FINANCE BILL (SUGAR BOARD PAYMENTS) (Hansard, 10 July 1973)

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary came to the House to propose these motions without being properly armed and briefed with the precedents, if any, which justify them. It is difficult to form a view simply by listening to answers, but I am far from satisfied that the cases which he cited are on all fours with these motions and, in any case, the very wording of this and the next motion conveys, irrespective of whether there is a precedent, that something that we are here doing is a breach of our practice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find the opportunity—for example, before the new clause is moved—to put the House in possession of the precedents which it should have before it before agreeing to this motion.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman a short while ago for precedents he was able to supply them but I think that the precedents he quoted did not occur at this stage of a Bill but arose at the money resolution stage—for example after the Finance Bill had been read a Second time. If that is so, the precedents as he has quoted them do not appear to be valid.
He said that these motions concerned money being paid by the Sugar Board to refiners as a result of a levy and 1286 therefore it did not concern payments and expenditure of this House in the normal sense of the word. However, the resolution we have just passed says "money provided by Parliament." It may be that the money out of which this is paid is equivalent to moneys paid in by levy, but that money does not come from a levy fund but from the "moneys provided by Parliament". As this is an important procedural matter it should be put on the record.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jerkin)
It seems that the hon. Member has misunderstood me. Of course, in terms of this House these motions relate to public expenditure. That is why we must have a money resolution. I was seeking to reassure the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that because of the nature of the payment and the source from which it comes, it does not represent a net addition to public expenditure as it is understood in terms of the Public Expenditure Survey System.
I cannot confirm whether there are precedents for this happening on Report. There may be such precedents. But I can confirm that it is usual for clauses of all sorts and of great importance to be introduced either in Committee or on Report on the Finance Bill and other Bills and that the rules of the House have made provision for this for many years. It would be a novel doctrine if one were now to try to set up a new rule which said that there was a particular kind of clause which it was in some way inappropriate to bring before the House on Report.

§ Mr. Spearing
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are new clauses on Report but I do not think that they are of this type.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. Do I take it that, as there has been a debate, the Committee will look at this matter, or will it be necessary for hon. Members to draw it to the Committee's attention?

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I am not satisfied that the 1287 question of precedents takes us far in this case because here the Government are introducing a totally new topic into the Bill. Indeed, the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes me wonder whether I am attending at the right time—whether we are considering the Finance Bill or an agriculture Bill. It seems odd to introduce an agriculture new clause of this sort incurring expenditure at this time.
But whatever the precedents, I do not believe that it is right in principle that the Finance Bill should be used for matters of this kind, which are basically agricultural and are undoubtedly expenditure. It is for that reason that in the previous debate I said that these provisions need detailed examination and that what the Government propose is undesirable, whatever the precedents. I should like to see us setting a precedent by not allowing this one to go through.
What is the reason for suddenly including this matter in relation to sugar at this stage of the Finance Bill? If there were a reason of obvious and overwhelming importance, no doubt the House would accept it. For example, supposing by a certain date we had to meet an obligation to the sugar refiners, Europeans or to our farmers, I am sure that in such circumstances the House would be persuaded to let it through. But we have not heard one argument for what is admitted by the Government to be a rather unusual and, indeed, possibly distasteful dose of medicine which the House is asked to swallow.
If my right hon. Friend could give us the justification for suddenly including this non-financial expenditure matter in the Bill at this late stage, the House would be more satisfied, but it would be a bad thing, whatever the precedents may have been, to confirm those precedents now unless we are convinced that, for some emergency reason or some reason of overwhelming importance, a separate Bill should not be brought in. It would be much more desirable if the Government did not proceed with the motion or with the new clause and instead introduced a short Bill to achieve whatever it is that they want to achieve.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
By leave of the House, I point out to the hon. Member 1288 for Acton (Mr. Spearing) that it is not for me to decide what should be recommended for Mr. Speaker's Conference or for the Select Committee on Procedure, but I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I must explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that I deliberately eschewed earlier from becoming involved in the merits of the new clause because it seemed to me that they would be more happily dealt with on the new clause itself. But unless this motion is passed we shall be unable to discuss the new clause, and I can only advise my hon. Friend to await the arguments of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if and when we reach the clause. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied then that the new clause is necessary he has his remedies.
But perhaps I may say something by way of introduction. The matter is of importance and it is of urgency because, unless we confer upon the Sugar Board the power to make these payments to the sugar refiners, there will be very grave danger that we shall be unable to comply with what has been known as the Lancaster House Agreement on imports of sugar from sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth. This is a cause in which the whole House takes an interest and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would wish to do all in their power to ensure that the Government were able to fulfil the undertakings.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State will explain on the new clause, there would be a grave danger that we would not be able to fulfil these undertakings without the new clause. We would be unable to increase the sugar refiners' margins to the figure considered appropriate by making the payments provided for in the new clause. This is the urgency and importance of the matter, and I hope that the House will feel it right to let the new clause come forward,

§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)
Perhaps my right hon. Friend can put the issue beyond doubt. If we do not have this new clause, what alternative method of achieving its objective is open to us—a new Bill or regulations?