§ Sir C. COBBI beg to move, in page 6, line 27, after the word "such," to insert the words "local authorities and."
The Clause contemplates consultation with associations of local authorities. There are authorities which do not belong to associations. One instance is the London authority. The London authority was not summoned to the last conference with the Minister because he supposed that he was dealing only with associations of local authorities, and that all local authorities were included in the associations of local authorities. If the words "local authorities" were inserted it will be only a drafting Amendment, and it will ensure that any local authority which is not a member of an association of local authorities will also be summoned into consultation.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODI think the form of words in which the hon. Member has put his Amendment hardly meets the point. I understand that he would be satisfied if the London County Council were called into consultation. Under this Amendment it would be necessary for the Minister of Health to call into consultation all local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of them had already been represented through their various associations. I would ask the hon. Member whether he would put his Amendment in these words, in page 6, line 28, after the word "concerned," to 979 insert the words "and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable"?
§ Sir C. COBBThat brings in my point perfectly well. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In page 6, line 28, after the word "concerned," insert the words "and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable.''—[Mr. Greenwood.]
§ Colonel GRETTONI beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out the word "altering," and to insert instead thereof the word "reducing."
The answer given to the previous Amendment was that the Government were bound by certain agreements and arrangements made with various sections of the building trade, and the employers, and therefore could not alter the period of revision. It surely, therefore, is necessary to look very closely at the kind of revision that is going to be made. For instance, when the time for revision arrives the Minister may come and say, "We have been in negotiations with a powerful trade union combination and with employers, and we find that owing to the conditions imposed by labour demands wages are going up and employers are not in a position to carry out the undertakings. We have been obliged to give way to this kind of pressure, and we now come to the House of Commons to ask power to make a new agreement, to make a further contribution, either by increasing annual payment or making it for a longer period." That is a very wrong position for the House of Commons to be placed in.
Surely when a bargain has been made that certain work is to be done at a certain cost and contributions are to be paid at a certain rate for a certain period it would be wrong to leave it in the power of any Minister to come to the House and say. "Under pressure brought by outside bodies I have been obliged to alter these conditions, and I now ask the House to confirm the agreement which I have had to make," and the Minister would then explain what a splendid bargain he had made Though it is perfectly right, that where conditions have become 980 easier and houses can be more cheaply built, there should be a revision of conditions so that the State would bear less expense, it would be wrong to invite, as this word "altering" does, outside pressure to increase the contribution and impose a still further charge upon the State. It is true that orders so made will have to be laid on the Table of the House, but pressure of this kind would not be confined to a Minister, but would be applied to Members of all parties. Interested persons would come and say, "We have done the best we could, but circumstances are too strong for us. We have been obliged to go to the Minister. The Minister has met us fairly. We are very hard pressed and you must agree to the bargain which we have made." No Minister should be in a position to come to the House and ask for sanction to an increased charge being made on the public in such circumstances as these, and therefore I submit that this Amendment should be made.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODThe Amendment seems to rest on the assumption that the contributions can be increased. The contributions in the Bill are the maximum contributions, and, so long as the Act operates, it will not be possible under the Act to get any larger contributions. The first period of revision will be three years hence, and if there be any alteration at all it must be a revision downwards, but, if the word "reducing" be inserted instead of the word "altering," then every successive revision must be downward, notwithstanding any changes that there might be in circumstances. If there were a redaction of contribution at the first triennial revision, and at a subsequent revision a very strong case were made out for an increase, that would not be possible if the Amendment were carried. If we are to proceed on the policy of allowing the £9 maximum, and that, whatever happens, that is not to be increased, we are entitled to ask that, within limits set by the Act, it should be possible in future, if circumstances so warrant, to raise the contribution to the limit for the succeeding three years. That may not be necessary, but should circumstances arise it would be a very serious thing that the whole scheme should come to an end merely because of one word in a Bill put in under what, I feel sure, is a misapprehension. Therefore I 981 hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment, if the hon. and gallant Member persists in it.
§ Lord E. PERCYI am sure that the Committee has heard with astonishment the statement that it is the intention of this Clause that, in certain circumstances, the amount of the State contribution should be increased, not, it is true, above the £9 and the £6 limit, but that it should be increased. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the beginning of the Clause, he will see:
In the year 1927 and in any third succeeding year the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health shall take into consideration—and so on. Are the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health to have power without reference to the Treasury, at the end of any particular triennial period, to impose a charge on the taxpayer without reference to any consideration connected with the forthcoming Budget? The idea is a constitutional absurdity. I am sure that the hon. Member cannot mean that the Government have deliberately put into the Bill a Clause which may have that effect.
Sir B. REESIf the hon. Member looks further down he will see
that the amounts and periods fixed by the order shall be such as may be approved by the Treasury and shall not exceed the respective amounts and periods fixed by the Housing, Etc., Act.
§ Lord E. PERCYThe hon. Member is perfectly right in assuming that I had overlooked that, but that does not alter the main fact that it is extremely undesirable that Parliament should give to any Minister power to impose a charge without coming back to Parliament. This Clause involves no reference to Parliament. In those circumstances I think that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is perfectly justified.
Sir B. REESI fail to connect the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Gretton), who moved this Amendment, or what the Noble Lord (Lord E. Percy) has said with the Amendment itself. There is nothing in this Clause which will allow the Minister to increase the contributions beyond what is provided for in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think 982 that the present Minister of Health, or some other Minister of Health three years' hence, will so get behind Parliament as to do something which this House could not have power to undo. This Clause merely gives the Minister the right to review the amount of the contribution every three years, and if there is any alteration in the amount of the contribution it must be downward for the first time. I agree that in the second period of revision there may be an additional sum given, but it can never go beyond the amount provided in the Act. Neither can it be contrary to the view of the Treasury, because the Treasury must approve of it, and the Resolution must be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. Therefore, I fail to see what justification there is for this Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERI am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) has raised this point. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bristol (Sir B. Rees). I do not think that the Treasury is any guarantee in this matter at all, because we hear constantly from hon. Members opposite that they must not be judged by their present performances, which I quite understand they are anxious to disclaim, but that we must wait until they have real power. When they get that real power we have no guarantee that the Treasury will not be entirely reconstituted by hon. Members opposite, and consist exclusively of members of the Fabian Society. Therefore the Treasury is no guarantee in this case. The Minister of Health is taking powers, in. conjunction with the Scottish Board of Health, to raise the amount which the State will have to contribute up to the limit fixed by this Act. The hon. Member for Bristol finds some satisfaction in that, but may I remind him that the limit fixed by this Act is a colossal figure considerably over £1,000,000,000. There was a day when the Liberal Party stood for peace, retrenchment and reform, but £1,000,000,000 appears to be a mere trifle to them nowadays. I think that it is very important that this question should be raised, and, while it is reasonable that the Minister should be given power at intervals to negotiate, he certainly ought not to have power to raise the rate of contributions without further. Parliamentary sanction.
§ Mr. WALLHEADMay I point to the concluding words of the first paragraph of the section "unless Parliament otherwise determines." The hon. Member does not argue that Parliament should have no power to do anything.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe hon. Member has not read his own Bill. These words "unless Parliament otherwise determines" refer to the question of exceeding the limit placed by this Bill. That is no satisfaction to me at all, because the limit placed by this Bill is such a colossal figure, up to the £1,000,000,000 or £1,200,000,000 the Minister can do things off his own bat. Orders made under this Act will be subject only to the consent of the House of Commons, so that when we get to the halcyon days when hon. Members opposite have a majority, the House of Commons will be as subservient and as silent as hon. Members opposite now are in relation to their Front Bench, and when we have Scottish questions being discussed the Scottish Members will be out of the House, as they now are, instead of being in their places protesting vehemently. We have always been given to understand by hon. Members opposite that the cost of house-building under their scheme was going steadily down. "Give us a 15 years' programme," they said, "and these guarantees and the rest of it, and we can get it done on a great scale and the cost of building houses will be reduced." Now we have an admission from the Minister that the cost of building is not likely to be reduced, that it probably will go up, and that, therefore, he must take powers in order to pay more contributions from the State within the limits of the Act without coming specially to Parliament.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODWe have had two most astonishing speeches. The Noble Lord has produced an argument against majority government, the like of which I have never heard before. Apparently a majority is all right if it consists of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is all wrong if it consists of hon. Gentlemen on this side. I do not think that the two Noble Lords who have spoken understand the purpose of the Amendment or the Clauses of the Bill. There is no question of the Minister, by 984 his own act, altering the rate of contribution without reference to anybody. It is perfectly clear that, before any Order is made by the Minister, the proposals shall be laid before the House of Commons. That surely is sufficient guarantee. I hope that Amendment will be with-drawn.
§ Colonel GRETTONI am not going to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and hon. Members must negative my Amendment. The last speaker was playing with the question. He used no argument whatever. The charge, whether below the maximum charge or not, ought not to be increased without a special Vote of the House of Commons.
§ Amendment negatived
§ Mr. E. SIMONI beg to move, in page 6, line 35, after the word "that," to insert the words
the grant payable by the local authority shall not exceed one-half of that payable by the Minister and that.An Amendment having the same effect was moved by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on Clause 3, and the Minister of Health asked him to withdraw it on the ground that it would he considered on Clause 5. This is an Amendment which provides that if there is a reduction, under this Clause, in the subsidy, then the share of the local authority shall be reduced in proportion. I do not know whether the words of my Amendment are satisfactory, and if they are not I do not insist on them, but I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of them.
§ Mr. GREENWOODI ask the hon. Gentleman not to move the Amendment here, because his purpose could be served more appropriately later in the Clause. The Minister of Health has agreed to accept the principle of an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. That will meet the same point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. T. THOMSONI beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
in the case of hoagie; affected by any order made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health which decreases the amount 985 of the contributions payable or curtails the period for which such contributions are to be payable an amount equivalent to such proportion of the four pounds ten shillings a year payable for a period of forty years as the amount and period of the contributions when so decreased or curtailed bears to the amount and period of the contributions as fixed by this Act, and then in either case.That carries out in substance the purport of the Amendment which has just been withdrawn.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODIt is proposed to accept the principle of this Amendment by adopting rather fewer words. The Government's proposal is, in line 44, at the end, to insert the words
including the sum of four pounds ten shillings mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of this Act.That would meet the hon. Member's point and would reduce the local contribution as the State contribution is reduced.
Mr. THOMSONDoes the hon. Gentleman say that in proportion as the £9 contribution from the State is reduced the £4 10s. from the local authorities will be reduced?
§ Mr. GREENWOODI am advised that that is so.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment made: In page 6, line 44, at the end, insert the words
including the sum of four pounds ten shillings mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act."—(Mr. Greenwood.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. T. THOMSONEarlier in our discussion the Minister suggested that at the end of the period for revision it might be possible to reconsider the size of the houses. I have not put down an Amendment on the subject because I am anxious to get through the Committee stage. Between now and Report will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in this Clause, when provision is made for the revision of contributions, he can put in words that will provide that a revision takes place, at the end of the three years, of the size of the houses?
§ Mr. E. SIMONI wish to put another question, which has a very important bearing on a question put by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), namely, as to whether or not there is a treaty between the building trade and the Minister. In line 28 of this Clause it is stated that the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health may, if they think .it expedient, jointly make an order altering the amount of the contributions payable. What does that mean? The Clause starts by saying that they are to inquire into the cost of the past three years and the next three years. Apparently they are to have regard to these costs in making this reduction. I should like to know whether they can only make the reduction if the costs are reduced and if, therefore, the amount of the subsidy is not necessary or whether, on the other hand, the Minister is to be perfectly free regardless of cost to reduce the amount. In that case will it not be possible under this Clause, if the Minister thinks it expedient to reduce the amount, that he will be allowed to remove the subsidy altogether by reducing it to nothing? Therefore we wish to know whether the reading of the Clause is that the Minister may make any reduction he likes or whether he can only make a reduction in proportion to the reduction in building costs.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYIf I may answer the second question first, the understanding with the local authorities is that the reduction is to correspond to the fall in the cost of providing houses, not merely in the cost of the production of the house but the fall in the rate of interest. The present contributions remain as the basis of the agreement with the local authorities and will be subject to alteration only in so far as the circumstances alter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) I have been legally advised that we can, at the end of three years, if we so desire, alter the size of the houses—that is, Parliament can do so—but it is felt expedient to put no words into the Bill to that effect.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI understand the Minister to say that if at the end of three years it is desired to alter the size of the houses it would be necessary to come to Parliament to do so?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThat is my information, but we will be coming to Parliament at the end of three years presumably with regard to the money provisions.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy point is that you can deal with that matter by Order, whereas, if you propose to alter the size of the houses, you must have an Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYWe require the consent of Parliament. May I remind the Committee of the principal difficulty in the way? It is my understanding with the local authorities. That understanding will cease to exist after three years' experience, and from that point we can start afresh.
§ Lord E. PERCYDo I understand the Minister to agree that he will be able at the end of three years to vary the size of the houses by Order; that Order being passed by Parliament?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYIt must have the approval of Parliament.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think we ought to be quite clear about the question—whether this Bill which is carried under a Financial Resolution confining the size of the houses to the type under the 1923 Act, gives power to the Minister by administrative Order, even though such Order is confirmed by Parliament, to alter the size so laid down.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI am advised that a. short Act of Parliament would be required for this purpose.