§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
As regards Schedule B, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but I do not think that it is in order. He seeks to put in certain words which I do not think can be raised on the schedule.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said the words which he proposed to 1969 put in were only explanatory of the words already in the schedule. They did not in any way interfere with the meaning of the schedule beyond emphasising what were the points therein contained. He submitted that so long as they did not go outside of the Resolution, there could be no objection to any verbal alteration, provided that they did not in any way increase or diminish the charge. He submitted this Amendment in order to raise a question which ought to be a little more discussed by the Committee.
said he did not think, in the first place, that there was any precedent for such an Amendment at this stage; and, in the second place, unless there was something in the nature of a discrepancy between the resolutions in Committee of Supply and the schedule to which the noble Lord could point in this matter, he certainly did not think that he could raise his Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he could point out that in this case the Public Accounts Committee had reported to the House that words of the kind he suggested, namely, after "grants" to insert "to meet a temporary emergency," ought to be inserted in the Appropriation Bill, and it was only with a view to carrying out that recommendation that he asked the House to assent to these words. With regard to precedent, he agreed there was none, and there was none for the particular procedure adopted, except last year.
said that after the explanation of the noble Lord all he could say was that the point ought to be taken on the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his ruling that it was impossible to insert in the Appropriation Bill any Amendment coming within the terms of the original Resolution on which the Appropriation Bill was based.
said he was not ruling absolutely that, but he must 1970 point out that if they could raise Amendments of the kind now proposed, they could discuss again altogether the terms on which these grants were made. He thought that would be undesirable.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that this was virtually a matter of first-rate constitutional importance on which there ought to be a definite and clear ruling. The Amendment did not in any way affect to raise the question of the policy of making these grants; he merely proposed to insert the words in order to make it clear why these grants were made. He respectfully submitted that a discussion on the Report, of the Public Accounts Committee would not really have met the case. They knew that the Public Accounts Committee had reported that certain words should be inserted in the Appropriation Bill.
said that according to previous rulings on the Appropriation Bill the Amendment was out of order.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.