Clause 3.—(CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.) (Hansard, 10 June 1952)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at end to insert: (3) The Minister, in exercising his power under subsection (2) of this section of withholding or postponing any payment to a council, shall have particular regard to securing that the penalty so imposed is no more than proportionate to the extent or degree of default of the council. This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised in the Committee upstairs, that in exercising the power to withhold or postpone the payment of contribution because the houses are used for the wrong tenants, the Minister should make the punishment fit the crime. The Amendment was supported upstairs by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). The Amendment seeks to enable the Minister to give money for the purposes of relieving overcrowded and congested areas only. It is just possible that a local authority might obtain the money and then allot the houses to the wrong tenants. If that happens, my right hon. Friend or any successor who may occupy his office must have power to withhold or postpone the payment of contributions.
It is only just that that should be so. If the homes go to the wrong people, as the Bill was originally drafted it would mean that if a local authority had put a wrong tenant in one house out of 1,000, the Minister would probably have to withhold all the money that he was going 110 to give to that local authority, in which case he would be using a very big stick for a very small offence.
We all agreed upstairs in Committee that the punishment should fit the crime and that the penalty should be apportioned to the offence. It has not been possible to draft a formula which would do justice with mathematical accuracy and precision, but the Amendment expresses a general principle which, I think, is an ample safeguard to local authorities.

§ Mr. Hale
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "penalty so imposed," and to insert "sum so withheld."
I do not think there is any disagreement in the Committee about the utility of the Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, and my Amendments are merely designed to avoid what are difficulties in the Government Amendment. In dealing with this matter in Committee, the Minister said: I am happy to say, as so often on this Bill, that I am able to accept the principle, if not the words, of the Amendment. I see the possibility of the situation arising which my hon. Friend has described. Say we had agreement to contribute to expenditure designed to produce 5,000 houses, on the understanding that the houses were to be used for the population of the exporting authority, and that in breach of the agreement 500 of the houses had been sold to somebody else. Obviously, the contribution ought not to be withheld in respect of the 4,500 houses that had been properly used. I will certainly see whether it is possible to find a form of words to meet the point, if my hon. Friend will leave it to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 1st April, 1952; c. 202.] The right hon. Gentleman put the point perfectly clearly and fairly.
I very much dislike the sentence which the Parliamentary Secretary used when he talked about the punishment fitting the crime. I know that that is from W. S. Gilbert and was in a sense a quotation, but that is precisely the form of words, although used in a jocular sense, that my Amendment is designed to improve. The Amendment of the Minister talks about withholding payment. We there get into difficulty about the back payments on account. How the Minister will deal with that point I do not propose to try to follow out; but why talk about "penalty" in this connection?
A penalty, in its legal connotation, very often involves a payment in excess or 111 something that is punitive in its essence. I know that is not the intention here. I am suggesting a very simple form of words to which I see no objection whatsoever, and which, the Committee will notice, is precisely the form of words used by the right hon. Gentleman when he gave his undertaking. I am proposing that we should withhold a sum proportionate to the extent of the default.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested—I hope he is right and I was rather glad that he did say this—that in general in the only breach of undertaking envisaged is the refusal of the receiving authority to carry out its obligations to the exporting authority in regard to the use of houses. There might be breaches in regard to the size of houses, but they may be covered by the normal machinery and they would not arise here. We are only dealing with a failure to utilise houses properly and in conformity with terms properly laid down by the Minister. I should have thought that this Amendment could be accepted.
My second Amendment to the Government Amendment is to leave out "or degree," and perhaps I might deal with it now. I am not trying to obstruct the proceedings. The word "degree" is not necessary, because the words "extent" and "degree" impute something like the same thing and are a mere waste of words. "Degree" seems to imply some reference to the degree of criminality or of blatancy of the breach of obligation, but I am sure that is not intended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he will accept this Amendment also.

§ Mr. Marples
Will you tell me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for our guidance, whether we are to take the two Amendments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) together? I rather gathered that the hon. Member spoke to the two Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman
The two Amendments can be discussed together, for the convenience of the Committee, but they will be put separately.

§ Mr. Marples
The first Amendment proposes to insert the words "sum so withheld" instead of "penalty so imposed." The words are more courteous, I quite agree, but certainly not as 112 generous. My right hon. Friend has in mind not only withholding sums but, it may be, postponing them. When the local authority behaves itself by allotting houses to the right people my right hon. Friend will then continue to give money to the local authority. My impression is that the words in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be more harsh on the local authority, because lump sum payments might be withheld altogether.

§ Mr. Hale
If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the words "sum total" would be better in my Amendment, that alteration might be made. This is a verbal question, and it is not worth wasting much time about.

§ Mr. Marples
We will look again at the actual words. I think the Committee all agree in principle on my right hon. Friend's Amendment so perhaps we can make progress with the Bill. I believe that "penalty" is better, because it would enable my right hon. Friend to continue a payment to a local authority when it had observed the conditions which my right hon. Friend had prescribed.
7.15 p.m.
The second Amendment is a question of omitting the words "or degree." It could be argued that a particular matter was not a question of extent but of degree. This is purely a drafting point and a lawyer's point. Other lawyers tell me that, from the case book angle, it is necessary to put in the word "degree" to cover every contingency. It is not very probable that the bill will have to be interpreted in the courts, because my right hon. Friend has permissive power to make grants. Where he thought a local authority was misbehaving itself he might say, "We will give you 10s. towards it, although you may come within the definition." I think we ought to leave the words as they are in this case, but we will look again at the first Amendment.

§ Mr. Hale
I have no desire to press the Amendment, in either case. I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will look at the matter once again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.