§ Mr. SpeakerLast Thursday, the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) raised with me the matter of the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979. He suggested that the implications of the order were such as to it make its discussion and approval by another place a breach of the privileges of this House. I undertook to rule on the point that he raised.
As the House knows, the draft order seeks to give effect to a decision of the Governments and the member States of the European Coal and Steel Community allocating to that Community additional contributions for the financial year 1978. Among those contributions is one from the United Kingdom.
I have examined the matter with care since the hon. Gentleman raised it and I have two observations to make. In the first place, section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that draft orders of this type, defining certain Community treaties as treaties within the meaning of the Act, shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. Indeed, section 2(3) of that Act expressly envisages a charge arising from an obligation under a treaty approved in that way.
Secondly, in his submission to me last Thursday the hon. Member said that there was a tradition that the other House should in no circumstances grant or refuse Supply. However, I have to say that all Appropriation, Consolidated Fund or Finance Bills pass through normal statutory procedures and so are considered by another place.
As for statutory instruments, their procedures are governed by the Acts under which they are made. If, as in this case, the parent Act provides that the instrument requires approval by both Houses or is subject to annulment by either House, that is the procedure that must be followed.
In the circumstances, I do not find that this is an issue that touches on the privileges of the House. However, I congratulate the hon. Member on being so keen to guard our rights and privileges.
§ Mr. StoddartOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that ruling, which I must confess I somewhat expected. I think that it shows that the House must be careful about legislation. When it passes a parent Act, it must ensure that it understands exactly what the implications are. I am not sure that when we passed the European Communities Act in 1972, after the imposition of a severe guillotine, we knew exactly what the implications were.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that there were ample precedents for this and that this statutory instrument is no different from many others that grant Supply. Nevertheless, is it not the case that even though the Finance Bill is discussed by the other place, it cannot refuse Supply? Is it true that if it refuses to pass this order the Supply could not be made? The answer to that question would be interesting.
Perhaps the Lord President, who is present, would like to consider my second point. The amount involved here is £3.25 million. Are we to suppose that at some future date perhaps £30 million or £60 million will have to go through the same procedure, thus giving the House of Lords the right of refusal of Supply to a significant degree? The Lord President should consider this and perhaps make a statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe point of order was addressed to me and not to the Lord President—who no doubt is counting his blessings.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two interesting questions, but they are hypothetical. By long tradition, no Speaker of the House ever rules on or answers hypothetical questions. We should get into too much trouble if we did so.
§ Mr. SpearingFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a point that may be for you? If it is not, I hope that the Lord President will reply to it on Friday evening, when there is an Adjournment debate touching on this issue. You said that the European Communities Act contained a section that made provision for making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund under a statutory instrument laid under section 1(3). Is it unique that a statutory instrument of itself becomes the means of paying 51 money out of the Consolidated Fund and therefore under the Appropriation Act?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is not a precedent—that there have been other occasions when statutory instruments involving expenditure have been subject to proceedings in both Houses. There were the Hill Farming Act 1946 and the Agriculture Act 1967, both of which made provision for statutory instruments to go before both Houses.
§ Mr. HooleyFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take your point that Consolidated Fund and other Bills go to the other place, but I think that I am right in saying that the other place has no power to reject them. If that is correct, is it the case that although this order may have to go before the other place, the other place cannot negative it?
§ Mr. SpeakerAll I know is that it has to go before the other place; we shall find out afterwards what happens to it. I really do not know any more than that at the moment.