HC Deb 22 February 1955 vol 537 cc1224-30

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the requirements of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section one of the said Act of 1944, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.—[Mr. Deedes.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown

I rise now because I think that the House really wants to hear from the Financial Secretary. The fundamental point is why the Government have chosen to change the method of financing rural water supplies when we are leaving so many other things of a comparable nature upon the old basis. The third line of the Money Resolution says: it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act … I want to ask the Financial Secretary—and I hope that he will not be discouraged by the presence of the deputy Chief Whip from answering me; I saw a little muttering going on which shook me, but we are still masters of our own procedure and deputy Chief Whips do not control us—why it is held to be expedient to pay additional sums for water by carrying it upon a long-term loan basis, whereas it is not expedient to pay for heavy water in that way. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could not answer the question, but we should be told something about it by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Secondly, I should like him to tell us whether the Money Resolution as at present drawn will preclude the putting down of Amendments during the Committee stage, in the sense argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), to exclude the past agreements which have been entered into in this matter and, thirdly, perhaps he will tell us—since the hon. Gentleman has already indicated that the effect of the Bill will be to shorten the strides that we are taking in regard to the carrying of water to the rural areas and sewerage away from them—if he will be open to accept further Amendments upon this subject during the Committee stage.

Mr. T. Fraser

We are asked as a Committee of the House of Commons to approve the Financial Resolution, which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Surely he is treating the Committee with gross discourtesy if he fails to respond to a request made by any hon. Member for an explanation why the Government have chosen to employ a financial instrument of this kind. I have risen to give the hon. Gentleman time to collect his thoughts. He has technically moved the Money Resolution, but he has not seen fit to rise in order to explain it. He has not said a word. Surely he will tell us why it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Bill of which we have just passed the Second Reading, and why we should pay for our rural water supplies and sewerage by hire purchase rather than by a lump sum.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not pretend to give us all the information. He said that we had accepted the system of periodic payments in education, housing and hospitals; but so had we in 1944. The financing out of the Money Resolution is a change from what the Coalition Government decided in 1944. Can he explain why his Department has decided upon that change? This has nothing to do with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or with the Scottish Office, and nobody pretends that it has. It has nothing to do with the provision of rural water supplies; only with the financing of the provision of water supplies and sewerage in rural areas.

12 midnight.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is surely in a position to justify this Money Resolution to a Committee of the House of Commons. If he is not, he is asking for the sack—he has resigned his office. Having been appointed recently, the Financial Secretary puts this Motion on the Order Paper. That he is not able to utter one word on it is treating the House of Commons with gross discourtesy. The hon. Gentleman has no title to retain his high office.

He has obviously had sufficient time to collect his thoughts and to consult the brief which he surely has on this matter. Brief or no brief, he has a responsibility to this Committee which he can only discharge by giving an explanation of the Motion which he has put upon the Paper.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Deedes rose——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deedes

There are two points on which an answer has been asked for. On the first, I am able to give an answer. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), any Amendment he likes to put forward will not be excluded from the Committee stage by the terms of the Financial Resolution. On the second point, I think hon. Members have been trying to extend the general trend of the debate on to the Money Resolution. They may or may not be satisfied with what I said, but they cannot raise what has happened and ask for an alternative explanation.

Mr. G. Brown

We are in Committee, and I still ask the Financial Secretary for an answer, since the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer us. If we have to we shall sit here for a long time. The deputy Chief Whip would be well- advised to ask the Financial Secretary to disregard the earlier advice he gave him, and to answer us.

On what basis is it decided that it is expedient to incur additional cost for financing rural water supplies and sewerage by long-term loans, and not to apply the same doctrine to other things? On what principle has the Treasury decided to do it in respect of this one service? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. T. Fraser

The Committee cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with this. I am surprised that his own hon. Friends are not protesting. He brought this Motion before the House. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we are continuing the debate that we have already had. We have always, in a way, continued the Second Reading debate on a Bill when we have discussed the Money Resolution, the instrument by which any costs falling upon the Exchequer are provided for. The Financial Secretary must tell us.

Mr. Brown

It is his business to tell us.

Mr. Fraser

We know about the way that housing, education and other local government services are financed. We know all about that, but we also know that in 1944 Parliament passed an Act providing for greatly increased grants for the provision of rural water supplies and sewerage. We know that something was done 10 years earlier in 1934, but it was very little. However, a new provision was introduced in 1944. We know that in some Acts of Parliament since 1944 there have been amendments of the 1944 Act.

The authors of the 1944 Act knew all about the way in which local authority housing and education were financed. Because this was a service which was less burdensome to the Exchequer, they decided to discharge the Government's responsibility by means of lump sum payments in respect of each scheme either in the course of completion or at the point of completion. But for some reason or other, the present Government have now decided to depart from that procedure. We ask a simple question: Why?

It is no answer to say that this puts rural water supplies on the same basis as housing and education. The Government in 1944 decided to put rural water supplies on a different basis because it was less burdensome. It is no answer to say that the change puts this service on the same basis as housing and education. If it is a sound principle to put all Government financed projects on this basis, we are entitled to ask why heavy water, atom bombs and the whole arms programme are not dealt with on a hire purchase basis. We cannot go into that, of course——

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman cannot go into anything of that kind. The House has decided on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to deal with that matter.

Mr. Fraser

But am I not in order, Sir Charles, in Committee of the whole House, to deal with this matter on a Motion in the name of the Financial Secretary, which reads as follows: To move the following in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) [Queen's Recommendation to be signified]:—"— which has already been done— Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage [Money]: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the requirements of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section one of the said Act of 1944, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954. That is the Motion which has been put on the Order Paper by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think we are being at all obstreperous or difficult or unreasonable in asking that the Financial Secretary should speak to his own Motion and tell us why he has brought a Motion of this character before a Committee of the House of Commons.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I will after the hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Fraser

The hon. Gentleman says he will after I have sat down. This is the second time that I have been on my feet, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper has also risen to ask the Financial Secretary to speak to his Motion. He now seems willing to talk. In the circumstances, I will resume my seat. I ask him to tell us simply and plainly, why the change? Why this Motion?

Mr. H. Brooke

Perhaps I can help the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He said earlier this evening that he had been a member of the "Junior Ministers' Union." I think he must have resigned from that union, because he has forgotten the rules. The rules which have been applicable here throughout the period of his Government and back for more than 30 years are that when a Financial Resolution of this kind appears on the Order Paper, it appears in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury but it is actually the Departmental Minister in charge of the Bill who takes charge of the Money Resolution.

The Resolution was not moved by me this evening. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but I wish to help the Committee and, if he will allow me, I wish to answer the main question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me. I cannot debate over again the whole principle of the Bill, which has been decided. In the Money Resolution we are simply empowering the Committee to arrive at certain decisions which have a financial implication. The Money Resolution does that precisely and does no more than that. As my hon. Friend has said, it does not cut out the sort of Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wished to move. It is in fine with the principle of the Bill, which is to assimilate the financial arrangements for water with those which are already operative in the case of housing and education. That has been decided——

Mr. G. Brown

By whom?

Mr. Brooke

By the House. The House decided it a few minutes ago on Second Reading. The Money Resolution now enables the House—and the Bill has been committed to a Standing Committee of the House—to discuss the matter in further detail, as I trust will happen.

When the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asks me to explain why a similar system is not extended throughout the whole defence field, I must ask them to await the defence debate next week or to make their speeches on some more suitable occasion. I think I should be not only out of order but also out of tune with the feeling of the Committee if I embarked on such a large exposition at 12 minutes past midnight.

Mr. Brown

The Committee will agree that the persistence of my hon. Friend and myself has been worth while in that it has persuaded the Financial Secretary that he was capable of speaking on his own Motion.

The doctrine that Financial Resolutions are put down in the Financial Secretary's name only as a matter of form and that, although it reads on the Order Paper "Mr. Henry Brooke to move," in fact somebody else moves it, is a new doctrine which has never been known in my ten years in the House. Since you allowed the hon. Gentleman to make the point, Sir Charles, perhaps you will allow me to answer him. In the whole period of office of the Labour Government, it was never accepted that the Financial Secretary was entitled to sit tight, to let somebody else nod his head and to say that was enough.

We are very glad to have got the Financial Secretary to his feet to speak on his own Motion. On the whole, we regard it as important in the interests of Parliament that when hon. Members put down Motions they should at some stage be prepared to defend them—and that goes for Financial Resolutions and other Motions.

I understand that we are not to be precluded in Committee from moving Amendments to exclude past arrangements entered into from the operations of the Bill. It is important that that should be registered. Although the Financial Secretary is still not willing to explain why this one field has been selected for a course of action which seems highly arguable, I gather from what he said that we shall be able to raise that matter, too, in Committee, and in view of the very lucid explanation which he has given of those two points and in view of the fact that we have now got him modestly to come out of his retirement, we are prepared to let the Financial Resolution go through.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported this day.