy the benches opposite—I think there will—and we could encourage this procedure with, probably, beneficial results to our party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But we have never encouraged, and I hope that we shall never encourage as long as I am a Member of the party, propaganda built on fraud. This is an agreement to make provision for expenditure incurred on negotiations behind the scenes in promoting a Bill that puts a tariff on the loaf of the poorest of the people. We say that it is a very dangerous procedure, and we want to keep even the National Government straight as far as we can.
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSONI rise only for the purpose of seeing that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has a quiet night. There is really no difficulty about this at all, if we keep clearly in mind two quite different words having quite different meanings in the English language. One is the word "existence" and the other is operation. "If the Clause had said that the Minister was to have the power to certify expenditure which had been incurred in 572 bringing this Act into existence, there would have been much point in the observations of the hon. Member, but this Sub-section is perfectly correctly drafted and it provides quite plainly and in quite clear language that what is to be dealt with by the Minister's certificate is expenditure which is incurred in bringing the Act into operation. We have heard the Minister's explanation as to what is proposed to be certified under that provision. It is quite plain that the Minister has no power at all to certify expenditure which had been incurred in bringing the Act into existence, but, once it is passed, those things which he has done in order to see that it may be speedily brought into operation, so that the whole scheme can function, can be certified by him. With this explanation perhaps the hon. Member will realise that there is no great constitutional principle involved at all.
§ Mr. LOGANA Noble Lord told us a few minutes ago, as regards grammar, that in English it was quite correct, but in the drafting of Bills it would most likely be incorrect. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said exactly the opposite!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken states what it does mean, and I have to get back to English to find out whether the legal meaning is correct. I find here the expression "any expenditure." I imagine that in English that means all expenditure, subject to one provision which says "if certified by the Minister to have been incurred." To my mind "any" means "all." Therefore it would be quite sufficient if a certificate came along from the Minister to say that expenditure had been incurred; any expenditure would be absolutely correct. I am not giving a legal definition, but an English definition. I take it that any expense that would be incurred before the Act came into operation, unless this deletion was made, would be a charge, but that with the deletion made it could not be a charge.
Let us get away from legal jargon and get down to rock bottom and know what is really meant. If it is the purpose of the Minister to cover "any expenditure," that is all expenditure, let us know what is the expenditure that he wishes to cover. In the name of common sense let us know from what data he wants us to start. If he wants to cover any speci- 573 fied time let us know. We all know that in bringing anything forward expense must be incurred. Let us know what is the expense to be charged, how it is to be charged and whether this is to cover everything appertaining to this Bill. On the one side there is the legal aspect, and then from the same bench comes a contradiction, and we are told that we really do not understand what we are talking about. One can toss a penny up and it is always a double-headed penny. Without any legal phraseology what does the Minister mean by "any expenditure"? To my mind he wants to include retrospective expenditure. I want to know how far back he wishes to go. Can he give us a time limit?
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKSI agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that the operative word here is "operation," and that this expenditure is to be incurred in bringing the Act into operation. But how is the Act to be put into operation? Are the expenses merely such as the First Commissioner of Works told us, buildings and stationery and stamps and ink? Is that all that is meant by expenditure? It is a very complicated Bill and I want to know. Does it include the printing and publishing of pamphlets in plain English explaining to the various parties exactly what the Act means? Does it mean the expenditure on lectures by grammarians, noble or otherwise, to meetings of farmers explaining what the different provisions mean? Does it include the expenses incurred by lecturers in getting away from these meetings of infuriated farmers, driven off their heads by the complicated explanations given to them as to what the Clauses mean? We want some explanation from the Minister. The Clauses are very loosely drafted, and in bringing forward a Sub-section of this sort we think that the Minister has acted in a very casual way, especially at a time of national economy. It is essential that we get a serious explanation from the Minister now.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI do not want to weary the Minister by talking about certifying, but I am alarmed at what the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has said. I accept his statement as to the meaning of this proposal in law. If that is so, then the ex- 574 penditure which the Minister is going to certify is, apparently, something which he undertook in order to bring an Act into operation before it had been passed by this House. That seems to me to be a monstrous thing. I have never heard it suggested that before the approval of this House has been obtained in regard to a Measure steps are being taken to put it into operation. That is really what is being done. If this were expenditure to bring the Act into existence including things preparatory and necessary documents, it would be quite another matter.
§ Mr. RHYSIs it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Labour Minister of Education, did exactly the same thing in the case of the Education Bill?
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI do not know that he ever put the Act into operation.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThen I think he was wrong. I am concerned more with the idea that it is apparently becoming the practice to put Acts into operation before the House of Commons has adopted them. If the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater is correct, then the Minister has already put this Act into operation, and has incurred expenditure in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman is now asking the Committee to pass that as being a proper charge on the Wheat Fund. We certainly protest against any such grossly unconstitutional proceeding.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think that these indignant speeches are slightly overdone. May I remind the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the last Government, in the case of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, did exactly the same thing that we propose to do here. Let me be quite frank with the Committee. I do not want to ask for anything which is improper, nor am I asking this Committee to sanction any extravagant, wild expenditure, but bon. Members will realise that we are dealing with a problem, the urgency of which is most important. As soon as this Measure goes through both Houses of Parliament, which cannot be until after Easter, there lies ahead for those responsible for this work duties of very great importance, and it is essential that urgent steps should be 575 taken to make the working of the Measure as simple and easy as possible. It is solely for that reason that I desire to have the power to authorise and approve the drawing up of regulations, to try to get things in real working order, and to make arrangements which are necessary to make the Act work.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am not interested in this question as an expert on grammar or on law, but I think an extraordinary position has been taken up by the Minister. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is incurring certain expenditure which the House has not authorised in anticipation of a Bill that this House has not yet passed; he is trusting that the House will put the Bill through, and that it will also be put through another place. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill which got slightly mangled in another place. I do not know whether any expenditure under that Bill will have to be met by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is one danger in front of you. The House of Lords may reject this Bill. When I heard some of the speeches of the representatives of the agricultural interests, I thought that perhaps the Lords might have a go at this Bill, because they represent agriculture.
There is another and a greater danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is on the warpath—horrible thought—and during the Easter recess he
§ may be in communication with the Liberal associations. Then the dreaded moment will have come, and the Liberal Members of the Cabinet of all the talents will break up. Then who are you to leave to pay for it? We come in with a big majority and we shall be called upon to meet the iniquitous expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman. In view of all the political uncertainties, first of the House of Lords, and secondly of this tottering Government, whose existence now depends upon whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—who has now taken the oath and who has got 10 days to work his will outside—I think the House had better accept this proposal. Hon. Members opposite may get a surcharge, and if they happen to be the representatives of a local authority, they would be in the cart, like me. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater knows a good deal about this business, and I accept what he has said. I think this is what he had in mind when he was so anxious to prove that there was nothing in it. There is a good deal more in it than the hon. and learned Member thinks. I repeat that first the House of Lords may throw out this Measure, and, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs may throw the Liberals out of the Government, and then where will you be?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 41.
577| Division No. 122.] | AYES. | [10.14 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Conant, R. J. E. |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Cook, Thomas A. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Cooke, Douglas |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Broadbent, Colonel John | Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Craven-Ellis, William |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Browne, Captain A. C. | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Crossley, A. C. |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Caine, G. R. Hall- | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Donner, P. W. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Drewe, Cedric |
| Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Carver, Major William H. | Duggan, Hubert John |
| Bernays, Robert | Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Eastwood, John Francis |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Elmley, Viscount |
| Borodale, Viscount | Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Christie, James Archibald | Emrys-Evans, P. V. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Colfox, Major William Philip | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Colman, N. C. D. | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Colville, John | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Mabane, William | Rothschild, James A. de |
| Everard, w. Lindsay | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | McCorquodale, M. S. | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | McKie, John Hamilton | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterman | McLean, Major Alan | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Salmon, Major Isidore |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Maitland, Adam | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Marjoribanks, Edward | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Scone, Lord |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Martin, Thomas B. | Selley, Harry R. |
| Greene, William P. C. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Mitcheson, G. G. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Moreing, Adrian C. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd) | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Moss, Captain H. J. | Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Hartland, George A. | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Soper, Richard |
| Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Munro, Patrick | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Stones, James |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W.G. (Peterst'ld) | Storey, Samuel |
| Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) | Normand, Wilfrid Guild | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | North, Captain Edward T. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Howard, Tom Forrest | Nunn, William | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | O'Connor, Terence James | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Tate. Mavis Constance |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Templeton, William P. |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | Pearson, William G. | Thompson, Luke |
| Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Penny, Sir George | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Petherick, M. | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. | Pike. Cecil F | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Jennings, Roland | Pybus, Percy John | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Ramsden, E. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Ratcliffe, Arthur | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Leckie, J. A. | Rea, Walter Russell | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Leech, Dr. J. W. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Levy, Thomas | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Lewis, Oswald | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Womersley, Walter James |
| Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Robinson, John Roland | Wragg, Herbert |
| Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) | Ropner, Colonel L. | |
| Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Rosbotham, S. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Commander Southby and Mr. Blindell. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Batey, Joseph | Groves, Thomas E. | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Briant, Frank | Grundy, Thomas W. | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Price, Gabriel |
| Buchanan, George | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cape, Thomas | Hirst, George Henry | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Holdsworth, Herbert | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Cove, William G. | Jenkins, Sir William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Dagqar, George | Kirkwood, David | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawson, John James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Edwards, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert | Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Lunn, William | John. |
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price), to leave out paragraph (b), is covered by a previous decision of the Committee. The 578 next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to leave out paragraph (e), is out of Order, as it would require a Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out the second word "Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "Commons House of Parliament."
It is a rather remarkable coincidence that the more important Amendments to the Bill fall to me to be moved. I think, however, it is a coincidence; it is not because I know very much about the Measure that I have been asked to move any Amendment at all, but I will do my very best. I have, however, the consolation that I seem to know as much about it as anyone else, and, consequently, any mistake that I may make may not be found out. Sub-section (4) says:
The Wheat Commission shall, not less than one month before the beginning of each cereal year, prepare an estimate of their administrative expenses during that year and submit the estimate in such form as may he required by the Minister for approval by the Minister.I think that is giving too much power to the Minister. The object I have in view is to raise what hon. and learned Gentlemen have been talking about all day—a real, definite constitutional issue. I am not learned in the law. Nobody would believe me if I said that I was. I have been in this House long enough to see two or three things happen. I was very much disturbed in regard to one Bill, and I want to give the history of that Bill as an illustration of what is happening practically under all Governments in this country. Hon. Members will notice that we are setting up under the present Bill a Wheat Commission, and once we have set up that Commission and passed this Bill into law, Parliament will have practically finished with the whole of the transaction. In fact it is a very important factor in the Bill we are now discussing. Let me remind hon. Members of what has already happened. I was here when the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up, and at that time everybody thought that Parliament would be entitled to discuss the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation in detail. We found out later on that we could not do so. I also remember the time when the Carlisle liquor scheme was passed through this House.
§ Mr. DAVIESI am sure that I have one supporter, anyway. I will not go into the pros and cons of the liquor trade.
§ Mr. DAVIESIt is a fact that Parliament_ passed Measures dealing with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Carlisle liquor scheme and handed the authority and control of those two institutions over to committees, and, in fact, Parliament has practically lost control over the whole of their operations. Let me give one or two more illustrations. There is the Port of London Authority.
Viscountess ASTORMay I ask the hon. Gentleman if he does not think that the board set up to deal with the Carlisle liquor trade has done splendid work?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is only entitled to mention the Carlisle liquor scheme to show that Parliament has abrogated its powers, but it is not in order to discuss the merits or demerits of the Liquor Control Board.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs not an hon. Member entitled to illustrate the need for this board to be either within or without Parliamentary control, or to argue the success or non-success of such a body, to give an illustration of how successful it can be?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf we were to discuss the Carlisle Liquor Board, the discussion might go on for the rest of the evening, and it would be far apart from this Bill.
§ Mr. DAVIESI am entirely with the Deputy-Chairman, and I shall follow his orders to the last word. [Interruption.] My views about the Carlisle scheme are not germane to the issue this evening.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. DAVIESAs I said, we are merely parting with powers under the Bill, and we shall never be able to recover them. It is a very important point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind. I will give another illustration. I remember the Betting Control Board. I was on the Committee upstairs. [Interruption.] I have never put a shilling on a horse in my life. When I was on the Standing Committee upstairs I felt positive that every Member of the Committee was under the impression that when we were giving power to the Racecourse 581 Betting Control Board the operations of that board would come before Parliament, and that we should be able to discuss them. I have asked on several occasions from more than one Government whether we could discuss the operations of that board, and on all occasions we have been denied that opportunity. Therefore, we say that unless the Government accept our Amendment the Wheat Commission will be entirely outside the control of Parliament. On an issue like this, where we are asking the consumers to give money to the bakers, the bakers to give money to the flour millers, and the flour millers to give money to the farmers, the operations of the Wheat Commission ought to be subject to Parliamentary control.
We have been helping the Government to put this Bill into shape and I am certain that had it not been for our efforts it would not be workable in some particulars. I will give another example in support of my case—the Electricity Control Board. In spite of Conservative domination in Governments, and the Labour party being in office on occasion, we are definitely developing in this country separate bodies controlling the affairs of the nation, without any Parliamentary control. We ought to be very careful what we do in this matter. I am afraid that once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and we try to put questions in this House in order to find out how the scheme is operating, we shall be ruled out of order. Mr. Speaker will say that the Wheat Commission has had its powers delegated to it by Parliament and that no question is permissible in regard to its operations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe Amendment means, in effect, that the Wheat Commission's Estimates shall be presented to the House of Commons for approval. As the expenses of that Commission will not be borne by public funds, they cannot be considered in Committee of Supply. The proper occasion for their discussion will no doubt be on the Vote for the Salary of the Minister of Agriculture or the salaries of the other Ministers who are mentioned in the Bill. Those Ministers will be jointly responsible for the supervision of the operations of the Wheat Commission and for the approval of the Estimates. I am satisfied that 582 particulars of the Commission's expenses will always be obtainable by question and answer in either House of Parliament. Therefore, I think the anxiety of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite is not as real as they imagine. I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESWill the right hon. Gentleman accept responsibility for the estimates of the Wheat Commission?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe estimates for the operations of the Wheat Commission will have to be submitted to me for approval, and also the rules and orders which they make. Therefore, there will be a very large measure of control.
§ Mr. JONESWill it be open to this House at any given moment on the appropriate day to move a reduction in the estimates presented to the Minister by the Wheat Commission, or must we accept a statement from him?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe proper procedure will be to raise the matter on the salaries of the Minister of Agriculture or of the other Ministers who are responsible.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI hope the Amendment will be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if the Opposition desire the work of the Wheat Commission can be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Agriculture—
§ Sir J. GILMOURNot only the Opposition—
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe right hon. Gentleman knows that Supply days are usually confined to the Opposition. I agree that one does not know who the Opposition are from one day to another, because the supporters of the Government change like the weather, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the supporters of the Government who usually criticise the salary of Ministers. Therefore, no section of his own supporters will bring up the work of the Wheat Commission. When we discuss the salary of a Minister the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Debate usually embraces scores of questions, whereas the Amendment definitely asks that before the recommendations of the Wheat Commission become law they must have the approval of the House of Commons. The difference, 583 therefore, is this, that when we discuss—if the Opposition desires—the salary of the Minister of Agriculture it may involve many other subjects, the Amendment, if accepted, means that this particular question must be discussed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that there is a great tendency on the part of all Governments to take matters outside the control of Parliament and give them to outside bodies. I am not arguing whether this is good or bad, but if Parliament is going to do that it should do it in a straightforward manner. Other questions far more important than this have been taken out of the control of Parliament. Recently a book written by an eminent counsel deplored the absence of Parliamentary control from policy and administration. We have the same question cropping up in connection with the Ministry of Labour. Decisions are being given by the umpire, and by courts of referees of immense legal importance and tremendously far-reaching consequences. They are actually giving decisions which are more far-reaching than the Act itself. Without the safeguard of the law courts, without public discussion, without consideration by trained lawyers on both sides. The Labour Government in one of their Acts—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member in trying to raise the question of the means test, but he cannot do so on this Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI have not yet mentioned the means test and I have no intention of arguing it. I am arguing about the question of outside control.
Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLENOn a point of Order. As there is no charge on the Exchequer, or on the rates, does this matter arise?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not quite follow the hon. and gallant Member's point.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENThere is no charge in the Bill on the Exchequer or on the rates. Does this question, therefore, arise?
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe proposal is to take this matter out of the control of 584 Parliament and I am illustrating the objection to that course by mentioning one Measure of the Labour Government—not the means test. They placed the making of conditions for unemployed people right outside the control of Parliament which was a shocking thing to do. The most that can be said for this proposal is that it is less vicious than what the previous Government did but it is no less wrong in principle. It is often argued against the small group who sit here that we have less respect for Parliamentary institutions than others. I often wish that hon. Members really believed in the Parliament to which they are asking other people to pay respect. I believe in Parliamentary work and Parliamentary control. I do not believe in the mock respect which is a matter of bowing and walking out. I believe in real Parliamentary control which goes beyond the ceremonial stage, which means active work and day to day control. I look upon this Amendment as raising the most important principle which the Opposition have raised in this discussion, and I hope that the Opposition will vote for the principle that the affairs of this Commission should be subject to Parliamentary discussion. I object fundamentally to secret business and to trying to pass things through without the full light of Parliamentary discussion and authority.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThe Minister said that the Estimate of the Wheat Commission could be discussed either by question and answer or on his Vote. But how is anybody to know what is in the Estimate? If it is never published to the House of Commons how can anybody start to criticise it? The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that he should be asked to state what is the Estimate put forward by the Wheat Commission for the current year and that he should give the whole of the Estimate in an answer. The difficulty which we foresee is that, although it may be possible to discuss it on the right hon. Gentleman's Vote, Members can never get the information, unless some provision is made that this information shall be before the House of Commons. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what means he thinks will be available for Members of this House to have access to the estimates which are put before him, in order that they may, if they wish, bring 585 forward criticisms of those estimates, because it seems to me an important matter that this body, which will administer perhaps a sum of between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 and which may spend we do not know what in administrative expenses, should be open to criticism by any Member of the House.
§ Mr. O'CONNORI wonder whether the speech of the Mover of the Amendment was not delivered under a misapprehension. If the Committee will turn to Clause 6, they will see that all the receipts into the fund and the payments out of the fund, which presumably include the administrative expenses, have to be certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and are then laid before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament has complete control over the accounts of the previous year. Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 deals only with the estimates for the administrative expenses of the forthcoming year, and one would imagine that there was ample scope for Parliament to deal with the whole matter in discussing the actual expenditure of the previous year, as laid before the House under Clause 6, Sub-section (3). Anxious as I am to prevent any undue encroachment by the bureaucracy on Parliament, it would nevertheless seem a little unreasonable that the mere preparation of administrative estimates should not remain under the control of the Minister.
§ Mr. CAPEI think the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) is really in favour of our Amendment. If it is right that certain expenditure and certain income should be under the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is also right that those expenses should be subjected to Parliamentary control. At the present time Ministers put in Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for their various Departments of what will be spent, but there is no such provision made for these particular estimates, and I suggest that Parliament should have this control. We are giving away to commissions and committees things over which it is really the prerogative of this Parliament to have jurisdiction, and I suggest to the Minister that there cannot be anything wrong in accepting the Amendment, because if it were carried, 586 Parliament would have proper control of what is really public money. After all, we all have to admit that money which will come under the supervision of the Wheat Commission is money that will be derived from the taxation and so on in regard to wheat. Consequently, that money being contributed by the taxpayers in one form or another, ought to be under Parliamentary control. Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe very eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) indicated, I think, that he had not taken the trouble to read the Bill before he made it. He suggested that the Bill would take power away from Parliament and put it under a corporation over which there would be no control, but if he will read the Bill Clause by Clause, he will find that nearly every vital decision is in fact to be taken by the Minister and, therefore, can be criticised on the Vote for his salary. If he will read Clause 7, he will find that in any event in most years the administrative expenses of the Commission will indirectly come before Parliament, or can be brought before Parliament, because if the Minister varies the quota payment, on the ground that there has been a surplus or a deficiency in the previous year, the whole of the expenses come under review.
§ Mr. BUCHANANSurely we are going to have some further reply from the Government. This is the first speech I have made in the discussion, and, apparently, no reply is to be returned. That is Tory fairness. It will certainly be "No" as far as I am concerned, and I shall take an active part on this Bill in that case.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI want to make it clear that there is no public money involved, and therefore it cannot come on in Supply. The point that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made cannot therefore arise. These are decisions for which the Minister is responsible, and there are precedents in other Acts for dealing with this matter in exactly the same manner. There can be a very full discussion upon the salaries of the three Ministers concerned. In these circumstances, I think the House will see that we are acting on precedent—that of the Electricity Commission is one—and, in view of the fact that there 587 is no public money involved, I think we are in order in taking the line that we have taken.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWould the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we are to know what is in the Estimates if we wish to criticise them?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think a great deal of that information can be obtained by question and answer.
§ Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN collected the voices, and stated that he thought that the Ayes had it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. I went on saying "No" each time you put the Question. Am I not entitled as a Member to say "No," and are you not entitled, Mr. Chairman, to take the Noes? Am I not entitled to a Division, even if it be to stand up, as long as I continue to say "No," and I am duly heard? Should not that be taken notice of, and am I not entitled at least to have the privilege of standing up in that connection?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member desires the privilege of standing up, I am prepared to give it to him.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWell, I am prepared to take it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 15, line 18, after the word "Commission," to insert the words:
with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may impose.This Amendment stands with the next Amendment in line 20, to leave out from 588 the word "expenses," to the end of the Sub-section. These Amendments are moved exclusively for the purpose of clarity, and to avoid several lines in the Sub-section which appear to be redundant. If the Amendments were accepted, the Sub-section would read:The Wheat Commission with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may impose, hall have power to borrow such sums as may be required by them for the purpose of defraying their administrative expenses.If the words following the word "expenses" were deleted, these loans could be obtainable only by the consent of the Minister, and under such conditions as the Minister lays down. The purpose of the Minister would be fulfilled, and a number of redundant words would be disposed of. The Wheat Commission ought not to be permitted to secure loans of any kind without having first of all obtained the consent of the Minister. If, however, the Sub-section remains as it is, the Wheat Commission can secure loans without even consulting the Minister and only after the Minister had been consulted would it be necessary for him to lay down certain conditions in regard to repaying the principal and interest of loans. If the Amendments were accepted, the Sub-section would be much clearer and the same object would he obtained.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe two Amendments referred to would require that the consent of the Minister should be obtained to any borrowing in any circumstances. I am clear that the right proceeding is that which is provided for in Sub-section (5) of Clause 9, which requires that, the consent of the Minister should be obtained to any borrowing by the Commission which will not be repaid by them before the end of a cereal year, and might, therefore, not be of a temporary character. Such control is important, and it is completely assured. As to the other points, all the administrative expenses of the Commission will require prior approval by the Minister, and I think it is really asking more than is essential for proper control if the Commission have to seek further approval to borrow a purely temporary loan from the Bank of England, because, after all, they can only borrow within the bounds of the temporary expenditure which has already been approved by the Minister. As long as it is kept closely to that, and will not 589 include any loan which goes beyond the cereal year, I think we achieve all reasonable control.
§ Amendment negatived.