§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-GilesI beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 20, line 9, leave out 'the consolidated fund' and insert:
'a seamen's fund approved by the Board of Trade'.Paragraph 297 of the Pearson Committee's Report says:There was an attractive suggestion … that the fines should be paid over to seamen's charities. Unless this suggestion would contravene some important constitutional principle (of which we are not aware) we think it should be adopted.That is a specific recommendation.This suggestion would take some of the sting out of the infliction of a fine and, whatever the Government of the day, it could take the subject of fining seamen out of the political arena. I presume that the Minister has had time to consider this suggestion and to see 1476 whether there are constitutional principles involved.
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsI have a great deal of sympathy with this suggestion, as I said when the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised the matter in Committee. I have looked at it again with great sympathy, but I find that this could not be done without a specific provision, justified by the needs of the charity which is being supported by the State, because it would be a diversion of money from the State. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the Pearson Committee which found this an attractive suggestion, but thought that it should not be adopted if it contravened some important constitutional principle. Opinions may vary about the importance of the constitutional principle, but nevertheless it is a substantial one, that moneys shall not be diverted from the Consolidated Fund so that Parliament alone may decide how they shall be spent.
I regret having to make this reply to the hon. and gallant Member. However, having looked at the proposal very carefully, and taken the best advice I could—which is very good indeed—I think we would be ill-advised to proceed with this extremely well-intentioned and attractive Amendment.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI have enormous sympathy with this Amendment.
I have been very much attracted by it. At one point I was tempted to think that we should throw our whole weight behind it, but here there is the thin end of the wedge. If we started with this, where would be the end in connection with disciplinary fines or fines imposed in the courts? The repercussions from accepting the Amendment, attractive though it is, could be difficult. Under the circumstances, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will think it right not to press the Amendment to a Division, but to withdraw it.
I think there is an idea here which should be further explored. I do not know whether it is possible in another place, with the great weight of legal advice which can be drawn on there, to think it wise to take a plunge which I certainly am not prepared on my own to take. I advise my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. DunnI ask my right hon. Friend to look at this proposal again. There are industries in which there are fines for non-observance of discipline. I am under the impression that sums of money so obtained do not go to the Consolidated Fund. It may be that in another place this suggestion could be looked at. If so there may be no reason why there could not be an arrangement to examine this excellent and worthy cause, particularly for the men and ships with which we are concerned.
§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-GilesIn view of what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench and the undertaking by the Minister to see if there is some way round the constitutional principle, because it is absurd to be hamstrung by a constitutional principle involving such sums of money when hon. Members on both sides of the House wish such a proposal to be adopted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.