HC Deb 14 June 1967 vol 748 cc574-8

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966 which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session increasing the amount of any payment to an employer in respect of any person and any contribution week under section I or section 3(2)(a) of the said Act of 1966 by a sum not exceeding thirty shillings or such higher amount as the Treasury may by order from time to time determine where the payment is in connection with employment in an area which is for the time being or has formerly been specified as a development area under section 15(2) of the Industrial Development Act, 1966 or in any such locality outside an area which is or has been so specified as is specified in section 15(6) of that Act;
  2. (b) the making out of the Consolidated Fund of payments to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland towards expenditure incurred under any enactment for corresponding purposes passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

It would be unfortunate if this Money Resolution were approved by the House without some protest being made on behalf of the Opposition and, I should have thought, on behalf of back-bench hon. Members on the Government side.

Its purpose is to widen the scope of the Financial Resolutions at present governing the Finance Bill, and, together with the procedural Motion which follows, it will enable the Government's new Clause No. 67 introducing the regional employment premiums to be included in the Finance Bill. So far, Amendments to the Finance Bill have been severely inhibited by the terms of previous Money Resolutions, and it has been very difficult for hon. Members on both sides to get into order Amendments altering the Selective Employment Tax or the Selective Employment Premium Act, 1966. This has clearly made it difficult to debate them in a sensible manner.

It would have been more courteous if the Government, when considering what the original Money Resolution should have been, had taken account of the fact that there is widespread protest about the operation of the Selective Employment Tax and very grave doubts about the way in which the Selective Employment Premiums are being paid. For that reason, it is right and proper that we should express our dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have handled the matter on this occasion.

I would not urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Resolution but, rather, that we should wait until we come to the actual debate on new Clause No. 67. It is right, however, that we should express our dissatisfaction.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)

The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has made a general charge which he has not supported in any specific way. This is a Money Resolution for something which does not normally appear in a Finance Bill, namely, a proposal for expenditure.

Naturally, the responsibilities of the Financial Secretary in drafting a Money Resolution on such matters traditionally go beyond those where one is dealing with an ordinary Money Resolution in a Finance Bill, because one has to consider the responsibilities of the public purse.

I do not know in what respect the hon. Gentleman thinks that this Money Resolution is unduly restrictive. The hon. Gentleman complained that the earlier Money Resolution was too restrictive and restricted the debate under Clause 24. I would have been prepared to defend it at the proper time had the House voted on it, but there was no challenge, and I do not think that it would be proper to take up the time of the House in debating it now.

4.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

It is difficult to follow the purpose of this Money Resolution. If the House passes it—and I gather that as we are not going to oppose it it will be passed—will it be in order to table Amendments dealing with the Government proposals for the development areas? For instance, under the present arrangements it is not possible to table Amendments to deal with an anomaly which allows the Selective Employment Tax premium to be paid to workshops for the blind run by voluntary societies but not to those run by local authorities. Newcastle-on-Tyne is in a development area and wishes to have representations made on this point. As this issue will affect associations which help the blind in many development areas, will it be in order, so that I can carry out the wishes of the City and County Borough of Newcastle-on-Tyne, to table an Amendment to discuss this matter?

Mr. MacDermot

It is not for me to say what will be in order, but I think that under this Money Resolution the hon. Lady will have difficulty in tabling an Amendment of any character dealing with the effect of the ordinary Selective Employment Tax and the refunds or premiums under it. What we are concerned with here is a proposal in the new Clause for regional employment premiums, and, as the Title indicates, they are of a regional nature. Accordingly, it would be neither relevant, nor within the terms of the Money Resolution, to table Amendments which were limited to the operation of particular industries, or indeed, as the hon. Lady is suggesting, to parts of industries within these regions.

Dame Irene Ward

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady has exhausted her right to speak, but she can ask a question before the Financial Secretary sits down.

Dame Irene Ward

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask whether under the new proposals we would in fact be extending the injustice between the two types of association for the blind.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are getting into merit. We cannot have that.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

Would it not be right to assume that the Government knew some days ago that they would have to table this Money Resolution to enable them to give effect to the new Clause dealing with regional employment premiums? Would it also be right to assume that had this Money Resolution been tabled before we discussed the Clauses dealing with S.E.T. many of the Amendments which were not in order would have been, and that the Committee would have been able to discuss many things which it was prevented from discussing by the narrow terms of the previous Money Resolution? Is it a pure coincidence that this Money Resolution has been tabled after the Committee has concluded its discussions on the S.E.T., or is there some other reason for it?

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

The Financial Secretary is usually very fair in his arguments, but I think that he made a false point when he said that we had lost our right to argue against this Money Resolution because we did not vote against the original one. Had we had any idea that at a later stage there would be such a wide extension as this we would have voted against it, and I do not think that the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman can be sustained.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I would like the advice of the Chair on this Money Resolution. We have discussed various matters in Committee. Various things were ruled out of order because of the narrow way in which the original Money Resolution was drawn. This Money Resolution will widen the scope of debate. Does this mean that on Report Amendments which would otherwise have been out of order will be accepted by the Chair? If it does, it will alter the Opposition's attitude to much of the further debate on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is drawing a very long bow if he expects Mr. Speaker, at this stage, and at this point of the debate, to advise on what will be in order on Report. I shall deal with that when we come to it.

Mr. MacDermot

I rise purely out of courtesy to the hon. Gentlemen who have asked further questions. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the answer which you have given is really my answer to the points made by them. It is for them to see whether on Report there is anything in this Money Resolution which widens the debate on Clause 24 when it comes to be reconsidered. It is my view that it does not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session increasing the amount of any payment to an employer in respect of any person and any contribution week under section 1 or section 3(2)(a) of the said Act of 1966 by a sum not exceeding thirty shillings or such higher amount as the Treasury may by order from time to time determine where the payment is in connection with employment in an area which is for the time being or has formerly been specified as a development area under section 15(2) of the Industrial Development Act 1966 or in any such locality outside an area which is or has been so specified as is specified in section 15(6) of that Act;
  2. (b) the making out of the Consolidated Fund of payments to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland towards expenditure incurred under any enactment for corresponding purposes passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland.