RACE RELATIONS [MONEY] (Hansard, 1 June 1965)

§ Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)
I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us why this Money Resolution is being introduced now. I understand that its purpose is to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move in the Standing Committee Amendments to the Race Relations Bill so extensive in character as virtually to constitute a new Bill.
The Bill was introduced on 7th April, the main feature of its first part being criminal sanctions against those who practise racial discrimination. We had the Second Reading on 3rd May, when the Measure did not contain any provision for conciliation machinery or any financial Clause. The usual practice, where a Money Resolution is required, of moving that Resolution directly after the Second Reading, was not followed. The House will recall that the Opposition divided the House on the Second Reading on the ground that the Bill contained no conciliation machinery and that its main provision was based on the sanction of the criminal law. The House rejected our Amendment.
The Standing Committee first sat on 25th May, and on the same day the Home Secretary tabled to the first part of the Bill these major Amendments which really constitute a completely new Bill. He was not able to move those Amendments at that time, as they would have been out of order, without a Money Resolution. The same thing would have applied to similar Amendments put down by members of the Committee. It would 1654 appear that the Home Office forgot to tell the Treasury that the Amendments were put down, but that a Money Resolution was required to enable them to be moved.
At the first sitting of the Standing Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a Motion which had the effect of the Bill being taken in the wrong order. The Committee started by considering the comparatively minor Clauses at the end of the Bill before being able to see the whole Bill as it stood.
The only indication that has been given on the Floor of the House that virtually a new Bill has been introduced is the moving of this Resolution. I certainly do not quarrel with the new Bill, as it will be when the Standing Committee has discussed the Amendments which the Home Secretary intends to move. What I protest at is that the House of Commons as such has had no opportunity of a Second Reading debate on what is virtually a completely new Bill.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman found that the original Bill was not acceptable generally to public opinion, he should have withdrawn it and then brought in a Bill providing for conciliation machinery, and a Bill whose merits the House could have discussed on Second Reading. We could then have had a proper Second Reading debate, the Bill would have contained a financial Clause, and a Money Resolution would have been moved at the proper time and in the normal way.
This is a further example of the chaos that is being caused and the difficulty which Parliament is being put in by the attempt of the Government to push through this mass of ill-considered legislation.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has had an opportunity of getting all that off his chest. No doubt he feels better after it. It is mostly far from the mark, but I do not think that the Committee would be advantaged by taking up time in discussing what the hon. Member has said. He is perfectly entitled to an explanation of the reason for this Financial Resolution. He has already given it and he knew it perfectly well.
1655 The explanation, as the hon. Member said more than once, was that an Amendment was made to Clause 1 of the Bill. It is not a new Bill. It is an Amendment to one feature of one Clause. All the rest stands exactly as it was before.
The hon. Member said that the Amendment had not been discussed. The Amendment which has been made is similar to one which was put down by way of reasoned Amendment by the Opposition on Second Reading and the form of the Amendment, which, I hope, will now appear in Clause 1, occupied a large part of the debate on Second Reading. I do not, therefore, think that the hon. Member expects to be taken seriously when he says that the Bill should have been withdrawn and an opportunity given to discuss the Amendment on Second Reading. It was discussed fully. Views were advanced from both sides. It had been long and persistently discussed in the Press and, obviously, there is great public interest in it.
I indicated on Second Reading that I was perfectly prepared to consider and listen to any arguments in favour of the Amendment which now appears on the Order Paper to Clause 1 and that—

§ Mr. Sharples
I hope that the Home Secretary will not underestimate the effect of the Amendments which he has put down. It is not simply an Amendment to Clause 1 which he is proposing, but a number of new Clauses in addition.

The Deputy-Chairman
Order. We cannot discuss the actual Amendment.

§ Sir F. Soskice
The hon. Member has had his say. Must he really go on? I do not think that the House is very much interested in it. What the Committee is interested in—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I did not mean to be discourteous, but we have heard all this again and again. The horse has been worn out, but it has had another trot out tonight. I hope that it has gone back to its stable and will repose peacefully there.
The reason for the Money Resolution, as the hon. Member has rightly said, is the Amendment to Clause 1. The new conciliation machinery will involve a certain amount of public expenditure. That makes it necessary to move this Resolution. If the Committee desires an estimate, the best that I can give as to the probable cost involved, so far as I can give an estimate, would be about £35,000 per annum. There are the costs of the salaries of the members of the Board, administrative expenses, salaries of staff which will assist the Board and various travelling allowances, and so on, of the conciliation committees to be paid. We total them up to something like £35,000 a year.
That is made necessary by the change in Clause 1 and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a proper move now to come to the Committee before the Amendment is discussed and ask for the necessary Resolution of the House for this money to be provided.