LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 3 July 1946)

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the statement he has made. I was not myself in the House during the earlier part of this distressing controversy, but as your Lordships know the reason why this House desired—and I think rightly desired—to limit the period of the Bill to five years, was that they thought the scope of the Bill was so wide that it should be further considered by Parliament at a comparatively early date. That was really the whole motive which was behind the action of the House. It was not a wish to be cantankerous but a perfectly genuine and sincere view. Unfortunately I understand that members in another place have not shared our opinion, but I am very glad, and I am sure all noble Lords are glad, to feel that the Government themselves take the view that it is undesirable to bring very small or even comparatively small 93 transactions within the scope of this Statute. Indeed, they have assured us that it was never their intention in practice to do that. As I think my noble friend Viscount Simon pointed out earlier with such force, it is obviously unwise to put provisions into an Act of Parliament when you do not intend to apply them in practice. Therefore the Government very wisely, if I may say so with all deference, have decided to limit this Statute to transactions over £10,000 in any one year. I do not pretend that we are entirely satisfied with this new Government Amendment. We should have infinitely preferred the figure to be £50,000. That was the figure which was suggested, and we believe it to be a perfectly fair one. But it is, I understand, agreed that the figure of £50,000 shall find a place in the Order issued under the Bill. I am quite certain that this House will not wish to press the matter further, and I am personally very glad that some acceptable compromise has been found on this very thorny point.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, is very wise, if I may say so, not to ask the House to insist upon our original Amendment—and that on general political and constitutional grounds. But it is rather straining the matter: to suggest that the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has anything very much to do with the one that the House of Lords put in, during the Committee stage here. Those of us—and I was one—who supported that Amendment, did so because we thought it wrong that legislation of this kind should be passed in perpetuity. We thought that the powers given in the Bill were exceedingly drastic, and that the matter should come back to Parliament to be reviewed at the end of five years, as emergency legislation in general, passed during the war is to be limited to a period of that sort.
Now the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has moved an Amendment "in lieu" of the one with which the House of Commons has disagreed. What is the meaning of the expression "in lieu"? If it means that one amendment is rejected, and that another amendment altogether is inserted, it is true that we now have one before us "in lieu" of 94 another. But if it is suggested that an alternative method is being adopted for attaining the same purpose, that is certainly not the case. We asked that perpetuity should be changed to five years. The Government says that the £50,000 limit to be imposed by Regulation is to be supplemented by a £10,000 limit to be imposed by Statute. It is a crazy kind of arithmetic that would say "As perpetuity is to five years, so is £50,000 to £10,000." The two really have no relation to one another. The fact of the mater is that the Government have made a nice, pleasant, conciliatory gesture to the House which the House gracefully accepts—and they are quite right to do so. But it rather brings to mind the formula which is often used in returning thanks for a somewhat disappointing present: "It is not the value of the gift which matters, but the kind thought that inspired it."

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
My Lords, I should like to say, for myself, that I do not agree with some of the remarks that have fallen from the lips of my noble friend Viscount Samuel. I suppose that few people listened to the rather long speech which I delivered on this matter and still fewer remember it, but the main point on which I supported the Amendment to confine the proposed legislation to five years was that I objected so strongly —I might almost say so violently—to the provision that all borrowing of money in Great Britain was to be subjected to Orders which might be made by Government officials. That was a thing which I thought was an absolutely monstrous extension of what I described as the habit of legislating by delegation to Government officials. Therefore I do not feel in the least satisfied with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said. On the other hand, the Government have largely if not entirely removed the objectionable part of the clause relating to the borrowing of money in Great Britain. I feel no compunction whatever in saying that I welcome this as an Amendment which removes one of the principal reasons for wishing to limit the duration of this legislation to five years.
For my own part, I think, there is no worse idea of legislation than that it should take place by delegation to Government servants without any limitation of their powers, except such as the Minister may 95 choose to impose. I would maintain that with the greatest strength against any argument that can be put in favour of such an idea. I cited before the opinions of eminent jurists on the subject. They are all at one in the feeling that if you are going to delegate legislation to Government servants, as you may sometimes have to do, there should always be a provision by which the courts can be invoked to say that the legislation by Order in that particular case is ultra vires. Therefore, although like the Leader of the Opposition I would have preferred the figure£50,000, which is a nobler figure than £10,000, I am very grateful. I hope that what has been done will show that this House at any rate is always going to set itself against legislation of this kind unless a proper limit is imposed.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I would add one word to endorse wholeheartedly what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has just said. When we were debating this clause all my opposition was based on the great principle that you ought not to put into an Act of Parliament wider powers than you wish to exercise. That is indeed the whole force of the Report on Delegated Legislation and Ministers' Powers. It was held that obviously there must be delegated legislation but one of the rules which was laid down was that there ought not to be put into an Act of Parliament clauses delegating to Ministers powers far wider than those which it is intended to use. Speaking for myself, and for those noble Lords on whose behalf I spoke during previous debates, I would emphasize that the thing that mattered intensely was that the delegated powers given in the Act should bear reasonable relation to the intention to exercise those powers. As regards the time limit, whatever Government happens to be in power in five years time—and I sincerely hope that it will not be the same Government—will have a perfectly simple course open to them. They can abstain from using the power; they can let the Act fall into desuetude, or they can repeal the Act. I would endorse what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham has said, that delegation should bear reasonable relation to the powers which it is intended to use. That is now put in terms into the Bill. I know that £10,000 was the figure which used to 96 operate during the war. It was then raised to £50,000. An undertaking has now been given that unless it is absolutely essential to go below £50,000 that shall be the figure. I am glad that the House, with the full assent of the Government, has decided that we shall maintain the right principle in regard to delegated legislation.