HC Deb 02 April 1935 vol 300 cc236-7

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.11 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I should like to know if we can be told by some member of the Government what sort of powers are referred to in this Clause. The Clause envisages that the Federal Legislature might supplement the powers of the Federal Court. Perhaps the Secretary of State can give us an idea of the powers which will be covered by this Clause before we pass from it.

5.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This is a Clause put in purely out of precaution, in case it should turn out that in some very important and vital matter some supplemental power is necessary for the purpose of enabling the court more effectively to exercise its jurisdiction. Where you are dealing with such important matters as this, it is thought wise to put in an enabling Clause to enable the Legislature, should the need arise, to fill up the gap. The Committee will see that the powers under the Clause are definitely limited and restricted. The powers are to be such as may appear necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Act. Necessarily, there is no specific point in mind or the Clause would have been made specific. The Legislature will have the power, should it be required, to confer upon the court the powers necessary to enable it to perform the functions placed upon it under the Bill.

5.13 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO

Is the real purpose of this Clause to avoid the necessity of passing amending legislation in this House in the event of supplemental powers being required by the Federal Court? I would point out that it is rather a curious method of procedure that we should go into the most minute details in setting up a Federal Court in this Bill which will become an Act of Parliament, and then say that another Legislature, the Federal Legislature, should in fact be empowered to enlarge the powers of the court in any way necessary so long as the supplemental powers are not inconsistent with what has been passed by this House. We shall have this position, that the Federal Court will have powers enacted by legislation passed by two different bodies—the Houses of Parliament here and the Federal Legislature which is to be set up in India. I do not know whether this is going to be the rule in other matters, but it seems to be a rather curious rule to set up as a new precedent. The rule always has been that a law passed by this House could not be amended by any other Legislature.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Would this make it possible for the Federal Legislature to take away any appellate powers from a High Court and place these in the hands of the Federal Court?

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.