MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL (Hansard, 11 March 1952)

§ EARL JOWITT
I desire to raise a point on Clause 1. I start by saying that I think this is a good Bill. I understand that it has been agreed by all the representatives of the owners, the men and the officers. The noble Lord has had his negotiations and everybody is agreed. Secondly, I say that, having known for a long time that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, was in charge of the Bill. I feel that, if we are to have this sort of discretion, there is nobody in whose hands I would rather have it than the noble Lord. I hope that, so far, I have made my position plain. I now want to point out to your Lordships that this is really a very far-reaching measure. In fact, I cannot recall a case quite like this. This is the old dispensing power, and nothing but the dispensing power, writ large. In the old days the controversy was that the Monarch was allowed to dispense, if he so desired, with the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Finally that power was destroyed.
What we are no's doing—and I think we should all recognise this—is to give the Minister dispensing power. You have here certain requirements for ships, and a convention. I understand that, on the strength of this Bill, we either have signed or intend to sign this convention. So what we find is that it is now proposed to insert in the Act of 11948 a new subsection stating that: The Minister may exempt any ships or classes of ships.… Quite frankly, that is the dispensing power. It is the sort of power which, in very different hands from those of the present Minister, might lend itself to grave abuse. It gives the Minister power 591 in a particular case of a particular ship, without necessarily assigning any reasons, to say: "Well, the regulations which apply to all your brother shipowners and to all ships of this class shall not apply to you." I think I am right in saying that.
I believe that to be, from the public point of view, a most undesirable state of affairs. Quite frankly, as I said, I do not think it would matter if we could be sure that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, would always occupy his present position. I think it is a dangerous thing to say that a Minister of the Crown may in a particular case, without assigning any reason, dispense with requirements which apply to everybody else. I should have hoped that there might be some safeguard about this power. That is the general question of principle which I desire to put forward. I cannot resist pointing out that I was accused, not so long ago, of bringing all sorts of irregular things into the law. I never did anything so bad as that. If I had proposed that a Minister of the Crown, if he thought fit, might, without assigning any reason, without going before any body, dispense with statutory requirements in the case of one man whilst adhering to those statutory requirements in all other like cases. I am certain that I should never have heard the last of it.
Therefore, although I should be quite happy about the noble Lord doing this (for I am certain that, if he does dispense with certain requirements, it will be for very good reasons) I must register my protest. I think this is a bad principle. If this principle once became extended, it might lead to corruption in our public life. There is no question of that sort here but there is that underlying danger, and that is the reason why this sort of thing is undesirable. There is nothing that can be done about the matter now. The Bill is obviously a good Bill and must be carried through. But I desire to say that I think this principle is an undesirable one, and I hope that in future it will not be extended.

§ LORD LEATHERS
I am much impressed by the trust which the noble and learned Earl places in me in this matter, but in introducing this Bill I made it quite clear that the variation, the exemption, would be given in only a very few cases, and then only after consultation 592 with the whole of the industry—that is, the owners, the officers and the men, all being in full agreement. Perhaps that is some measure of safeguard that will relieve the anxiety felt by the noble and learned Earl.

§ EARL JOWITT
Yes, but in the old days noble Lords opposite would have said: "Put it in the Bill" That is what I always used to hear. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, used to make himself hoarse sometimes telling me to "Put it in the Bill" I do not distrust the noble Lord or his discretion, but this is not in the Bill. Goodness knows what his successors in years to come may do!