§ [The references are to Bill No. 65 as first printed in the House of Lords.]
§
Clause 4, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("Provided that the Minister shall not give to the Commission a direction in relation to any matter the effect of which, taking one year with another, will be or will be likely to be, that the revenue of the Commission will be less than sufficient for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment might unduly restrict the powers of the Minister in an emergency
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, with regard to the first Amendment on the Paper, might I suggest for your Lordships' convenience that when we come to some other Amendments—for example, the one that follows, where the noble Marquess has an Amendment to the Amendment, perhaps it would be more agreeable to your Lordships if I move, as it is my duty to move, that we do not insist, and then leave it to the noble Lord opposite, who has an Amendment to the Amendment, to intervene. The first Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess is: "That the House do not insist on the Amendment, but propose to move the following Amendment in lieu thereof." That would be the Amendment in Clause 5, page 7, line 36. What I was suggesting—
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThat when we come to an Amendment in lieu we should move that we do not insist? That would be quite convenient.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThat is what I was proposing to do. I move that this House do not insist.
§ Moved, That the House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I would say only one word on this, because I think the issue is extraordinarily narrow 680 here. I said so on the Third Reading, and it is important that the country should know what the position is going to be. There is no question here—it is common ground and, indeed, as I understand it, the best lawyers consider it is laid down in fact in the Bill, that this Commission has got to pay its way and that, broadly and largely, the Minister would be breaking, if not the letter of the law, certainly the spirit of the law, if he gave the Commission any instructions which were ontrary to that. The only issue that this narrows down to—and I do not think there is much difference between us—is that there might be an emergency of a national character in which it was necessary for the Minister to give some instruction which might create a temporary deficit. We have always treated national emergencies as matters in which the Government of the day, subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament, have to take special action. I really do not believe there is anything between us on this.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.