Clause 10.—(POWER TO ABOLISH OR REDUCE RATE OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.) (Hansard, 21 February 1967)

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 6, line 22, to leave out from 'may' to the end of line 26 and to insert: 'by order direct that, while the order remains in force, such exchequer contributions as may be specified in the order—'. I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time three further Amendments, Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 32, to leave out from the beginning to 'as' in line 34 and to insert: 'either as respects all approved houses, or the cost or sites thereof, or as respects 1492 approved houses of such description or in such area only, or the costs or sites thereof,'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

§ Dr. Mabon
The three Government Amendments, Nos. 7, 8 and 10, would enable the Secretary of State to revoke or vary by order any reduction or abolition of subsidies effected by a previous Order. The House will recall that, when we discussed this matter in Committee, we saw that Clause 10 enabled the Secretary of State from time to time by Order to abolish or reduce subsidies payable under Part I. The Clause as drafted, however, leaves it that the Secretary of State, while he may make a subsequent Order reducing subsidies or abolishing them entirely, cannot make a further Order reversing the process, that is, restoring wholly or partly subsidies reduced or abolished by a previous Order.
I was asked about this in Committee and I then said that, as far as I could see, if we left the Clause as it stood, we should have to introduce fresh legislation to revoke a Clause 10 Order, and I took refuge in the belief, which is historically accurate, that housing subsidy provisions generally tend to be replaced or revised quite frequently. However, since the Committee stage, we have had some discussion with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—I understand that the English will be taking similar steps at their own appropriate time—and, as a consequence, we think it necessary to make an Amendment here.
With respect, I think that our Amendment No. 10 is drawn in terms which make it statutorily more acceptable than the Opposition's Amendment No. 11. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will agree that it meets the same point but in somewhat more satisfactory form, and I commend the three Government Amendments to the House.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
We are glad that the Government have put down their Amendment No. 10 similar to our Amendment No. 11, together with the Amendments connected with it. Again, I do not wish to keep to our drafting necessarily. I am glad that the Government have agreed that the change is necessary, and I am quite ready to accept Amendment No. 10.
In Committee, I asked the Minister of State to tell us whether an Order abolishing or reducing subsidy under Clause 10 could be varied or revoked 1494 without further legislation, and the gist of his reply then was that further legislation would be necessary. This did not seem satisfactory, and we put down our Amendment No. 11. We are glad that the Government have accepted the point, and I therefore commend their Amendment No. 10 to the House.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 40, at the end to insert: 'but it shall not apply to payments of subsidy which have been made before the day of the making of the order'. We are here still dealing with Clause 10, which gives the Secretary of State power to abolish or reduce any of the housing subsidies under the Bill. In Committee, we discussed the use of this power retrospectively, there being wording in the Clause to indicate that, in making an Order, the Secretary of State could put a date for its effect to start which was earlier than the date of the making of the Order. We have put down this Amendment to give the Government an opportunity to clarify the position. It is a complicated matter, and hon. Scottish Members on both sides have been worried or puzzled about it in previous legislation as well as in this Bill.
In Committee, the Minister of State said: Therefore, since the question of future payments is involved it means that if there is any retrospection it must be retrospection to payments that are in the future and not in the past or present. That is, they have not been paid. If that is the case, then it follows, surely. quite clearly, that I can give an absolute assurance that the Government would not be allowed, under this Clause, to touch past payments".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Standing Committee, 29th November, 1966; c. 230.] That seemed a categorical assurance that, although there might be some payments of subsidy, perhaps from the past year or two, still to be made which might be affected retrospectively, in no case would a local authority have to pay back any element of subsidy which in cash or accounting had actually been paid. This 1495 is an important matter, and it is necessary to set doubts at rest not only today in the House but also for the benefit of many people who have found it puzzling to follow the wording on retrospection in earlier legislation as well as in the present Bill.
There is no reason why the matter should not be made clear or why the hon. Gentleman's words clearly stated on that occasion in Committee should not be reflected in additional words in the Clause such as we now propose.
Again, if our wording is in some way defective, we are ready to accept on a future occasion or in another place a Government Amendment to the same effect. The object is perfectly clear, to put into the Bill the effect of what the Minister of State said in Committee. This will prevent misunderstandings such as have arisen in the past.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I gather that the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that we should make the matter clear, and welcome the opportunity to do so. There is no disagreement between us on the point of principle raised, but, in our view, the Amendment is unnecessary because the Clause as it stands does not give the Secretary of State any power to withdraw or cancel subsidies which have been paid. I will say a little more to justify that view.
6.30 p.m.
The hon. Member was kind enough to refer to our proceedings at col. 230 in Standing Committee. I invite the House to go a little further forward to col. 232, where the hon. Gentleman made his case—I am not disagreeing with him—and described what we would call the retrospective effect of an order. I have subsequently discussed this matter with him. He was talking about the following classes of houses. The first category is those which have been approved before the making of the order but which have not yet been completed and, therefore, have not yet qualified for subsidy. The second category is houses for which proposals have been received by the Secretary of State but not yet approved.
That interpretation is not quite correct, because an important class of houses which has been left out of those two 1496 categories is houses which have been built under the Act at any time before the making of the order. The effect of the order on those houses is to reduce or abolish the rate of subsidy on them from the date specified in the order while leaving untouched the subsidy paid upon them in the past.
By way of illustration, let us assume that the Bill receives Royal Assent on 15th March this year. By 15th March, 1977, we will have reached the end of a ten-year period. Suppose that on 31st December, 1979, which is more than two years after the end of the ten-year period from Royal Assent, an order is laid before Parliament. That order could provide, first, that all housing proposals received on or after 1st January, 1980, the day after the order is laid, should qualify for reduced subsidy. I refer to that in "shorthand" as the normal case.
Secondly, the order could provide that subsidies which were being paid in respect of housing proposals received on or after 15th March, 1967, the date of Royal Assent, should become payable at the reduced level with effect from 1st January, 1980. That is the retrospective case.
Having given those illustrations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members will recognise that there is no distinction in principle in what we are seeking to achieve between the Clause and the Amendment. The Amendment is unnecessary. The draftsmen tell me that in all legislation there is a strong presumption against importing retrospective effects which are not specifically set out. The Amendment would throw doubt on that presumption and, therefore, would be harmful, apart from being unnecessary, because we are not disagreed on the objects of the Clause.
I hope that with that assurance, the hon. Member, who is aware of most of the case, will accept that his Amendment need not be pressed and that he and his hon. Friends can be assured that the Government's intention is the same as his.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I was glad to hear what the Minister of State has said. It has helped to clarify the position. I am sorry that we cannot write it into the Bill so that laymen who have to read the Bill, as opposed to learned lawyers, will be more easily guided about its meaning. In view, however, of what the hon. 1497 Gentleman has said, and as the position is clear and the retrospection is not as bad as many people thought, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.