HC Deb 26 May 1965 vol 713 cc795-801

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, or in any sums payable under section 1 or 19 of the said Act of 1962 out of moneys provided by Parliament, as may result from increasing to one hundred and twenty million pounds the limit imposed by the said proviso.—[Mr. Ross.]

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)

I hope that I am in order in asking certain questions about the Resolution. After all, although the Bill and its possible financial implications were discussed in the Standing Committee, a great many hon. Members had no opportunity to raise questions at that time. I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to answer questions.

It seems to me that there are two sides to the Money Resolution. It is not very clear from it what is involved, but there appears to be a matter of some £10 million which the Government are asking the Committee to vote for the purposes of the Scottish Special Housing Association. It may well be that from some points of view £10 million is a comparatively small sum, but in the Kingdom of Scotland it is a very great sum, representing no less than £2 per head of the population—man, woman and child.

Obviously, it is the duty of any Scottish hon. Member to raise questions about the expenditure of a sum of money of this sort. I had great difficulty in finding on what it is intended to spend this money. The reason for my difficulty was that although the Scottish Grand Committee met yesterday the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of that Committee was not available in the Vote Office until 4.25 this afternoon. In view of the very important debates in this Chamber since then, it has been impossible for hon. Members to give the report of the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee the attention it deserves. It is a very long report. Other hon. Members associated with me in raising these questions were unable to attend the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. Although I am a member of that Committee, I was unable to attend because I was attending in another Standing Committee at that time. In view of that, I hope that I may be forgiven even at this late hour for raising certain questions.

There is the proposal to spend £10 million on what I should consider capital projects, but over and above that, there is a proposal to spend a somewhat indefinite amount of money on what I might call the running expenses of the Scottish Special Housing Association. We have had a great deal of difficulty in connection with this because the Bill to which the Money Resolution relates has been issued twice. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the first issue of the Bill, it was stated that the annual cost consequent on the Bill covered by this Money Resolution would be £50,000. On the second publication of the Bill we were told in the Explanatory Memorandum that that was a mistake and the actual expenditure which might be expected annually under the Bill was very much nearer £500,000. There is a great difference between £50,000 and £500,000.

I think the Secretary of State has to offer some explanation on this point about how much money he expects will be expended under the Bill. He may have given an explanation in another place, but various hon. Members in this Committee have had no such explanation.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

Do I understand the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to suggest that because he personally finds it inconvenient to attend a Committee Ministers and other hon. Members should stay up at this late hour to hear what he has to say?

Mr. Hendry

When the hon. Member has been in the House a little longer, he will discover that on occasion hon. Members have a plurality of duties.

The Chairman

Order. I hope that on discussion of this Resolution we shall not pursue the habits of hon. Members in attending or not attending Committees.

Mr. Hendry

I am obliged to you, Dr. King, but I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will not interrupt.

The Chairman

The rebuke was addressed to both hon. Members, the interrupter and the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Hendry

I am obliged, Dr. King. I revert to the question of the actual expenditure anticipated under the Bill. The majority of hon. Members had no opportunity of hearing an explanation, and I think that we are entitled to have one, of the discrepancy between the two issues of the Bill. The larger of the two sums mentioned is a very large sum, but some of us are doubtful whether it is the correct sum for this particular purpose. Some hon. Members who know about these things think it is inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us exactly how he arrived at the sum of £10 million. I have been unable to find any explanation of how it is made up. Presumably, it is for the purpose of enabling the Association to provide houses, but we have had no explanation in the House of how many houses it is intended to provide from this sum of £10 million and where they are to be—

1.0 a.m.

The Chairman

Order. I intervene delicately—I hesitate to intervene in matters concerning Scotland—but the Bill has just been referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, which, I understand, will be dealing with the points that the hon. Member is seeking to raise. I may be wrong.

Mr. Hendry

We have before us, Dr. King, a Resolution to authorise the payment out of the Treasury of a sum which, to all intents and purposes, is £10 million, because the authorised expenditure is being increased from £110 million to £120 million. My question to the Secretary of State is whether the figure of £10 million is the correct one and, if not, what the correct figure is. That is a financial point upon which we should get explanation at this stage, when this Committee of the House of Commons is authorising the expenditure out of the Treasury of such a vast sum of money.

I defer to your wishes, Dr. King—I do not want to go further in that matter—but we must see that we are getting value for this money as well as seeing that the sum is correct. I should like to know how the Secretary of State arrives at this figure. How much of this money for which he is asking is attributable to the increased costs in building houses in the last six months? That seems to me to be very relevant, too.

The Chairman

Order. I intervene very hesitantly. Is not the appropriate place for the hon. Member to raise this query the Scottish Standing Committee, to which we have just referred the Bill whicn has had its Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hendry

I stand corrected, Dr. King. This Committee tonight, however, is being asked to authorise a large expenditure of money, and it is the duty of this Committee to examine the proposal and find out whether that money is the correct amount and whether it is being correctly spent.

There has been difficulty in connection with the two issues of the Bill about the amount of money which is required for annual expenditure. We have had no explanation whatever whether that is a correct amount, how the sum of £50,000 or £500,000 was spent, how much is due to interest charges, how much to administration and all that sort of thing. However, I defer to you in what you have said, Dr. King, and your delicate reproof to me. I do not want at this late hour to weary the Committee unnecessarily, but the Committee is entitled to an answer to the various questions which I have put.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

If I may do so briefly out of courtesy to him, I will reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). If he looks at the proceedings of the Committee, which I too, read at 4.30 today, he will see at col. 6 and col. 53 a complete explanation of the points which he has raised.

The two points made by the hon. Member—the first, that the money may be inadequate, and the second, that a lot of money is involved—answer themselves. The simple explanation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attempted to give in Committee—which I, too, could not attend but which, I thought, was adequate for anyone reading the proceedings of the Committee—shows that at the present rate, actual advances will reach the limit of £110 million towards the end of 1966.

If that were the simple problem facing the Government, the Bill would be unnecessary, but because of the Public Accounts Committee and its views it was felt that we had to introduce the Bill to meet the suggestion that in giving approvals we would be able to go only as far as the end of 1965. In order not to impede the progress of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which every Member of the Committee applauds for its fine work, and the work which it was intended to do, the Bill has been brought in with, I thought, the agreement of all concerned.

As to an explanation of the £½ million referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, I can only say that when the Bill was first printed, it was printed as "£500,00," with the last "0" missing from the sum.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

On a point of order. These figures are very important, and I do not think there is a sufficient number of Members present here to form a quorum to consider them.

The Chairman

I would be grateful if the hon. Member would speak up.

Mr. Yates

I was saying that—

The Chairman

Order. I do not address the reproach to the hon. Member in particular, but I have noticed that it is becoming a habit of many hon. Members not to speak up. It is important that the Chair, and, indeed, other hon. Members, should be able to hear an hon. Member when he is speaking.

Mr. Yates

I was pointing out, in view of the importance of the Money Resolution, that I did not think there were sufficient Members present. I understand now that there are. Therefore, I shall not pursue the point of order I was putting to the Chair. I regret that I intervened at that moment, and I should like to apologise to the Chair and to the Committee.

The Chairman

I am grateful to the hon. Member for not proceeding with the point.

Dr. Mabon

As I was saying, when the Bill was reprinted, because there was a printers' error in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, that error was corrected, and the figure properly set out, £500,000. The figure itself is an estimate made by the Government of what would be the ultimate addition to the annual housing Vote, when this £10 million capital authorisation is translated into houses and into rented houses and becomes a charge on the annual housing Vote. It is the fairest calculation which can be made in the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, or in any sums payable under section 1 or 19 of the said Act of 1962 out of moneys provided by Parliament, as may result from increasing to one hundred and twenty million pounds the limit imposed by the said proviso.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day.

Forward to