LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL. (Hansard, 4 June 1924)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I should like to say just a few words upon the present stage of this Bill. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Strachie, who is responsible for the Amendment that was introduced into the Bill, is unable to be present to-day, and he has asked me to make one or two remarks on his behalf. It really is in the nature of an appeal to His Majesty's Government. Those of your Lordships who were present when we dealt with this matter in Committee will remember that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, and also, I think, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, both insisted 912 on a point of privilege, and asked your Lordships not to consider the Amendment simply on that ground. The merits of the Amendment were never discussed at all by any speaker on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Whether the Amendment was, on its merits, good or bad really was not touched upon by either of the speakers on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think that was, if I may say so, rather a mistake.
We all know that Amendments of this kind are frequently introduced in your Lordships' House, and that a question of privilege is frequently waived in another place. Amendments exactly like this are admitted, even though there may be technical questions of privilege in the way. The real danger which will follow if His Majesty's Government, on similar Bills on future occasions, abstain from arguing the question on merits, is that a Bill will run the risk of being rejected even on Second Reading. If a Bill is rejected on Second Reading no question of privilege arises at all. If Amendments which in themselves are sound are not to be considered on their merits but are to be rejected without discussion merely on the ground of privilege, it may make legislation in this House of a somewhat summary character, because noble Lords who have Amendments which are sound, if they realise that His Majesty's Government will not consider them on their merits but will simply dismiss them without a further word on the question of privilege, will be tempted to ask your Lordships' House to reject a Bill on Second Reading. That, I think, would be a very great misfortune, and it is in order to prevent that happening in future-there is no question of it being done on this Bill—that I venture to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, there are instances very different from that in question here to which the observations of my noble friend would apply. This is a Money Bill, and it is well known that the Upper House cannot amend a Money Bill. Here is a case in which the question was the difference between two years and one year. The Amendment proposed to cut down the provision by one half. That clearly is a matter of money, and, therefore, the question of privilege applies.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Viscount is mistaken. Surely Money Bills come up with a Certificate from the Speaker of the other House.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That is another thing altogether.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I agree this may be a matter of privilege. That is a matter for the Speaker in another place to decide. I do not think that this Bill is a Money Bill, technically.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just sat clown is abundantly justified in correcting the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. We are very familiar with what is a Money Bill. That Bill is a Money Bill which reaches us with a Certificate from the Speaker to that effect. The noble and learned Viscount persistently declines to realise the difference of treatment, by the practice of Parliament, as between charges which are thrown upon the State in the shape of taxes and charges which are thrown on the subject in the shape of rates. He will find, if he looks at the precedents, that where it is a question of rates the House of Commons is much more accustomed to waive its privilege than to insist upon it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If it were necessary to do so I could read a paragraph from Sir Erskine May's book to the same effect as that which I have stated.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am not relying on Sir Erskine May's book. I am relying on our own working of the 914 Constitution. I confess that I always find it difficult to understand Sir Erskine May's book. It is a monumental work, but it is written in such a style that it is difficult for the ordinary man to follow it. The practice of the Constitution is as I have stated: rates are treated on a different footing to taxes by the House of Commons, The noble Lord says that this is a matter for the Speaker. Primarily it is, of course, a matter for the Speaker, but it is really a matter for the House of Commons itself. I must say that I think the noble Earl is abundantly justified in pointing out to your Lordships and to the Government that if the Government run this doctrine of privilege too hard, and use it to prevent discussion on an Amendment that is otherwise quite justified, the only result is to drive your Lordships to take the more extreme step of rejecting the Bill itself. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does not wish us to do that, and I hope the Government will use their influence in another place to have this Amendment, which is a good Amendment in itself, allowed, notwithstanding that it may be a breach of privilege.