HC Deb 14 February 1956 vol 548 cc2274-5
Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after "order," to insert: or such dwellings in any area so specified. As at present worded, the Clause does not seem to carry out the expressed intentions of the Minister. During the course of the Second Reading debate, and again in Committee, he said that the Clause needed Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to invest the Minister with very wide discretionary powers in regard to the time, the amount and the number of years, but his intention, as he expressed it during the Committee stage discussion of this Clause, is as follows: I am sure that all hon. Members who wish to preserve a proper balance in this matter, and to ensure that local authorities shall receive subsidies where they are needed, recognise that only advantage can come from providing a measure of flexibility which will avoid the Minister being faced with the issue of reducing all subsidies or none. Using much the same words subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman said: I think that it would be undesirable to leave any part of the structure rigidly fixed by legislation and incapable of adjustment by Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 821 and 856.] Quite obviously, what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is that his discretion would be influenced by the economic resources or strength of the local authority, but when we look at the actual words in the Clause, we find that they are limited, so far as I can see, to a description of the dwelling and do not relate to the area covered by the local authority. In order to carry out the full intention which the Minister has already expressed, I think the words of my Amendment are very necessary, so that the Minister can exercise a discretion in the case of a local authority which is weak financially. This wording would help him to do so, whereas otherwise he would be limited merely to a description of the house.

Mr. Powell

The Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) does correspond with the intention of the Bill and certainly clarifies it. I would therefore ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Mitchison

The trouble with the Minister is that he is so very flexible that he only advances backwards, but nevertheless, we had better wait and see what he does with these powers. For the moment, we will leave it at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after the second"to"to insert"or to the site of."

This is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment, which brings the wording of subsection (2) into line with the wording of subsection (1), which refers to the same matter.

Amendment agreed to.