HC Deb 15 July 1960 vol 626 cc1847-9

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 10, page 11, line 5, and Clause 11, page 11, line 35, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Butler.—[Mr. Renton.]

2.10 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

Before we proceed further, I must protest that we are entering on this matter at 2.10 p.m. on a Friday. This is an important Bill. It raises matters of principle of considerable importance, and it is the first Bill dealing with charities that we have had for approximately one hundred years. It is to put the charity administration in this country on a quite different footing. It affects local government. It affects religious denominations appreciably. It raises considerable questions of democratic and in some cases constitutional significance.

We had understood that we would have a full day on the Bill, but of course it was inevitable—indeed, it would have been scandalous if it had been otherwise —that the very important Nigeria Bill should have occupied the House for some time. The result has been that this Bill comes before the House at this late stage on a Friday afternoon.

In Committee we have had to make some observations about the way in which the Bill has been conducted. I am not in the least attaching any blame whatsoever to the Joint Under-Secretary or to the Solicitor-General, who have been their usual courteous selves, but we have not heard the Home Secretary on the Bill since his comparatively short speech on Second Reading. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman, who is Leader of the House as well as being responsible for the Bill, having us start on the Recommittal stage at this hour on a Friday. The Bill is one which merits careful consideration and we must protest at the way in which it is being dealt with at this stage.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I wish to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and to draw attention to the fact that this is the last occasion on which this House, and Parliament itself, will have an opportunity of considering the details of the Bill. It originated in another place and we have throughout been trying to secure the implementation of what we understood were pledges given in another place. This is all in keeping with the way the House has been dealt with in the consideration of this Measure.

Is this Motion for Recommittal required for anything other than the rather technical point that, in view of the way in which imperial and local finance are now associated through recent Acts of Parliament, some small additional charge may fall upon the Treasury and possibly on local authorities because the manner in which urban district councils are admitted to the powers to be conferred upon them by the first Amendment to be considered in Committee impinges on the rule of the House? If it is, is it not time that the authorities of the House, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, considered whether it is necessary to recommit Bills when the only reason is the rather trivial cause which I have mentioned?

I should have thought that there was no need to go through the procedure of Recommittal, thus destroying the continuity of consideration of a Bill on Report. We might very well dispense with the need when what I have suggested is the cause is the only reason for a Recommittal Motion.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

In Committee a number of undertakings were given to look into various points. I might give one illustration from column 418 of the Committee's last sitting, when the Joint Under-Secretary, in reply to a point which I raised, said: I think that I must give an undertaking straight away to look into the points which the hon. Member has raised. His speech showed, as I have so often stressed in the course of our discussions, how complicated these matters are." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th July, 1960; c. 418.] The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to give an undertaking to look into the matter and deal with it on Report. I have not seen any Amendment tabled that would cover this precise point but I hope that there will be time to deal with the various complicated points about which undertakings were given in Committee.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) it is, of course, true that the reason for Recommittal in this case is that the Amendments to Clauses 10 and 11 might involve a very small, almost trivial, increase in rate-borne expenditure. It is for that technical reason that under our present rules we must have the Recommittal Motion.

I gave an undertaking to look into the matter which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). Having done so, I am of the impression that the doubts which he expressed are met by the Bill. He has an Amendment to one of the Clauses—not to the Schedule on which he raised the matter originally—on which I hope it will be possible to allay his doubts.

Mr. Ede

I asked whether it was possible to have the question of what I might almost call Recommittal for highly technical reasons examined and possibly amended. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman bring that point to the attention of other people? As the old rhyme goes, It is no use to say you are sorry and repent If you go on the same way as you did always went.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]