GRANTS TO AUTHORITIES WHO BUY OR RENT CROWN LAND (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We propose that the House should waive its privilege. This is necessary because this matter falls within the privilege of this House.
The effect of the amendment is as follows. It is intended that in cases where authorities buy land from the Crown the price they pay should correspond with what it would have cost them under the community land scheme if the land were in private hands—that is, market value less the amount of any development land tax payable by the vendor. Because the Crown will not be liable to pay development land tax, the clause makes special provision designed to achieve that result. The arrangement is that the acquiring authority will pay market value but will then receive, under the authority of Clause 39, a grant representing the amount of tax which would have been payable.

§ Mr. Atkinson
On this point I feel that the House is slipping in its duty, because it is being less than vigilant over matters which the House receives from the other place and which cost the country money. Many of the provisions that we have discussed throughout the night have to be carried, in money terms, by the Government, and at the present time it is not within their power to spend that money. Therefore, the House should be much more careful in dealing with amendments that come from the Lords, many of which should be ruled out of order. We should stress to our Ministers time and again to look carefully at what the House of Lords is doing. Certainly in the last hour three or four amendments will add to the Government's monetary burdens in one way or the other. The other place is totally out of order in discussing these matters, passing amendments on them and then 1478 bringing them to the House of Commons for consideration. We as Commons Members should assert our authority and tell the Lords that they have no right to come to such conclusions.

§ Mr. Speaker
With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, it has always been open to this House to waive its privilege, and I gather that that is what the Government have suggested in regard to this amendment. It is open to the House at any time to refuse to waive its privilege, in which case the Lords amendments could not be considered or passed. But in this case it is the Government who have suggested that this House should waive its privilege. If the House agrees to waive its privilege. I shall see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal. We have a right to insist on our privilege, and we also have the right to waive it if we so wish.

§ Mr. Atkinson
I am making my protest over the ease with which Ministers waive privilege because it is a convenient thing to do. If a fine analysis were made of all that is going on in the Lords at the moment, with employment, and trade union legislation, and a whole host of other things, it would be seen that we do not even bother to say that we shall waive our privilege; we close our eyes and allow things to go through. This sort of thing is not good enough. We ought to insist, as Members of the Commons—[Interruption.]—I invite Conservative Members to join me—that the Lords should not be allowed to do this.

§ Mr. Oakes
In fairness to the other place, I should say that of all the many amendments we have moved, this is the first one involving privilege that I have brought before the House.

§ Mr. Atkinson
My hon. Friend has not mentioned it before.

§ Mr. Oakes
I have not needed to mention it before. This affects the privileges of this House because it deals with a financial matter which is the concern of this House. So far as I am aware, this is the only privilege motion that I have moved. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has moved any. I would 1479 add that this was a Government amendment in the Lords.