§ Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 9, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
- '(2) Financial assistance under this section may, subject to the following provisions of this section, be given in any of the ways set out in subsection (3) of the last preceding section.
- (3) The Secretary of State, in giving financial assistance under this section in the way described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section—
- (a) shall not acquire any shares or stock in a company without the consent of that company, and
- (b) shall not acquire more than half, by nominal value, of the equity share capital of any company.
- (4) Where financial assistance is given under this section by acquiring shares or stock in a company the Secretary of State shall dispose of the shares or stock as soon as, in his opinion, it is reasonably practicable to do so; and before making the disposal the Secretary of State shall consult the company'.—[Mr. Chataway.]
§
Amendment made: as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert:
'(3) Financial assistance shall not be given under this section in the way described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it cannot, or cannot appropriately, be so given in any other way, and the Secretary of State in giving financial assistance in the way so described'.—[Mr. Adam Butler.]
§ Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 60, in page 10, line 5, leave out '£250' and insert '£150'.—[Mr. Chataway.]
§ Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.—[Mr. Chataway.]
§ Dame Irene WardMay I ask for an explanation? Are we to have no explanation why this has happened?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt is not for me to say what explanation there shall be.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 62, in page 10, line 9, leave out '£150' and insert '£100'.—[Mr. Chataway.]
254§ Mr. ChatawayI beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 10, line 13, at end insert:
(6) The sums which the Secretary of State pays or undertakes to pay by way of financial assistance under this section in respect of any one project, shall not exceed £5 million, except so far as any excess over the said sum of £5 million has been authorised by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament:Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the payment or undertaking is urgently needed at a time when it is impracticable to obtain the approval of the Commons House of Parliament and in that case the Secretary of State shall lay a statement concerning the financial assistance before each House of Parliament.
§ Mr. MillanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether it will be in order for me to move an Amendment to the manuscript Amendment? You will appreciate that this is quite an important manuscript Amendment which arises out of the discussion that we had on Friday of last week. At that time the Secretary of State said he would look at the points which had been made, but the indications were that the Amendment would be made in the other place. Instead of that, we are faced with a manuscript Amendment. I do not object to that, and I do not object particularly to the Amendment, but I should like to move an Amendment to it, because I think it can be improved. This is the last occasion on which we shall be able to do that. Will it be in order for me to move such an Amendment?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)I cannot select Amendments to Amendments in the House.
§ Mr. MillanCan you explain why, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is extraordinary that at this late stage of the Bill we are faced with a manuscript Amendment—and I repeat that I make no complaint of that—and that there is nothing the House can do about it. If the Amendment had been made in the other place, the Lords Amendment would have come here and we could have agreed or disagreed with it. We could also have moved Amendments to the Lords Amendment and have had them considered.
I genuinely have no objection to the moving of the manuscript Amendment, and have told Ministers so, but you are 255 telling us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not have the right to move an Amendment to it. That seems to me extraordinary and unfair, not just to Opposition hon. Members but to any hon. Member who may feel that, while the Amendment is perfectly acceptable so far as it goes, it could be improved or at least that we should discuss ways in which it could be improved. My own proposed manuscript Amendment would not bite at the heart of what the Government propose, but it would improve it in some important respects.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is regretting that I have not the power to do these things. It is the Standing Order; c'est malheureux mais c'est comme ca.
§ Mr. MillanThat is very interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that when we get to the European Parliament we shall find that standing orders do not preclude us from doing this. What I do not understand—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIs this still on the point of order?
§ Mr. MillanCertainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although you say you have no power to accept what I am suggesting, you seem to have power to accept the manuscript Amendment in the first place. That is rather remarkable. What you are saying, perhaps is that it is only Mr. Speaker himself who has the power to do that, but he is not here now. I am not clear how it is that in Mr. Speaker's absence the manuscript Amendment is acceptable to be discussed but not my Amendment to it.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe manuscript Amendment was accepted by Mr. Speaker. He alone is entitled to accept Amendments in the House.
§ Mr. DellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not intolerable that a manuscript Amendment should be introduced in circumstances in which it is not possible to amend it? If it were in the hands of Mr. Speaker early enough for him to decide that it could be called, surely arrangements should have been made to enable the Opposition to consider the Amendment in time to submit any Amendment to it that we 256 thought desirable? As it is, it appears to me that the interpretation of the orders of the House, which you are understandably stating to us, deprives us of the right which is invested in the House to consider Government proposals. This should not be the case. If it is the position, the Government must now move the Adjournment of our proceedings so that we can consider the matter at a time when Mr. Speaker can consider Amendments which the Opposition wish to make to Amendments which the Government introduce at the last minute.
§ Mr. MillanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The manuscript Amendment—about which I make no complaint—was handed to me after the proceedings had started. Hon. Members opposite had it distributed to them as well. Having considered it, which was difficult as we had to be in the Chamber, we decided that we wished to move an Amendment to it. By that time Mr. Speaker had left the Chair and I therefore approached you instead. If Mr. Speaker had still been here and had said that he could not accept my suggestion, I would have had no complaint, but we are in considerable difficulty, since I have not been able to speak to him either in the Chair or anywhere else.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)Did the hon. Gentleman tell the Minister?
§ Mr. MillanI have not told the Minister. If my Amendment to the manuscript Amendment had been ruled out of order, to have approached the Minister about it would have been irrelevant. If it had been ruled in order, then, as a matter of courtsey, I would have informed the Minister to see whether it was acceptable to the Government. But as Mr. Speaker has not been in the Chair since the point arose, it has not been possible to discuss it with him. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are now saying that I have no right to move it, and I think that in the interests of back benchers that cannot be right. Manuscript Amendments by Ministers are normally accepted by Mr. Speaker and I do not see why in such cases hon. Members should not be allowed to move Amendments to them.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI fully understand the difficulty but the rules are as 257 I have stated. The manuscript Amendment was available, as distinct from the hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment to it, long before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. It is a hard point because he could not necessarily be expected to consider the matter on the spur of the moment. But I have stated the rules and I am afraid that there is nothing that can be done about the matter.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIs it the same point?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have ruled that it is not possible to do anything about it. I have given a full explanation and that should be sufficient.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. There are ways and times at which to make comments and this is not one of them.
§ Mr. ChatawayThis manuscript Amendment follows an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend on Friday when we discussed a group of new Clauses dealing with this matter, which was also discussed in Committee. My right hon. Friend proposes that under Clause 8 the Government shall have to come to the House to secure an Affirmative Resolution in the case of any project which exceeds £5 million. That can be any kind of assistance amounting to £5 million, a loan or a guarantee of liability incurring £5 million.
2.45 a.m.
The House will therefore recognise that this is a substantial addition to the degree of parliamentary control that is written into the Bill. The Science and Technology Act, passed in 1965, contains no requirement for the Government to obtain an affirmative, Resolution, and the Civil Aviation Act, 1949—used by successive Governments—similarly requires no such step. We now have written into the Bill narrower tranches than were previously proposed, so that the Government must obtain the permission of the House 258 after the first £150 million is expended, and thereafter for each £100 million.
As a result of the general arrangements in the Bill we have total parliamentary accountability, in the sense that the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and every other Select Committee is brought into play in a way in which it would not have been if an organisation such as the IRC were entrusted with these responsibilities.
I recognise that there is room for argument, and that some may say that this should apply to Clause 7. As the Secretary of State explained on Friday, there was considerable difficulty about that. Some may argue that even smaller projects should require the House's consent—but a balance has to be struck. These are substantial constraints, and they will no doubt sometimes mean that it will be more difficult to act, simply because there are problems in finding parliamentary time for an affirmative order. It will mean some further overloading of the parliamentary timetable, or some addition to it.
I realise that even at this late stage, the hon. Member would have liked to make changes and is not able to do so. I am sorry about that, but I hope that the House will feel that this is a reasonable suggestion.
§ Mr. MillanI welcome this Amendment, but before commenting on it I want to say one thing as a matter of fact, arising out of your last comments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was true that the manuscript Amendment was made available to me some time ago, and that it was also made available by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary to hon. Members opposite, but there was no general notice anywhere to hon. Members that there would be a manuscript Amendment. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was not aware of this. Amendment until a good deal later than I was—in fact, when I had the opportunity of discussing it with him. By the time that my right hon. Friend was aware of it Mr. Speaker had left the Chair. I make this point because this matter should be pursued, since it raises questions of general interest to back benchers, not just in this situation but in others.
259 In a sense I feel the more strongly about it because the Amendment, by itself, is quite acceptable to me. The change that I should have liked to make was to eliminate the reference to approval being required only for the excess over £5 million, which is an unusual way of expressing it. I do not see why the Amendment should not, in terms, provide for parliamentary approval for the whole sum involved.
There is a certain significance in that, but I shall not pursue it now, because it will make little difference whether I pursue it or not, but I did not quite understand why this wording has been prepared in this way and why one does not have to come to Parliament for approval of the whole sum rather than for the excess over £5 million.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI sympathise with the hon. Member but in reality, would he not accept, if the Minister is required to obtain approval by affirmative Resolution for the excess, by definition he will in practice obtain the approval of the House for the whole project?
§ Mr. MillanIn practice that might be be so, but in fact it would not. If approval were not given for the excess, it would not prevent the Minister from paying up to £5 million in substitution for the sum for which he has not obtained approval. In practice it would be unwise and unlikely that the Minister would do that, but other wording would be better than the wording we have here. In practice it might not make much difference whether we have this wording or another.
This matter was considered in Committee at some length and was also considered last Friday. It is fair to say that Ministers, in Committee and last Friday, tended to exaggerate the difficulties which would be involved in a matter of this kind. One looks at the manuscript Amendment in its simplicity, which I welcome, and remembers with irony the arguments put up in Committee and last Friday, because the proviso in this Amendment is very like that in new Clause 8 discussed on Friday.
The limit of £5 million is a good deal more than most hon. Members had in mind. Indeed, £1 million was the figure 260 which hon. Gentlemen on both sides had in mind for this kind of parliamentary approval, but, having established a principle, even though only at a level of £5 million, it has been worthwhile to press these matters on the Government.
I am glad the Secretary of State appreciated the feeling about this on both sides of the Committee and we appreciate that the Minister has brought it forward so promptly despite the procedural difficulties. It is better that it should be done here than in another place. I should like to express the thanks of my hon. Friends for what has been done.
§ Mr. BiffenIt would be inappropriate if this significant Amendment were made without at least a note of gratitude from these benches to my right hon. Friend for what has undoubtedly been a welcome gesture to those of us who throughout have been concerned about and have argued for greater parliamentary accountability.
I am delighted that this gesture has been made and it is not without significance that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development contrasted it with the terms of the Science and Technology Act, 1965. That Act also received its Committee stage on a Friday and the two are a contrast in parliamentary scrutiny.
Comparing this legislation last Friday with the scrutiny given on the other Act in 1965, the comparison reflects favourably on the behaviour of this Parliament. We may give ourselves a modest August present or near-August present.
§ Mr. DouglasIt is August.
§ Mr. BiffenIt was a close-run thing at any rate. I hope that the further reflection of my right hon. Friend may lead him, when the Bill gets to another place to reconsider the difficulties which have hitherto prevented him from extending this formula and also covering Clause 7. It would be quite unnecessary and uncharitable, and counter-productive, to pursue this any further at this time, and I conclude as I started by saying, "Thank you very much indeed."
§ Mr. DellI, too, welcome the Amendment. The precedent which it follows is the precedent of the Industrial Expansion Act and the answer to the hon. Member 261 for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is that we did not have to be pressed hour after hour, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, to introduce an Amendment such as this giving more adequate parliamentary control. The provisions in that Act went beyond this Amendment. In so far as this follows the precedent of the Industrial Expansion Act and as the Government are following so many of the other precedents in that Act, I do not see why I should deny my welcome to it.
I regret that evidently this Amendment was circulated to hack benchers opposite but not to hon. Members on the back benches on this side so that we did not have an opportunity to consider it.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I ought to intervene here to say that the manuscript Amendment was in the Vote Office a long time ago, before Mr. Speaker left.
§ Mr. DellIt may have been in the Vote Office but no means at all was used by the Government to bring the existence of this Amendment to our notice. Consequently I had not seen it and was not in a position to consider whether I wished to move any Amendment to it. This is a totally unsatisfactory position. If the Government are discussing these matters with their back benchers, since we raised this in Committee it would have been a matter of simple courtesy to raise it with us, too.
It is true, as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, that in practice if the Government foresee that there will be invesment in a project exceeding £5 million they may in any case bring that before the House. Nevertheless they might, under the terms of this Amendment, commit themselves to a certain sum below £5 million and then in effect pre-empt any control which Parliament may have. I do not account this sort of control as very effective, given the operation of the parliamentary system, but I do not see why we should deliberately make it less effective than it might be by wording it in the way the Government propose, in respect only of the excess over £5 million.
However it is an advance, and as such I welcome it. I only regret that the Government did not see the need for such an Amendment earlier because then the House would have had an appropriate opportunity to consider it in Committee 262 or on Report instead of having it thrust at us in this way, having to take it or leave it.
§ Amendment agreed to.