Skip to main content

Clause 13—(Continuation Of Relief For Vehicles Fitted With Towing Contrivances)

Volume 466: debated on Wednesday 22 June 1949

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

There is a rather curious drafting point on this Clause. The Clause provides that Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1943, is made permanent. I had always understood that nothing that was ever done in this Parliament could be made permanent. We are always dependent on the wishes of those following after, and I have never previously seen it stated in any Act of Parliament that any provision should be made permanent. It seems quite unnecessary for us to use such language in this case.

I do not know whether I am going to have the unusual privilege of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport replying to this point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Indeed, why not? The only point is that the question which I am raising has nothing to do with transport, although the Clause itself relates to transport. I am raising a much more general point of drafting upon which, with all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I should have thought the Financial Secretary would be able to speak perhaps with a greater weight of authority. If we look at the words in brackets in this Clause we find that Section 10 of the Finance Act is terminable by Order in Council. If we were merely to say that Section 10 of the Finance Act shall not be terminable by Order in Council we should have achieved the object of the Clause, without stating something which appears to be in itself ridiculous; that is to say, that we are making something permanent which we cannot do and are not intending to do. May we have an explanation on this point?

This Clause has been fathered on to me because my Ministry is responsible for the substance of it, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the language is often that of Jacob although the hand is the hand of Esau. I will carry back the point he has made—he has frequently made points of substance in the past in relation to drafting matters—and see whether the wording is accurate in this particular case. As to the substance of the Clause, I gather that he raises no objection to it.

I concede at once that the substance of the Clause is perfectly sound. It is sensible, and I have no quarrel with it.

In that case, I hope the Committee will be prepared to give us the Clause on the understanding that we will look at the drafting of it.

I am sure the Committee will accept the offer of the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter again between now and Report, and if necessary make the alteration. But I would call attention to the rather curious doctrine that he enunciated, that a Minister may take responsibility for the substance of a Clause but apparently no responsibility whatever for the drafting. That is a novel doctrine to me. I always understood that a Minister who accepted responsibility for a Clause accepted responsibility for the matter as well as the manner. I hope that at this late hour the Committee will pass this slight slip sub silentio, but that the hon. Member will not regard that as any acquiescence in the doctrine that any Minister can say to the House of Commons "I have to answer for this Clause, but I am not responsible for the drafting, and I cannot answer any question about it."

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way he put that point. I hope I said nothing—and I believe he will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT the day after tomorrow that I said nothing—to detract from the responsibility of the Minister for the Clause in any way. There are special officers who advise the Minister on drafting, but the Minister takes full responsibility for the matter and the substance of the Clause.

I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the great knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on these matters, but the Parliamentary Secretary should not be saddled with this kind of thing at this time in the morning. The Finance Bill is introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, himself a great lawyer, and the Committee ought to have also the advantage of the attendance of two Law Officers. For a matter of this great importance to be left to a private Member is a peculiar manner for the Committee to transact its business.

I think that one of us should support what has been said about the extraordinary wording of this Clause. However, it is not necessary to say any more because we have an assurance, more or less, of what the Government are going to do. As to the extraordinary speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, whatever the OFFICIAL REPORT may say the day after tomorrow, it did seem to most of us that he was talking in the sense of dual responsibility. The Section referred to in this Clause is something which a good many of us have been trying to make permanent for a long while. The concession was made in 1943, and it is only fair to say that many of us welcome this Clause for its practical effect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.