BUILDING CONTROL (Hansard, 8 March 1966)

§ Mr. Pannell
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, if I have inconvenienced you in any way, and to the House. I wish to make a statement about building control.
My present control springs from the Chancellor's statement of 27th July, in which my right hon. Friend said that we would introduce building licensing for projects over £100,000. Since then I have granted authorisations for a number of urgent and essential projects. I now propose to operate the control in the sense and according to the terms of announcements I have made from time to time during the Committee stage of the Building Control Bill, which it is the Government's intention to reintroduce in the new Parliament. In particular, alterations over £100,000, as well as new work, are included in the scope of the 1918 control. I propose to offer detailed guidance to the industry and I am publishing an explanatory memorandum.
Only 7 per cent. of all new construction work is affected by the control—there are exemptions for housing and industrial projects and for all work in development districts I propose to authorise a sufficient proportion of this work to keep demand and capacity in balance. I shall look at proposals on their merits, bearing in mind local needs and particularly the capacity of the industry in each area. Projects authorised now will affect the load on the industry 15 to 18 months ahead, or even further. It is my firm intention to operate the machinery in such a way that essential work is not held up by lack of capacity. This has happened in the past.
My purpose is twofold: to avoid overheating in the construction industry while maintaining the full employment which it has enjoyed under this Government.

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark
We can hardly call that statement timely, as the statement by the President of the Board of Trade was called. How can the Minister say that the controls spring from the Chancellor's statement of 27th July, which had no legislative authority whatever? Does it not sound like scant regard, if not contempt, for the House of Commons for the right hon. Gentleman to say so?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retrospective element in the statement is a deplorable example of taking administrative action without statutory authority? Is it not monstrous that a provision which the Standing Committee considering the Building Control Bill decided to omit has been included in the statement—the more so since the right hon. Gentleman himself told us during the proceedings on the Bill that the Opposition had made a better and tidier job at the end of the day?
Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that there is overheating in the brick industry after yesterday's statement about there being 709 million bricks in stock? Will he now withdraw the suggestion that he made yesterday that I had perpetrated a false innuendo against him on supplementary questions on this matter?

§ Mr. Pannell
rose—

§ Mr. Ridley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the Minister ask leave to speak again?

§ Mr. Pannell
I know the Question on which I am speaking and it was my intention to ask leave of the House to speak again.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the House now will take this matter seriously. An accident has happened. It is in order for the House to refuse leave for the Minister to speak again. If that is done, however, he does not answer questions that the House would wish him to answer.

§ Mr. Pannell
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's statement about false innuendo, he had better read HANSARD, when he will find that he made an innuendo against me yesterday, when he suggested that I was withholding matters from the House. A careful reading of HANSARD will make that clear. In any case, there is plenty of innuendo in what he has said today.
I want to make the position perfectly clear on one point. Until the Building Control Bill becomes law I cannot grant licences as such. Anyone starting a project now, however, wants to know whether he will need a licence to complete it once licences can be granted. I am, therefore, giving prior authorisations to urgent projects. There is nothing illegal about starting a project costing over £100,000, but anyone doing so without authorisation does so at his peril. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] He may not get a licence to finish it off. The only person so bold as to do that would be someone silly enough to believe that the party opposite will win the election.

§ Mr. Grimond
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your Ruling? I understand that I am entitled to make a speech and not ask a question.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a speech if he so wishes, but I think that it would be for the convenience and the sense of the House if first questions were asked of the Minister on what he has said. [Interruption.] Order. I have no power to prevent the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) 1920 from making a speech on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which we are now discussing, knowing that a defence debate is ahead.

§ Mr. Grimond
I am indebted to you, Mr. Speaker.
This seems to be a matter of some constitutional importance. I hope to make a very short speech, but I would rather phrase it in the form of a speech than as a Question. In the statement referred to by the Minister of Public Building and Works, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government would introduce legislation instituting a licensing procedure to govern the starting dates of privately sponsored construction projects to the value of £100,000 or more. He went on to say that the control would be made retrospective to all such projects for which no contracts had been entered into before the time of announcement. It is my contention that the whole of this procedure depends on an Act being passed by Parliament.
It may be undesirable to have retrospective legislation, but to have retrospective government by announcement is something which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House—

§ Mr. Shinwell
rose—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) must contain himself if the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not give way.

§ Mr. Grimond
As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman, being a very senior Privy Councillor, will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. He must contain himself at least until the election, when he may get into his electioneering form—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am making a very serious point.
I maintain that the House should spend at least a few moments in considering the situation which now faces us. We shall not have the Act which alone could lend legality to this procedure. The Minister has said that he now proposes to operate the control. He proposes to operate the control according to the announcements which he made from time to time during the Committee stage of 1921 the Building Control Bill. I doubt whether there has ever been a statement in this House that a Minister proposed—

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House, as I am sure that you wish to do, whether we are now on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is what I want to know. Are we on the Bill and, if so, may we debate anything we wish?

§ Mr. Speaker
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman knew that we are on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and that the general opinion which the House had yesterday was that it should be taken formally so that we might continue with what the House regarded, I thought, as an important debate on defence. However, what has happened now is that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is perfectly in order in raising any matter for which the Government have responsibility.

§ Mr. Heath
On a point of order. Is it not plain that we find ourselves in this position because of the incompetence of the Minister of Public Building and Works in not being here to make his statement at the right time, in which case we should have been limited to questions? I hope, therefore, that you, Mr. Speaker, will not in any way try to influence the House against debating this very important constitutional matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The question of the competence or incompetence of any Minister or hon. Member of Parliament is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for political discussion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to suggest that the Chair wished in any way to influence the House.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Grimond
rose—

§ Mr. Woodburn
On a point of order. Was it not quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, a man who holds a responsible post, suggested that you, Mr. Speaker, were influencing the House once a debate was started?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not take that from what the right hon. Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Grimond
I appreciate that there may be some doubt about what is meant by the phrase "operating controls". The Minister has said, since he made his statement that, in his view, anyone can go ahead with a building project which later may be refused a licence, but he has threatened that, if he does go ahead, he may find himself subject to a very severe loss because a licence will not be granted. With all respect to the Minister, I should have thought that this was an improper statement by a Minister, that, though somebody may do something perfectly legally, he may nevertheless suffer very grave financial loss.
I suggest to the Government that they will have to drop this whole project. I say this with regret, because I was in favour of the Bill and I am in favour of this licensing, but I am more in favour of maintaining the authority of the House of Commons. I am more in favour of maintaining what I regard as being a proper procedure in our government. I believe that, in this, I would have some sympathy from the Minister himself, because he has shown on previous occasions that he is a great stickler for our procedures and for the ability of the House of Commons to ensure that nothing is done retrospectively without authority to the detriment of individual citizens, however much we might think that, in general, had it been done properly, it might have been desirable.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, in addressing the House on the subject of defence? I was hoping to catch your eye and I have a speech ready on this subject. Have I your permission to proceed?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a question of permission. The right hon. Gentleman would be in order, but I think that he would be running counter to the whole pattern of Parliament if, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, he now anticipated a debate which both sides of the House seem to wish should take place on the Motion on Defence.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Did it occur to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party that this was likely to happen? Is he so ill-informed of the procedures of the House, after several years of membership? He ought to do his homework before he rises to address the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a Ruling and for my advice. I have given it.

§ Mr. Mawby
I do not think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is surely a great constitutional question which we are now discussing. The Minister said that his powers spring from the statement made by the Chancellor last July. In fact, his powers do not spring from that statement, but were sought to be taken as a result of the Chancellor's statement and they were quite properly put into a Bill which, unfortunately, only reached its Committee stage.
Therefore, the House has given no permission to the Minister to take any steps on these matters. I should like to back up—

§ Mr. Woodburn
On a point of order. Would it be in order for me to move to report Progress so that we might have a statement from the Opposition as to whether they are deserting their debate on defence in order to frustrate the House and carry on this debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to move to report Progress. The question is whether the Chair accepts the Motion. The Chair does not.

§ Mr. Mawby
I believe that there is a great deal in what the Leader of the Liberal Party has said, that this is a matter in which the Minister is trying to legislate by statement. He is calling upon every builder in this country to take note of the fact that, at this moment, there is nothing illegal in his doing a certain thing, but that, if he does it, he may be at peril, because a future Government may, by this retrospective action, say that he was wrong in taking that action at this moment.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. It is something which the House should never allow itself to be a party to. The Minister ought gracefully to withdraw 1924 and give notice, if only by an addendum to the Labour Party's election manifesto, that they intend to bring back the Bill next Session if they are returned. This would be the honest and honourable step to take. Otherwise, they will put all those in the country in a particular group who are involved in building in a state of uncertainty, whereby they know that, in law, they are quite in order in taking certain actions, but that notice has been given by the Minister, with no statutory basis at all, that, if the party opposite is returned to office, these actions, which are legally taken today or tomorrow, will be rendered illegal because of some action taken in the future which will have retrospective application.
I ask the Minister to withdraw from this action which he intends to take.

§ Mr. Heath
I said in my intervention on a point of order that this matter raised very grave constitutional issues. I think that by now the whole House will agree with that, at any rate. However important this matter is, we on this side of the House do not want to spend a great deal more time on it, because we want to move on to the defence debate. However, two issues arise from the statement.
First, the announcement appeared on the tape at 1.58 p.m., before it was made by the Minister here. We have had experience of this before. We deplore it and in the normal way I would ask a member of the Government to look into the reason why it has happened, for this is a discourtesy to the House.
Secondly, the Minister is operating powers which he does not possess and has never possessed, but which he hoped he would get under a Bill which, because of the date of the General Election, chosen by the Prime Minister, he cannot now have. It therefore seems to be abundantly plain that he cannot possibly operate these powers, not even in the second version which he gave in his supplementary answer and which was in a slightly different form from that in the statement.
We all know that when we have a Prorogation at the end of a Session any Bills which are not passed are dropped. In all my experience, Ministers have 1925 never attempted to operate powers in those Bills or the Bills themselves, but have dropped them. How much more so is that the case when one reaches the Dissolution of Parliament! What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the powers which he is trying to exercise purely on the basis of a statement are to be exercised after Parliament is dissolved in the hope that his own party will be returned to power and the Bill itself will then be passed in the form in which he has been handling it in Committee and which he expects it to have. That is entirely unreasonable and a completely unconstitutional position.
I must, therefore, ask the Leader of the House, who is the senior member of the Government present, to look at the whole of this matter with the utmost care and to consult the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor to see whether there is any legal justification for the attitude and if there is, for a statement to be made in both Houses giving the legal position. I cannot see any possible justification for the position taken up by the Minister of Public Building and Works.
We then come to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in which he said that even if there was no legal justification anybody who embarked on a project of this kind would do so at his peril. This is government of the people by intimidation. We have had it before. We have had intimidation of B.B.C. interviewers and we have heard about intimidation against the publication of information about the economic situation. This is government by intimidation.
The plain fact is that the Minister has absolutely no right to threaten people with action if his Government be returned. The Leader of the House plainly has no power to sanction a statement such as the right hon. Gentleman has made. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to leave the matter as I have put it—that the Leader of the House should consult his legal advisers and tell the House tomorrow whether there is any possible constitutional justification for trying to carry a Bill over the Dissolution of Parliament, or for a Minister to act just on a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is no such power to carry a Bill over Dissolution, then, knowing the integrity of the Leader of 1926 the House from past experience of our close working together, I rely on him in confidence to withdraw the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Question is—

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Pannell
I did not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but I understood that he wanted to leave the matter so that my right hon. Friend could consider the constitutional position. I shall be only too glad to deal with the matters raised, but I want now to make only one point. We have been moving under these powers—if I can use the word "powers"—since 27th July. Today's statement was intended as no more than an indication to industry of the course of action that things will take [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am afraid that we will not get any further if I am picked up on the precise meaning of every word. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying to reply to the Leader of the Opposition.
I used the word "peril". I regret using an emotive, question-begging word, but it was not meant in that sense in that context. All I am saying is that the industry ought to know on what basis it can proceed in order to get the authorisations. I cannot see very much change in the situation. I have quite frankly stated the position and I have not attempted to duck or evade stating what the correct position is. I will say no more at this stage.
I understand the constitutional position. I do not yield to the Leader of the Opposition in my respect for the House. I expressed my regret at the beginning—they were not matters within my control. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wants to leave the matter now so that its constitutional aspects can be considered. If I did not rise at once when the right hon. Gentleman sat down, it was purely because I thought that that was his wish.

§ Mr. Heath
indicated assent.