HC Deb 27 July 1956 vol 557 cc875-7
Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, to leave out "Lord Privy Seal" and insert: Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster". Perhaps I may refer at the same time to the corresponding Amendment to page 4, line 2, to leave out "Lord Privy Seal" and insert: Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster". Quite frankly, I have not much hope of success. The Government have lighted on the Lord Privy Seal, and I gave the reasons on Second Reading why I thought it silly to have two Ministers, one of whom is managing one lot of Crown lands while another is managing another lot of Crown lands, or being responsible for them, to be more accurate. At any rate, there are two Ministers with their respective staffs and all the rest of it.

I should have thought that a Tory Government that wanted to reduce the number of these offices might have been more attracted by this prospect than they appear to be. Still, it is not the last word. I suppose that we might on a further review come back to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at a time when he may have returned, as it were, notionally to this House instead of being in another place. I do not find it in my heart to move with very great fervour that we should go to another place for this purpose. I move this Amendment in the faint hope that the Government may have been converted at the last moment.

Mr. H. Brooke

I hope that I shall be able to prove to the Committee that the Government have not been entirely arbitrary in selecting the Lord Privy Seal for this duty. The position is that the Duchy estates are in different ownership from the Crown Estate and that they are managed under a completely different set of Acts. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, who I know has a special interest in all these matters, cares to pursue them he will find that the main statutes covering the Duchy are the Civil List Act, 1702, the Crown and Duchy Land Revenues Improvement Act, 1808, and the Crown and Duchy Lands Act, 1812, none of which I propose to expound to the Committee at this hour of the afternoon.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the income from the Duchy of Lancaster is, unlike the income from the Crown Estate, not paid into any form of public purse. What would happen if his Amendment were adopted? There would always be the possibility of a conflict of interests between the two estates, and that, on some occasions, might conceivably put the Minister into an embarrassing position—for instance, to put it at its crudest, if a particularly inviting investment came to his notice, which of the two interests should be enabled to take advantage of it.

I am not pressing that as a situation which is likely to arise, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect what the Eve Committee said about the importance of the Minister selected having no competing responsibilities as to the use of land. The Lord Privy Seal seems to satisfy all the three requirements. As I said on Second Reading, he is a senior Minister and, unlike the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has no competing responsibilities as to the use of land. Thirdly, the office he holds has historical associations with the Royal household.

I think that the Government had good cause for recommending that outside Scotland the Lord Privy Seal should be the responsible Minister. I am afraid that I may have shattered the faint hopes of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I fear that I cannot give him two Amendments running.

Mr. Mitchison

In view of the very interesting, but wholly unconvincing, answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.