§ 11.42 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. MorrisonI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is preparatory to an Amendment which follows.
Lords AmendmentIn page 13, line 20, leave out Sub-section (3) and insert:
(3) Any scheme made under this section, and any subsequent scheme amending a scheme so made, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it has been approved by the Treasury, and if either House of Parliament, within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, resolves that the scheme be annulled, the scheme shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new scheme.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
§ 11.43 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. MorrisonI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides that the arrangements, which are now described as schemes, on account of the Amendment to which we have just agreed, shall be laid before Parliament. It is moved in order to make these schemes conform to the procedure governing similar schemes provided for in Part I. There is nothing of administrative importance in it.
Mr. AlexanderAs you, Sir, have reminded the House that this raises a question of Privilege, I wonder whether the form of the Clause is appropriate. These are schemes in respect of which a grant of public money is involved. It would be possible, according to the Amendment, for the operation of a scheme to be interfered with by reason of some action taken in another place. This Amendment refers to either House of Parliament. I think we ought to be certain as to whether this is following the common form in regard to matters in which public money is involved, and if not, we ought not to allow it to pass.
§ Mr. MorrisonI think I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. The schemes in question are analogous to the schemes which are provided for in Part I, that is to say, the application of lime and basic slag to the soil. We had a discussion in the House on the matter, and agreed that in cases of this character, where indeed some considerable financial interest is involved, but where at the same time matters of policy are closely interwoven with the application of sums of money, this form of procedure was appropriate. In the case of this Clause, which deals with the administration of the attested herds scheme, matters of policy are also raised and are very closely intermixed with matters of finance. The schemes will have to provide the conditions under which a herd may be deemed to be attested, and it is quite likely that this House and the other place might like to express an opinion on the matter from time to time, to say, for example, that the conditions of attestation were too low, or that more strict supervision should he exercised, or indeed that they were too high. One could conceive very important issues of 3485 policy with regard to the dairy industry being raised on this sort of matter. The two matters arc almost identical in constitutional importance and I see no objection to the House's agreement with the Amendment.
Mr. DavidsonIf we agreed to the Amendment and if, in future, it is decided to debate certain cases of attestation, will it still be within the privilege of this House to exercise its own powers, as regards any financial provision?
§ Mr. MorrisonThe Amendment leaves completely unimpaired the general financial control of the House over its own Votes, but it would be in order for us or for the other place to discuss the mere political and machinery provisions of a scheme. If there were disagreement, one could always put forward a new Order to resolve the matter. There is no question of giving up our privilege in matters of finance.
§ 11.46 p.m.
Mr. AlexanderI regard this Amendment as much more important on the question of privilege than the Minister has made it out to be. All previous schemes of this kind for dealing with agricultural matters have required affirmative resolutions of this House to put them into operation. These schemes will not require affirmative resolutions but as the Bill left this House to go to another place, there was no provision in it by which the other place, as well as this House, could annul a scheme, the very operation of which depended upon granting of finance by this House. I think it is an exceedingly fortunate regulation which provides that attention should be called to the question of privilege on these occasions and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have duly carried it out by bringing to the notice of the House that this Amendment raises a question of privilege.
Speaking for the Opposition, one must have regard not merely to this Amendment, but to possible Bills, which may be sent by a future Government from this Chamber to another place dealing with schemes—and I use the words specially—not confined to agriculture, but including political and economic planning, and put forward perhaps by a Socialist Government. The reception of those pro- 3486 posals in another place may be based upon the precedent which we are establishing to-night. This is a matter of importance and I have not received from the Minister an answer to the question: Is there any precedent, in connection with schemes which depend upon the granting of finance by this House, for the adoption of a provision which makes it possible for another place to annul such schemes by separate action on its own part? Unless we receive a more satisfactory explanation than has been available so far, we shall have to insist on this Amendment being withdrawn.
§ 11.49 p.m.
§ Mr. KellyNot only on this occasion but on other occasions has another place claimed powers, which the Constitution of this country says that it should not have. Here we have a determined effort on the part of those in another place to take to themselves additional powers and to deprive this House of its right to control finance. Under this proposal, this House should come to a decision on a matter which is essential to the national life, like agriculture, and if another place does not like our decision, it can refuse to pass the affirmative resolution and the whole business will be held up. That is a power which must not be given, and if the Government of to-day are prepared to undo the work of centuries, as far as carrying on the affairs of Parliament is concerned, then I hope the country will take note of the fact. Even if a majority of the House carries the Amendment against us to-night it will be for the country to see that its power in Parliament is not taken away from it by the action of that other place, which is endeavouring time after time to try and dig itself in, so that it may have a greater power over the people than it has been allowed to have.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speakerrose—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe Minister has already spoken three times.
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
Lords AmendmentIn page 13, line 28, after "been," insert "sanctioned by a scheme," agreed to.—[Special Entry.]