MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ORDER) (Hansard, 27 January 1967)

§ Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
I beg to move, That this House deplores the action of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in moving that an Order be approved involving the expenditure of over £2,600 million before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments had completed its consideration of the Order, and believes that in so doing he impaired the ability of the House of Commons to control public expenditure. This very morning the Third Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which we were denied when this Order was debated, has been printed and is available in the Vote Office. The Committee resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee that the Rate Support Grant Order 1966 should be drawn to the attention of the House on the ground that it appears to make unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made, in that the Order was laid before the parent Act was available to Members and the public". In other words, the Committee, as many of us guessed, was not satisfied with the way in which the Minister put the Order before the House, and, having considered the memorandum which the Minister submitted to the Select Committee in response to its invitation, it is still not satisfied. But the House is denied any redress because the Minister put the Order through before the House had the benefit of the Report from the Select Committee.
2026 What are the precedents for such action? As far as one can tell, they are virtually non-existent. I am extremely grateful for the assistance of the department of the Clerk of the House in looking up precedents. None has been found except on 24th November, 1965, involving Rhodesia. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall the urgency with which those Measures were passed by the House as extraordinary Measures. Much of the normal machinery of the House was run at a fantastic speed in order to get them through. There is absolutely no reason for voting such an enormous sum of money, which amounts to the equivalent of 13s. 6d. in the £ on the standard rate of Income Tax, before the Select Committee has had opportunity of reporting on it.
Now, why was this done? Not because there were no days left in the Session. There were two days left. Therefore, I attempted on 20th December to adjourn the debate until after the Committee would have had an opportunity of reporting. That was not accepted by the Chair, and, of course, one must accept the Ruling of the Chair. But when the Minister, once it had been pointed out to him—at the time, I may say, the Minister was busy filling his stomach rather than his mind, I understand, and could not bring himself to be present for the short time the debate lasted in the House—was summoned and came, and there was a rapid consultation, even then did not do as he could have done—withdraw the Order.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary got up at the end of the debate he made what one can only describe as a very half-hearted, near apology. He said: Perhaps I might begin with the nearest thing to an apology which I have to make. If, by any chance, my right hon. Friend has erred in regard to paying adequate respect to the Statutory Instruments Committee, which is not admitted, I can only say that the reason was that we were extremely anxious to get all the information available not only to the House but to the local authorities…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 1323.] So the Minister could not be bothered himself to be present for this short debate.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)
On a 2027 point of order. I shall not have time to reply to the hon. Member, but he is giving the impression that my right hon. Friend deliberately absented himself from the debate. My right hon. Friend was present. He moved the Order, and he was here, apart from other Ministerial duties taking him away, a great part of the discussion. Therefore it is a little unfair of the hon. Member, and shows what a weak case he has got, to try to exaggerate it by a personal attack on my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
A somewhat peculiar point of order, but I did not say that the Minister was not present at any time. If the hon. Gentleman will check what I have said he will find that what I have said is accurate, although he has endeavoured to contradict it.

§ Mr. MacColl
What the hon. Member said was that my right hon. Friend was absent and had rapidly to be brought back and was apparently reluctant to come back. My right hon. Friend was here a very large part of the debate. He came back in the ordinary course of the debate. He listened to it as much as his other duties would allow him to. I was present for the rest of the debate and myself dealt with the point which the hon. Member had made.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
We need not pursue this further, because those in the House at the time will remember the Minister being sent for, and he came back very rapidly indeed.

§ Mr. MacColl
rose—

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
No. I have given way twice and on a bogus point of order.
There has, alas, been only a handful of minutes available for what ought to have been a debate which was thrashed out in considerable detail. If the House of Commons thinks it worth while to have a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments it is worth while that that Committee should be able to perform its functions before the House votes on a measure, let alone a measure involving such an enormous amount of public money, and now we have received a Report which is not satisfied with the Minister's response, and the House has no redress. It cannot repeal the Order. It has no redress at all except to ballot, as has been done, and hope that there is sufficient time for a proper debate—which, alas, there is not.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)
rose—