Orders of the Day — Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 29 November 1967.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord  Balniel Lord Balniel , Hertford 12:00, 29 November 1967

I do not wish unduly to detain the Committee, Sir Eric, but may I raise a point of order which I think is of importance to the rights of back benchers and of the Opposition especially in connection with the Committee stage of the Bill?

For reasons which we understand, the Committee stage has been substantially delayed. On 16th November we were told by the Leader of the House—as he is not present I hasten to say that I make no criticism of him—that the reason was: I gather that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has some late Amendments and that it would be for the convenience of the House to see them in due time to debate them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 638.] 'The Committee stage was subsequently further postponed, and I asked the Leader of the House on 20th November: Are we to understand that the Amendments are drafting Amendments or are connected with the economic situation? The Leader of the House replied: I think that the second assumption would be correct."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 953.] No Amendments by the Government have been put on the Notice Paper, nor has any statement been made by the Minister of Social Security, as we were led to believe would happen. That is a matter which lies in the Government's discretion. But earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) asked what had happened to the Amendments which we had been led to believe were to be tabled. The Minister replied: He will get a full explanation when we discuss the Bill on Wednesday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 33.] The Chief Whip of the Liberal Party also asked whether we would get an explanation from the Government of the consequences of their devaluation measures on the Bill, and again the Minister asked us to await the debate on Wednesday.

My point of order is that I understand that in Committee we debate the very narrowly defined Amendments and also the Questions, That Clauses stand part. I understand that on neither of those occasions is it possible for the Minister to make a full explanation. On Third Reading, also, we can discuss only matters which are contained in the Bill, and I therefore ask you, Sir Eric, how it is possible for the Minister to implement the undertakings which were given earlier this week?