HL Deb 07 July 1931 vol 81 cc637-40

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Removal of doubts as to conditions which may be attached under s. 2 (1) of the principal Act.

3. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions beting attached to any authorisation granted under that subsection (which relates to the marking with the grade designation mark of any article in respect of which such a mark has been prescribed or of any covering containing or label attached to any such article) shall include and shall be deemed always to have included power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with the manufacture or use of any die, block, machine, or other instrument requisite for the purpose of the reproduction of the mark, or with the manufacture or use of any covering or label marked therewith.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Lord said: This clause is one for the removal of doubts, and it is said that it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions being attached"— to certain things— shall include and shall be deemed always to have included"— that is retrospective to begin with— power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses"— that imposes a charge upon the subject which I understood your Lordships could not do— incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with certain things. Then follow the things for which he can authorise expenses.

Some years ago, for the first time, there was introduced into the House of Commons a clause of a somewhat similar character. It was, indeed, of a more far-reaching character, because it gave power to the Minister to do practically what he liked, and if a Court of Law interfered he said: "Well, here is Parliament which allows me to do what I like." It would have allowed him to do what he liked without going to Parliament. This clause does not go quite so far as that, but it goes some way in the same direction, because it gives power to the Minister to spend money which has not been authorised by any Resolution in Committee of Supply. There would have to be a Resolution, I presume, in Committee of Supply. I see my noble friend Lord Ullswater present; he will put me right if I am wrong. But this is a House of Lords Bill and not a House of Commons Bill, and the expense would have to be authorised by a Resolution in Committee of Supply.

As I understand it, it is entirely against the opinions of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite that anything should be introduced into this House which in any kind of way interferes with the Privileges of the Commons. I think I remember only a few weeks ago, on another Bill, that being emphasised very strongly by noble Lords who, I think, said it was a dreadful thing when my noble friend Lord Hailsham said something about Privileges. "Oh, you must not interfere with the Privileges of the House of Commons," they said, "that would be a very wrong thing to do." Yet when it suits them it is, of course, a different thing, and what is sauce for the goose over there is not sauce for the gander here. That is a thing which I have never subscribed to, as I believe all members of either House have equal rights. Therefore I beg to move that the clause be omitted. The omission of this clause will not in any way interfere with the principle of the Bill. Everything will go on all right, but if the Minister spends money he must not be allowed to put his hand into the taxpayers' pocket without the authorisation of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

The noble Lard, Lord Banbury, is apparently anxious to protect the taxpayer.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I always have been.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sure we all sympathise with him very much in his efforts. I could only wish he was going to be a little more effective in doing so. This clause merely permits the Minister, by voluntary arrangements with those who wish to enrol themselves under the National Mark scheme, to collect from them any expense that he is put to in the manufacture of labels and in the promotion of the scheme. That is all this clause proposes to do. If it is removed the charge will have to be imposed on the taxpayer in order to enable the Minister to pay the charge as a subsidy to the industry. This is a charge that has been made from the beginning of the scheme. No objection whatsoever has ever been made to it by any of those who have come into the scheme. I would further point out to your Lordships that the scheme is entirely voluntary, and if the Minister was unreasonable in his charges, he would merely be defeating the object of his scheme, because nobody would come into it. It is only making certain of removing a small legal doubt that has arisen, making legal something that has always been done. Therefore I hope your Lordships will leave the clause in the Bill and not do, as the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is so anxious to do—impose this large charge on the taxpayer.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If 1 understood the noble Lord correctly, this is to make legal something that has been done. What could be worse? The Minister does something which is illegal and then he is afraid that the Courts may interfere and perhaps make it rather awkward for him, so the noble Earl brings forward a Bill which makes legal something which is illegal and which he ought not to have done. I must say that, after the explanation of the noble Earl, the clause seems to be much worse than I thought it was and I certainly shall have to divide if, as I hope, I get some support.

EARL DE LA WARR

Just to reassure the noble Lord on this important constitutional point, may I say that it is not a question of making legal something that has been done that should not have been done. It is simply that people might possibly be entitled to refuse to pay, and in the future at any moment it is possible for people who have been using our labels which cost us money to turn round and say they are not going to pay.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

As the noble Earl says this is a matter about which some legal doubt has been suggested, I should like to ask him one question because the answer would affect my decision in this matter. I should like to know whether anybody has challenged the legality of what has been done, because I do not think myself that it is right that an Act of Parliament should be passed to legalise something which is possibly illegal after someone has detected the illegality and has objected to make the payment. I know it has been done by the Government, of which he is a distinguished representative in this House, under circumstances which preclude our discussing it, but I should be very glad to know that nothing of that kind is contemplated here because I should find it very difficult to reconcile it with my conscience to support such a proposal.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can certainly give the noble and learned Viscount that assurance. It has not been brought up because of anyone being unwilling to pay. It is purely a doubt that has occurred to us.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Then what is the use of it?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.