New Clause 8.—(ANNUAL REPORT ON PART II OF THE ACT.) (Hansard, 8 March 1967)

§ Mr. Channon
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is simple, and I do not think that it will be objected to on grounds of great principle, although 1634 the Minister may—I hope not—have practical reasons for not accepting it. In the early years of the Bill's operation, it will be extremely valuable to have an annual report on Part II. It will be interesting for the House and file country to have extra information about how it is working.
I greatly doubt the need for Clause 30, the penalties Clause, but, as the Government insist that it is essential, I should like to learn why they think it essential. Perhaps it is unfair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reply at this moment. He gave me a very nice long letter about ten minutes ago. I apologise for not having taken it all in as well as I would 1635 hope to do if given it twenty minutes ago, but I have at least read it.
I think it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine circumstances in which Clause 30 is necessary. In our view, the existing law is already adequate, especially taking into account the Income Tax Acts. The Income Tax Acts are important here. However, there may, perhaps, be compelling reasons, which I shall in due course appreciate more fully, for having Clause 30. If there be such reasons and we have to have it, it will be most helpful to the House to know, as the years go on, how many prosecutions have taken place under Clause 30 and how many convictions have been secured.

§ Mr. Mellish
Ask a Question.

§ Mr. Channon
It is always possible to ask a Question, but this would be only one of a number of Questions which could be put down.
It would be interesting also to know the number of mortgage options that had been applied for, the number taken up and the number of applications rejected because of the conditions laid down for qualifying or for any other reason.
9.0 p.m.
I cannot believe that the administrative difficulties of doing such a thing are likely to prove insuperable. We have already been assured by the Government during the progress of this Bill that as soon as it becomes law a massive publicity campaign will be launched to cover all parts of England, Wales and Scotland. If we are to have such a publicity campaign people will know about the mortgage option scheme, and it ought not to prove too difficult to arrange a system whereby we can be informed of the numbers of mortgage options taken out, applied for or rejected.
It would be interesting also for the House by this means to judge the success of the scheme. We would be able to tell how much it had cost the Government, and would know the cost, also, of the guarantee scheme whenever that comes into force. Of the guarantee scheme, I might say that it would cost the Government very little unless there 1636 was defaulting on a very much larger scale than I think is possible.
If the Minister is disposed to give this proposal favourable consideration, I would not wish the new Clause to inhibit him reporting on other matters in relation to Part II which he might think it valuable for the House to know. We would be delighted, I am sure, to have any report prepared by the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries—although I seem to remember that they are not very keen on annual reports. Perhaps my hon. Friends will refresh my mind as to why the hon. Gentlemen are so chary about such bringing forward such reports, but if they provided the report we suggest we would study it with the greatest care.
The Government have put forward a new system, and the House will wish to see that it is being operated satisfactorily and is having the effect that has been claimed for it. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask for an annual report on the working of Part II. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will treat this matter very sympathetically. I hope that he will tell us that he is prepared to give this suggestion favourable consideration to an annual report on Part II of what I hope will be an extremely important Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. Bessell
During our debate on the last new Clause the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was kind enough to suggest that I had seen some light as time had progressed. His oratory and that of his hon. Friends, and the sheer common sense of the two Amendments to which he referred caused me to see some light, if that is what he meant by asking my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote with him. As for this new Clause, I am afraid I can see nothing but gloom and darkness.
Apart from anything else, I cannot see the slighest reason for adding this to the Bill. There is no provision for information contained in this new Clause which could not be obtained by the normal method of putting down a Question to the Minister. I imagine that as the years go by many such Questions on the subject matter of this new Clause will be put down to the Minister, and his Department will provide the necessary information for his reply.

§ Mr. Channon
What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true. What I suggest is that it would be more convenient to have all of this information in one document. It will be of assistance to hon. Members, and save them the task of going through a whole heap of Parliamentary Questions as the years go by.

§ Mr. Bessell
There are ways in which a number of Questions could be put down on one day and Written Answers given to provide the information. It is not necessary to add this new Clause. I cannot see any advantage in doing so. In short, in what I hope is not un-Parliamentary language, I regard this as a lot of old codswallop.

§ Mr. MacColl
I would adopt the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) in this matter. The difficulty is the use by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) of the word "shall". There is no doubt that in this case it is a mandatory direction. This must be produced and must go on being produced even if the scheme is hardly being used at all. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Government can produce information and will want to supply this information to the House. They will publish it through Question and Answer. The difficulty in making this mandatory is very real.
With regard to the cost, and the number of prosecutions, I cannot understand why the hon. Member gets so excited about these penalty Clauses. On the Civic Amenities Bill we had a wonderful time producing swingeing penalties which make these seem most innocent. No one regarded them with this kind of suspicion. I do not think that half of the home buyers in the country will find themselves prosecuted. It is unlikely that there will be any need to use the penalty Clauses.
The main difficulty comes with the early part of the new Clause, dealing with the number of cases where there have been applications which have been rejected. The Building Societies Association would regard this with considerable alarm, because it would put a great deal of work upon society staffs. What would happen is that an applicant for a mortgage would go to his local building society branch, have a talk with the clerk, who would say that if the applicant was not ordinarily resident in the United 1638 Kingdom or if he was not intending to live in the house he would not qualify.
If he has immediately to record in triplicate that an application has been refused, and that has to be sent on to head office, and on to our Department, and then into a White Paper, this is an unnecessary proliferation of paper, for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin may have some description. It is not something that we ought to encourage. Any sensible Government wants to keep the House and country informed of its operation, but this kind of mandatory direction would be very unwise.

§ Mr. Channon
I think that I have the right to reply without leave. If not, I ask for leave to reply.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is slipping back. I shall have to do my best to get him to see sense.
I am not surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not wish to publish an annual report. We all know that the Ministry is very reluctant to publish annual reports. I do not know how many skeletons there are in the cupboard which will be dragged out at a future date. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Clause has been tabled for the most beneficial of reasons. We thought that the House should be kept informed. I am, however, glad to have the assurance that the Government intend to keep the House and country informed. In spite of what the hon. Member for Bodmin, with his powerful phraseology, said, this will be extremely helpful. I am prepared to wager that if he continues to interest himself in this subject he will be very angry one day when he has to look at about 400 Parliamentary Answers instead of a few annual reports for the information which he needs. When that happens, he will have no sympathy from me whatsoever.
I am sorry that the Government have taken this extremely bureaucratic line. The Parliamentary Secretary had a very bureaucratic brief. He should have the same speech writer as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), whose speeches are less bureaucratic. They are more direct, although equally unsatisfactory.

§ Mr. Mellish
I write my own.

§ Mr. Channon
I am sure that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) also writes his own scripts. He might have written the annual report.
I am very sorry that the Government will not accede to our request for the publication of an annual report. Although this is a matter of regret, I do not think that we need divide the House. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants us to divide the House. I thought that he wanted to make progress. If he is anxious to press us into the Division Lobby on every occasion, even though I had to part company with the hon. Member for Bodmin, I should not be deterred from voting. Hon Members interested in this subject will regret the Government's reply. In view of their most bureaucratic and unco-operative attitude, I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.