HC Deb 13 July 1950 vol 477 cc1705-7
Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out from "instrument" to the end of the subsection and to insert: (4) A statutory instrument making varying or revoking a scheme under section one of this Act shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) A statutory instrument making varying or revoking a scheme under section two of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. This is a manuscript Amendment, and applies only to Clause 1. Clause 2 is quite a different matter. It forms an integral part of the recent February price review settlement, and continues down to 1953. It was announced to this House immediately after the review was completed and the settlement was reached, and therefore we do discriminate between Clauses 1 and 2. I hope that with that simple explanation hon. Members opposite will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Turton

We have had a long interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and as this Amendment was not put on the Order Paper we could not see it before it was moved. It is very difficult to gather exactly what the Minister is doing when he suddenly reads out a draft Amendment. One point he has not covered is this. As I understand it. Clause 1 gives a grant to a certain number of farmers. If that is so, I would like to raise a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on the Second Reading. It is really one of those cases where the affirmative resolution procedure should be confined to the Commons House of Parliament, and not otherwise. It is quite clear from Erskine May that in all cases where under the Finance Bill a grant or tax is being made or levied it shall be merely the Commons House of Parliament that shall approve the Resolution.

Mr. G. Brown

In the Second Reading Debate I gave specific examples from past Acts of Parliament dealing with exactly the same thing, where the affirmative resolution covered both Houses of Parliament. Many more examples can be given. The hon. Gentleman must not say that this is against previous practice.

Mr. Turton

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption. On the Committee stage I agree he gave cases where the kind of subsidy covered by Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill had been subject to annulment. But Clause 1 is quite different. That relates to a grant made by Parliament to certain holders of certain machines, and that is the kind of grant that Is laid down in Erskine May as being not questionable in the other place. It is the privilege of this House that only this House can determine the question of a grant to a subject of the Crown. It is quite different from a subsidy which was given as an example by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate. For those reasons, I press the Government to reconsider this Amendment and limit the affirmative resolution to the Commons House of Parliament.

Mr. T. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman presses me to make it a negative Resolution I will gladly do that. I should like to give the following examples of cases in which legislation is referred to both Houses: Scheme for payments for depreciation of land values to be approved by both Houses: Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, s. 58 (6). Regulations as to payments for superannuation subject to approval by both Houses: National Health Service Act, 1946, ss. 67 and 75 (1). Regulations governing distribution of compensation to doctors liable to be annulled by either House of Parliament: National Health Service Act, 1946, ss. 36 and 75 (2). Regulations as to Exchequer grants for local governments liable to annulment by either House of Parliament: Local Government Act, 1948, ss. 15, 31 and 142 (1). Many more examples could be quoted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.