THE FINANCE BILL (Hansard, 7 July 1976)

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
1226 To ask the Leader of the House what provisions are being made to ensure that this House can fulfil its essential duty of debating the powers proposed to be conferred by Schedule 6 to the Finance Bill at present before the House of Commons.

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)
My Lords, the House will have the usual opportunity of discussing the Finance Bill when it is received from another place.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Finance Bill comes to this House with Schedule 6 as it now stands, the Government may inadvertently be infringing Standing Order No. 49? Is he further aware that Erskine May lays down quite clearly that to tack on to a Finance Bill constitutional issues such as trespass and freedom of the individual, as Schedule 6 does, is against the principles that ought to be accepted? Also, is he aware that if the Finance Bill is allowed to come as it is now, in order to preserve the constitutional powers of this House, the only alternative may be not to accept it, which would be a very inconvenient and wrong thing to do ? Whereas if there is a separate Bill, as has been the case in the past, the matter can then be dealt with properly without, inadvertently or otherwise, infringing either the constitutional powers of this House or the Rules of Order.

§ Lord SHEPHERD
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having raised this interesting point at this stage, and not at a later stage when we have the Finance Bill before the House. May I refer the noble Lord, and any other noble Lords who may be interested, to what is said in Erskine May, Nineteenth Edition, page 802, as it refers to the House of Commons, which is very similar to our own Standing Order No. 49. If the noble Lord will look at that page, he will see that it is quite specific. He will also be aware that the question of " tacking ", to which the Standing Order refers, has not been successfully challenged since 1807. Therefore, since then Governments have been very careful, and so have the authorities in both Houses, to see that Bills which come before the House do not contravene the Standing Orders. If the noble Lord 1227 will also look at Section 37 of the 1972 Finance Act, which was brought in under a Conservative Administration, he will see that it includes the VAT Customs and Excise powers which are broadly similar to the powers of search and entry sought in Schedule 6. May I also say to the noble Lord—and I do so merely to avoid difficulties in future—that what we are seeking to do here is to amend two sections, one of the Income Tax Act 1975 and Section 6 of the Finance Act 1966, both of which did not infringe the Standing Order that the noble Lord has in mind.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have read the references to which he has referred, and have come to the opposite view ? Is he further aware that the reference to the 1972 Act on VAT was disposed of by his noble friend Lord Houghton, who is an expert on these matters? As there is clearly a doubt—even that expressed by the noble Lord himselfߞis he prepared to submit this matter to the Committee for Privileges where any doubt at all, such as exists in my mind, can be cleared away, so avoiding any delay in this important Finance Bill being dealt with before the proper date of 5th August?

§ Lord SHEPHERD
My Lords, I will certainly consider this matter, but there is some difficulty as neither the Committee for Privileges nor the Procedure Committee is quite apt for dealing with this kind of matter. I seek to persuade the noble Lord that his fears are quite unfounded. Clearly, this is a matter for your Lordships' House as a whole, but I must say to the noble Lord, and to the House, that I have gone into it with the greatest possible care. 1 must also say to the noble Lord, who has great experience of another place, that what goes through their procedures is very rarely challenged in your Lordships' House. If we took a contrary view, then I think we should be challenging not only the views of the Table but, perhaps, the decision of Mr. Speaker.

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this House, whatever else it is, is a kind of longstop for the Constitution and for people's liberties? There is a serious 1228 and grave anxiety about this matter which is not even a Party issue, but is a constitutional issue. So will he consider whether this is something which could be looked at by the Committee, whose appointment was moved yesterday and approved by the House, to study the procedures and practices of Parliament ? That might be appropriate. Is this not a very serious matter? Also, does the noble Lord agree that to blame the Tories for doing something similar on VAT is like saying that two blacks make a white, which they do not?

§ Lord SHEPHERD
My Lords, I really am rather simple, but I agree that black is not always white. But I was not blaming the Conservatives for VAT. What I was saying was that there is this clear precedent in the 1972 Act, which is broadly similar to what is being proposed in Schedule 6. But if there is doubt among those who have responsibility—not myself alone, but those on the Front Bench—I am very willing to look at it with them. My difficulty is that there is no appropriate Committee to which we could refer this matter, and, certainly, I doubt very much whether the Committee which the noble Earl has in mind will be set up in time to consider it.

§ Lord CARRINGTON
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I believe what he has just said is moderately satisfactory? If we can continue these discussions outside, so much the better. But would it not be the best solution of all to abolish Schedule 6?

§ Lord SHEPHERD
My Lords, there are always differing views. I suppose that is why we sit on opposite sides of the House. But if the noble Lord is willing, I shall be very happy to discuss this matter. Certainly, I do not want to see a delay in getting this House up at the end of July, and I need to get the Finance Bill through by then. I would not want any unnecessarily protracted proceedings that would prevent both of the very admirable aims which I have in mind.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it was in his capacity as Leader of the House, rather than as spokesman for the Government, that I put this matter to him in good time for it to be dealt with ? 1229 It is very important that the Leader of the House should preserve the constitutional powers of this House, and I know he has them very much at heart. I should have thought that the Committee for Privileges ought to look at this matter next week, before the Finance Bill comes here, in order to clear away any possible doubt whatsoever that our powers are being infringed.

§ Lord SHEPHERD
My Lords, as I said, I do not think that the Committee for Privileges is the right body to consider this matter. In fact, we do not have an appropriate Committee and, normally, such a matter would be decided by the whole House. I suspect that for a matter of this kind the House is not an appropriate body, merely because of its size. But I would much prefer, if the noble Lord agrees, to open conversations immediately through the usual channels to see whether we can reconcile any doubts that may exist.