COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 25 November 1930)

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
I have given private notice to the noble Lord opposite of my intention to raise a small point. On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord said:— The only two new provisions are that the Colonial Naval Defence Acts of 1865 and 1909 empower the legislative authority of each Colony to provide vessels of war and to raise seamen and others bound to serve in such vessels. Further on he said:— The second point is that, whilst the Acts already provide that such vessels, crews and volunteers may be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, no provision exists for the training of the crews or volunteers outside the territorial waters of each particular Colony. Then, later, he went on to say:— The two Acts are embodied in the Bill without alteration, except for those two small provisions which legal opinion states to be necessary to give effect to the intention of the original Act. On the face of it that does not seem to he quite accurate, because under the Bill which we are now discussing it is stated that: any such expenses may be so paid, if, and so far as, the Commons House of Parliament hereafter think fit to make provision by Resolution for that purpose. 317 But in Clause 9 of the Act of 1865 this is what we read: Nothing done under this Act by Order in Council, or by the Admiralty, or otherwise, shall impose any charge on the revenues of the United Kingdom without express provision made by Parliament for meeting the same. I know that the present Government consider that the House of Commons is Parliament, but I do not think that we on this side quite agree, and this matter calls for some explanation.

§ LORD PASSFIELD
I am obliged to the noble Viscount for having had the courtesy to inform me of the point he was going to raise, and I confess that if he had not given me notice, I should have been in very considerable difficulty, because it is a minute and extremely technical drafting point. At the time that the Act of 1865 was passed it was apparently the custom, if an expense had to be incurred, that it should simply be proposed in the Estimates and voted in Supply, and, of course, be authorised by the Appropriation Act. Apparently the custom has so far changed. The Public Accounts Committee have made various objections to any new expenditure appearing in that way merely as a Vote in Supply without any specific direction from the House; and accordingly the draftsman changed the phrase. Instead of saying "without express provision made by Parliament for meeting the same," he altered the phrase to that which is now in the Bill, requiring a definite Resolution by Parliament.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
By the House of Commons.

§ LORD PASSFIELD
Yes, by the House of Commons. I should remind your Lordships that the privileges of this House are not at all in doubt, because as a matter of fact the Appropriation Bill, which is the sole legislative authority, necessarily comes before your Lordships' House. The change is simply, as I understand it, between a 'Vote in Supply of the House of Commons followed by the Appropriation Bill, and a specific Resolution of the House of Commons. That, I am advised, of course, does not obviate the necessity for the Appropriation Bill, without which nothing can be issued from the exchequer. This wording was put in to 318 comply with the change in practice that there should be a specific Resolution and not merely a Vote in Supply prior to the charge being put into the Appropriation Bill. It must be a Vote of the House of Commons for such a purpose, passed as an instruction to the draftsman of the Appropriation Bill. But, as I understand it, not a peony can be issued from the Exchequer without the authority of the Appropriation Bill. I do not profess to understand any more than what I have stated to your Lordships. This is a technical point of drafting, and I am advised that the words of the Act of 1865 would not be sufficient to meet the practice that is followed.
We do not foresee any expenditure from the Exchequer at all, as a matter of fact. But if these vessels were to be handed over and dealt with by the Admiralty, no doubt an expense would fall upon the British Exchequer. In that ease there would have to be a Vote of the House of Commons and not merely provision made, which might be understood to mean merely the ordinary Vote in Supply. I think your Lordships will see that, as regards this House, the procedure is the same. The authority will be the Appropriation Act. But, as regards the preliminary proceedings in another place, instead of merely having a Vote in Supply, preparatory to putting it into the Appropriation Bill, there would have to be a substantial and definite Resolution prescribing the proposed expenditure before it could be put into the Appropriation Bill. I should be very glad, if your Lordships feel that there is anything more to be explained in the matter, to have it dealt with again on Third Reading.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am very loth to set myself up as an authority on a matter of this technical character, but I felt very glad indeed that the noble Lord said at the end of his speech that he was prepared to reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading, because certainly, on the face of it, the case, as put by my noble friend behind me, does not seem to be adequately met by the noble Lord's answer. He did not tell us, for example, whether there was any 319 precedent for the words which appear in the Bill. I do not know of any precedent for the particular form for which authority is given. But certainly upon the face of the clause it seems that we are asked to enact that if the House of Commons pass a Resolution, that shall be a sufficient authority for the payment of this money. I know that the noble Lord did not content himself with that. He said that the Resolution would be ineffective unless it were followed by an Appropriation Act, but I confess that, as the words stand, that does not appear on the face of it to be the case. The words in the Bill are complete. They say that no money shall be paid unless there is a Resolution of the House of Commons, and it follows, therefore, that if there is a Resolution of the House of Commons the money may be paid; and this Bill, when it has passed through both Houses of Parliament and become an Act, will be quite as authoritative as any Appropriation Act, and therefore the Appropriation Act, unless, of course, it repealed in any form has been done here, would have to be read with it, and this Resolution would be effective, I should have thought, without any further Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord opposite said that all that this does is to give an additional safeguard so that a Resolution would be necessary as well as an Appropriation Act. I cannot think that he has fully followed the advice which must have been given to him, because the question whether a Resolution of the House of Commons is necessary to precede an Appropriation Bill is a matter entirely for the House of Commons itself. But an Act of Parliament has nothing whatever to do with it. The Appropriation Act, whether it has been preceded by a Resolution or not, when it comes to your Lordships' House is a Bill, and when it is passed by you is fully effective, even it there has been no Resolution in Committee of Supply before it; and it would not be at all regular for us to put into an Act of Parliament that the House of Commons cannot pass an Appropriation Bill unless there has been a Resolution in Committee of Supply before. That is a purely domestic matter for them, to deal with. And therefore if there were anything in the defence of the noble Lord, if I may so call it, it would mean 320 that we were invading the privileges of the House of Commons by enacting any such words as are in the Bill. I cannot think that they are rightly drawn. I cannot help suspecting that when the noble Lord asks his advisers, as he has promised us, he will find that he had better fall back on the old form—namely, that this money cannot be expended without the authority of Parliament.

§ LORD PASSFIELD
I will only say in reply to the noble Marquess that I will certainly look into this question and raise it again on the next stage, the Report stage, so that the matter can be thoroughly investigated.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer he has given, although I am not sure that I have followed it entirely. Until I see it in black and white it is rather difficult to do so. In the meantime, I reserve my rights for the Report stage.