HC Deb 06 June 1967 vol 747 cc822-4
Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 7, line 28, to leave out from first 'Act' to 'shall' in line 29.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also take Amendment No. 68, in Schedule 16, page 95, line 55, leave out ' except' and insert 'other than'.

It is an entirely consequential Amendment and the two should go together.

The Chairman

That will be convenient, if the Committee agrees.

Mr. Jenkin

This is purely a drafting matter. It is simply a question of why it is necessary to put both into Clause 5(1,a) and into the last line but three or four on page 95 of the Bill the fact that Section 4(6) of the Finance Act, 1959, is not to be terminated at the same time as the rest of Section 4, but is to terminate at some other date. The Amendment would simply leave Clause 5(1,a) reading: the enactments specified in Part I of Schedule 16 to this Act shall cease to have effect. Amendment No. 68 would leave line 55 on page 95 of the Bill saying: Section 4 (other than subsection (6)) and following that unchanged would be the words: As from 1st May 1968, section 4(6). We do not in any sense intend to alter the meaning of Clause 5. It is quite clear that where one is dealing with the repayments of duties which have already been paid, as does Section 4(6), that provision must remain in force for longer than those which provide for the payment of the duties. But it seems somewhat clumsy to have put into Clause 5(1,a) a special phrase in brackets and to have repeated it in the appropriate Schedule when it is apparent both from Clause 5(2) and from the bottom line of page 95 that of course Section 4(6) is to end at a different time. This is purely a matter of drafting and the Amendment is moved in a spirit of inquiry with the possible hope that the Bill as amended will be marginally improved.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. MacDennot

When I first saw the Amendments I was at first brush attracted to them as I thought that the drafting of the Bill might be improved, but when I had been suitably instructed I found my error. I had overlooked, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman had, the provisions of Clause 43(8), which is the last subsection of the Bill and which deals with repeals and is, if I may put it this way, the real parent section of Schedule 16. It is so described on page 94 of the Bill. It gives a list of repeals and is a general provision to say that those provisions shall stand repealed from the dates stated.

The reference in Clause 5(1,a) to these repeals is a duplication of Clause 43, but it is a general convenience to anyone reading these provisions, because it draws attention to the fact that one of the pro- visions which shall take effect on 1st October is the whole of these repeals, with the exception of Section 4(6). If we were to adopt the Amendments as they stand, we would introduce a contradiction and if we attempted to extend the Amendments, we would not simplify the matter.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I can only wish that the Financial Secretary had had the courage of his first convictions and had stuck to his point of view. It seems pointless to say the same thing in no fewer than three places. It is said in the body of the Bill, in Clause 5, that subsection 6 does not end with the rest in 1968 and it says so on page 95 in Schedule 16 and, bless my soul, it says it again on page 96 in the three lines at the end of that part of the Schedule. This seems to be unnecessary prolixity and I am against unnecessary prolixity—

Mr. MacDemot

Oh.

Mr. Jenkin

—in drafting and I should have thought that these things could have been rather better managed. However, I have made my point and I hope that those who order these matters in future years will take notice of what has been said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.