HC Deb 08 March 1967 vol 742 cc1656-9
Mr. Channon

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 39 at end to insert: (5) The Minister shall make an Annual Report on the exercise of his powers under this Clause and a copy of this Report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is not here since he was so scornful about annual reports. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will reply for the Ministry rather than the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who was equally scornful about them. This is a probing Amendment.

In Committee, we had only a short discussion of Clause 5. I have discovered since that there is some uncertainty as to what the Government propose to do under the Clause and how they propose to administer the subsidies for dwellings provided to meet special needs. This will be a continuing subsidy, a permanent feature of the new system. It is similar in purpose, I understand, to Schedule I of the Housing Act, 1961.

It would be of great assistance not only to this House but to many outside if the Government—tonight if possible, but if not at a later stage or at some other appropriate moment—could tell us more about the workings and intentions of Clause 5. Under what circumstances do the Government intend to provide these special need subsidies? As the Minister will know, the Clause consists of four subsections. Provided that the Minister satisfies the conditions laid down by the Treasury he may grant subsidies not exceeding £30, under certain conditions. As far as I understand, the main conditions are that there is an urgent need for more dwellings and that those dwellings cannot be provided without imposing an unreasonably heavy rate burden or charging unreasonably high rents. If the Minister is satisfied on those two points and the Treasury approves he may pay, for as many years as he may determine, a subsidy of not more than £30.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister is also entitled to pay a subsidy if dwellings are to be provided as part of a scheme amounting to a substantial transfer of industry, or of persons engaged in an industry—again provided that he is satisfied that unless he exercises this power the dwellings cannot be provided without unreasonably increasing the rate burden or the rents of other dwellings provided by the authority.

We have no objection to the Clause; it would be strange if we did, because it follows the 1961 precedent. Nevertheless, there is some confusion as to which authorities the Government intend to apply the provision, and also as to the criteria they will use in doing so. I have asked for an annual report. If the Minister is allowed to answer my questions, however, I shall withdraw that request, because I am sure that there will then be no need for such a report. But there will be a need if he cannot answer my questions. We shall, therefore, look forward to hearing what the Government's intentions are concerning the administration of the Clause.

Mr. Mellish

I am obliged to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put his case. It is right that he should ask for more information. I recognise that he has put down the Amendment as a probing Amendment, and was not expecting us to write into the Bill a provision to make available an annual report on the operation of powers such as these. for the payment of a supplementary subsidy.

As for the purpose and form of the Clause, we intend, first, to establish a formula by which the subsidy shall be paid. The Clause is similar in purpose to the provision for additional subsidies payable under the First Schedule of the 1961 Housing Act. At that time the relevant White Paper pointed out that this was of particular value to many authorities in Wales. It was found by experience, however, that the 1961 formula was too rigid, since it was embodied in the Act itself and could not be varied in any way to meet changing financial circumstances of local authorities. It was, therefore, decided to adopt, in this Bill, a much more general provision, similar to that contained in Section 5(1) of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1965, which was repealed by the 1961 Act.

The hon. Member has a right to ask who would get this money, and what the formula would be. I do not want to avoid the issue. We are still working on a suitable formula, but I undertake to write to the hon. Member and give him full details of the formula. We hope to put our proposals to the local authority associations some time this month. The formula is unlikely to be exactly the same as that contained in the First Schedule of the 1961 Act, or that devised after the 1956 Act was passed, which was revised within 18 months.

We are, however, hopeful of devising a formula which will effectively help authorities whose housing costs are high in relation to their resources and who need this help if they are to continue building.

As I said in Committee, we must first decide on the formula and then test it. The calculations are complex. Unfortunately, as Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, said, when discussing the 1961 Act, the only readily available housing financial statistics are those published by the I.M.T.A., and the most recent edition of these is for 1964–65. We are sure that the outcome will help particularly the small authorities which have a large housing programme but limited resources and also the very large authorities which have few pre-war houses but have done a lot of building in recent years and whose housing costs are, therefore, relatively high.

It is against that background that we are trying to devise the formula. We shall discuss it with the local authority associations some time this month. I undertake to keep the Opposition informed about it, either by letter or by an arranged Parliamentary question, in order to let the result be known and understood.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is something we must work out with the local authority associations and that, in the light of the explanation I have given, he will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Channon

I am very grateful for that explanation. The hon. Gentleman will understand that one of the reasons prompting me to put the Amendment down was his own observation in Committee.

Therefore, we cannot say which authorities will definitely qualify."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd February, 1967; c. 279.] I am much obliged for the hon. Gentleman's undertaking to keep me informed. I think that there is something to be said for a Parliamentary Question so that everyone will know what the system is. Equally effective would be a statement by the Government spokesman in another place, if the Government are then in a position to make it. However, if they are not to put their proposals to the local authority associations until some time this month, one wonders whether the Bill will have received the Royal Assent before they are finally settled.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will keep me informed about the operation of Clause 5. There is a lively interest in it among local authorities. I am sure that it will do a great deal of good, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman in due course.

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.