HL Deb 14 June 1982 vol 431 cc451-2
Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why the provisions implementing Directive 81/177/EEC were enacted as Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1981, thereby denying this House the opportunity to amend them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, it is the normal practice for matters of substance relating to the work of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to be dealt with in the Finance Act. This practice was followed in regard to this directive which relates to the procedures for the export of Community goods.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, in view of the fact that Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1981 amended the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which, so far as I know, was not a Money Bill, was this not a practice that, in this particular case, because it was an administrative matter, should not have been followed?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Act to which my noble friend refers was a consolidation measure which consolidated a number of provisions, including provisions which over the years had been enacted in various Finance Acts. There are a number of precedents for measures such as this to be included in Finance Acts, including, for example, Schedule 1 to the 1971 Act.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, when this is an administrative matter and does not of itself have relationship to moneys, it would be a better practice if all such legislation as that to which he refers were so framed as to be able to be at least amended by both Houses of Parliament?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable point of view, but the fact is that a number of provisions of this nature, including administrative matters relating to Customs and Excise, have down the ages been included in Finance Acts. This is by no means the first case.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, does this not protect Her Majesty's Customs and Excise from the kind of scrutiny to which other departments of state are subject, and might not some thought be given to ceasing this practice in the future?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I fear that this is not a matter for me. However, it is certainly the case that these arrangements are of long standing. Perhaps therefore it is a matter which, if it were thought appropriate, could be taken up in another place.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter, but I have only one or two questions. Is it not a matter for your Lordships' House rather than for another place? It is your Lordships' House which has deen deprived of the opportunity of scrutinising perfectly ordinary legislation in this particular case, because it happens to be related to customs.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, with respect, it is a matter for the Speaker in another place who attaches a certificate to the Finance Act that it is a Money Bill and is therefore subject to the various provisions of the Parliament Act.

Back to