§ 11.33 a.m.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I should like to return to a question which I asked the noble Lord on Second Reading. Under Clause 2(2), there is provision that the Secretary of State shall in certain circumstances lay a Statement before the House of Commons with a view to obtaining a Resolution. The question which I now repeat is, why such a Resolution should not need to be obtained from both Houses, as in the case of the Industry Act 1972? It seems that there may be some inconsistency here, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clear up this point.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that there is no real difference of view between the noble Lord and myself on this matter. I think we need to be clear that we are speaking about two separate matters. The first is the provision in Clause 2(1) that the Secretary of State must seek the authority of the House of Commons via a Resolution before he sets up any new scheme under the Bill costing more than £10 million. The second is the provision in Clause 2(2) that before seeking such a Resolution he must lay a Statement before the House of Commons explaining his proposal.
Let us first consider the provision for a Resolution in Clause 2(1). It is normal for schemes of this kind to be financed by appropriation, and this means, as your Lordships will fully appreciate, that authorisation is a matter for the House of Commons. The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to ensure that large items of expenditure under this Bill can be scrutinised by the House of Commons in the normal way.
Now let us look at the provision for laying a Statement before the House of Commons in Clause 2(2). The purpose is, quite simply, to provide the necessary information about the proposed scheme. 1928 At this point I should say a few words about Clause 2(3). This subsection is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take emergency action without a Resolution of the House of Commons where he is satisfied that urgent action is required and a Resolution would involve an unacceptable delay. In such cases, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a Statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for it. The Bill therefore provides for a Statement to be laid in two different circumstances: first, before the Secretary of State seeks authority for a particular scheme via a Resolution and, secondly, when he needs to take emergency action and has to proceed without a Resolution.
I can assure noble Lords, as I did during the Second Reading debate, that although the Bill does not specifically provide for this, a Statement will be laid both here and in the House of Commons in both of the circumstances I have described. As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, it is in any case normal practice for Statements to be made in both Houses when an important new scheme or package of schemes to combat unemployment is announced.
I hope I have said enough to make clear why the authorisation of individual schemes is a matter for the House of Commons. I hope also that my assurance that Statements will be laid both here and in another place will allay the noble Lord's worries on this point. I can assure him that the fact that the Bill does not specifically provide for Statements to be laid in both Houses in no way constitutes a precedent. With that explanation, I hope that the House will be satisfied. May I thank the noble Lord for raising the matter because, as a Member of the House of Lords, I have as much interest in it as he has.
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for such a very full reply.
§ Bill read 3a, and passed.