Clause 2.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS (GENERAL).) (Hansard, 3 June 1957)

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "which is" and to insert "who are".
We had some argument in Committee on the proper number to go with the words "local authority." This is, therefore, purely a drafting Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after "enactments)", to insert: the payment of any Exchequer contribution under paragraph (b), (d) or (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Secretary of State when undertaking to pay the contribution and". This Amendment arises from a matter raised in Committee. It is designed to make perfectly clear that, in respect of what I call the industrial and overspill subsidies, the Secretary of State has power to make certain conditions and, if these 909 conditions are not fulfilled, the subsidy may be reduced or withdrawn. It really follows what has been a practice in housing policy in Scotland.
For example, under Section 73 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, a condition is laid down in regard to houses provided for agricultural workers. They qualify for an additional subsidy, and, if the condition is broken, the subsidy may be reduced or withdrawn. This Amendment is intended to make perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has those powers, and they can he exercised in relation to these subsidies.
If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that the next two Amendments, in page 3, lines 40 and 44, go with this one; they tie up the whole matter, as it were, and make it clear.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The Solicitor-General has not said whether the Secretary of State will take any powers to pay any contributions towards this industrial extension into town planning. This Amendment is more restrictive than comprehensive. I thought that, after his visit to the General Assembly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have come back with a much more Christian spirit in his attitude towards our Amendments and approach to the Bill.

§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, this provision is much more restrictive than what we passed in Committee, and we ought to have a much better and fuller explanation from the Solicitor-General about what he has in mind. After telling us that, if a local authority provides houses for the purpose of industry, or if houses are provided in fulfilment of an overspill agreement or by an exporting authority, they will then receive the £42, he now tells us that they will be subject to conditions to be laid down by the Secretary of State.
What is said to be the generous attitude of the Government is now seen to be not generous at all. Local authorities are to be subject to conditions, about which we know nothing. Either the Joint Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General should tell us what the Government have in mind about the conditions under which these grants will be given. 910 I am quite sure that the local authorities will want to have some idea of what they are, and it would probably help to relieve their feelings if a much fuller statement were made about it.

§ Mr. Ross
We had occasion, in Committee, to refer to the Government Front Bench, in respect of their subsidy provisions, as the "league of frightened men". This is just another indication of the terror which creeps into the hearts of Tories when there is a danger of a subsidy being paid to somebody who deserves it. What they really mean by the insertion of this afterthought is that they want to be in a position where they pay as little as possible for as short a time as possible for as few houses as possible.
Anyone who reads the limiting conditions to the grant of any subsidy at all in respect of approved houses will find that the local authorities can hardly move, from the minute they start to think about building houses, for conditions being laid upon them by the Secretary of State. Considering only the Government's general powers in being able to withhold or discontinue subsidies, it is plain that, in moving this Amendment, the Government are asking for far too much. They are covering themselves at every conceivable turn to ensure that no local authority will get an extra shilling out of them.
3.45 p.m.
The effect will be far reaching. It is put to us that this has always happened in relation to agricultural houses; let it now be done in respect of industrial houses and houses covered by paragraphs (d) and (e). Paragraphs (d) and (e) refer to houses provided under overspill agreements. An overspill agreement itself must be approved by the Secretary of State. If the agreement is not carried out, the Secretary of State can go so far as to cause an inquiry, and, if the circumstances are proved, he can go beyond that and take over the whole powers of a local authority, without this new provision which is to be inserted.
What is the point of it? Would the whole local authority structure of Scotland collapse if these words were not put in? What it really boils down to is this. The Government are afraid that a local authority, for a short period, will get away with having a subsidy paid when, in the 911 opinion of the Secretary of State, it should not. They have all the powers in the world at the moment to be able to deal with such a case if it arose, and there is no need for the Government, who have said so much about freedom for local authorities, now to tie them up in financial chains by imposing conditions which have not yet been explained.
The Solicitor-General says that this is in the general stream of the ordinary kind of provision enacted in respect of something else. With respect, that is no justification at all for it being put in here. Indeed, if he had any experience at all of how this power of control possessed by the Secretary of State in respect of agricultural houses works, he would understand a little more about it. In the last month, I have had put to me three or four cases of people who have been thrown out of agricultural houses because of a seeming infringement of conditions laid down.
The Government should take this Amendment back. They have plenty of time. The Bill has been a long time on its way; the policy was announced in July last year, and the Bill was not printed until January this year, so the Opposition ought not to be blamed for anything which has happened in relation to it. There is time enough for the Government again to consult with the local authorities and ascertain whether, in the experience of working these provisions in relation to agriculture, it is desirable—let alone necessary—to introduce it in relation to houses provided for industry and overspill.
The Government are so hedging about this overspill business and the local authorities concerned with conditions that no self-respecting local authority will lay itself open to be interfered with. If the Government really want the overspill provisions of the Bill to work, there must be more indication of confidence between the Government themselves and the local auhorities. We have seen already in Committee that the Government are just not sure, but they are determined that, if any powers are taken by them, they will be powers to save a little money, irrespective of the effect psychologically that that will have upon local authorities who may or may not be thinking of entering into overspill agreements. The Government are not being at all wise. 912 This afterthought Amendment is not necessary, and it would be far better not to have it.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
May I say that this is not an afterthought? The point was raised in Committee and I said—I still believe it to be the case—that strictly, these powers may not be necessary. The Secretary of State already has certain powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1950 Act, but I would not put it beyond a court of law to decide that I was wrong. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has more than once decided that I have been wrong and a court of law might do the same thing.

§ Mr. Ross
It is hardly correct for the hon. and learned Member to say that I have decided he was wrong. Our experience in Committee was that he admitted time and time again that he was wrong.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
When I am wrong, I always admit it, which is more than I can say for the hon. Member. The power probably exists already. I will not go further than that.
We want—and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has frequently made the point—to make the Bill self-contained, so that somebody looking at it will know what it means. [Interruption.] All Bills are difficult to understand, I quite agree. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State can lay down these conditions in regard to these two types of houses for overspill and the needs of industry.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a good point when he asked what conditions the Secretary of State intends to lay down. They will be similar to those as to terms of occupancy laid down for houses qualifying at the moment for the agricultural subsidy. As we discussed in Committee, we cannot, particularly in regard to industry, specify any particular term of years for which those conditions should apply, because after five or ten or, possibly, twelve years it may be found that the needs of industry have been met. I assure the hon. Member that in that case, the intention is clearly to continue paying the subsidy, even though the houses are no longer needed for the purpose which we have in mind. I want to make that absolutely clear.

§ Mr. Willis
What period have the Government in mind? Is it five years, or how long?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
It would vary from place to place. One place might be expanding rapidly and have new industries coming in and it might be ten or fifteen years before the needs of the incoming industrial workers were met. It is a question of circumstances in each case. That is the type of condition, as exists in the case of the agricultural workers.
This is not a new matter. It is really making the position clear that the Secretary of State has the powers which I think he has under the 1950 Act, so that local authorities know where they stand.