HC Deb 08 December 1976 vol 922 cc465-7
Mr. Boscawen

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is becoming a regrettable practice of Ministers increasingly to announce large increases of taxation of the citizen by means of Written Answers or by the laying of Orders and not coming to the House so that they can be questioned. I refer in particular to the laying of the Order which raises £150 million in increased social security contributions, which fall mainly on the self-employed and those earning more than £95 a week and for which they get no extra benefit. Is there nothing you can do to encourage Ministers who are raising these large sums of taxation to do the House the courtesy of coming here to make a statement so that they can be questioned on what they are doing?

Mr. Nott

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct practice and in accordance with our traditions for the Secretary of State to make an announcement about a very large increase in taxation and not to come to the House the next day—which is the most convenient time for him to do so—and make an oral statement? The National Insurance Fund is in substantial credit and these extra contributions are not required for the purpose of insurance. They are a pure tax increase. Can the Leader of the House say why the Secretary of State has not come to the House to make a statement about increased taxation in the normal way?

Mr. George Cunningham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that much of the irritation on this kind of point arises because of the use of the inspired Written Question and that at least half the irritation would disappear if we adopted the practice of written statements in substitute for some Written. Answers, though never for oral statements?

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee on Procedure of the 1970–74 Parliament recommended that this should become a new procedure of the House? Will he give it his support so that we do not have these complaints every fortnight?

Mr. Ridley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two long ministerial, speeches were made on Monday on the subject of national insurance contributions and it would have been possible for this announcement to be made to the House at that time so that hon. Members could question Ministers about it. The fact that the statement was not made then but was released the next day in a Written Answer suggests that the Government had come to a conclusion but deliberately deceived the House by not announcing what they had decided. That makes it all the more regrettable that they gave a Written Answer last night and that the Minister did not come to the House and subject himself to Oral Questions from hon. Members.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I suggest to the Leader of the House that he takes account of the fact that not only is £150 million to be raised in this manner, but that there is already a £932 million surplus on the National Insurance Fund, and I believe that it will still be in excess of £850 million in the next financial year. Could he use his good offices, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to inform the IMF that, in view of this surplus, it need not get on our backs so much?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member who began the points of order referred, I presume, to Statutory Instruments Nos. 11 and 12 in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. It is not for me to say whether a Minister should make a statement before laying such instruments, but I should point out that both instruments are subject to debate. The first is subject to the negative procedure and the second requires the affirmative procedure before it comes into force.