ALTERATION OF AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT OR IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTION (Hansard, 13 July 1971)

§ Mr. Freeson
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause seeks to establish in legislation a power in respect of improvement grants which is similar to that existing in Clause 37 for amenity grants to general improvement areas. I need not speak at length on this subject because the subject matter has been dealt with, at any rate to a reasonable extent, in discussing earlier parts of the Bill.
It has been made clear that the Government feel that Section 5(3) of the 1969 Act contains the power which the new Clause wishes to establish. But that provision lays down that any increase of the upper ceiling of expenditure allowable for grant calculation purposes can be authorised by the Minister only at the request of a local authority. Do I see the Minister indicating dissent?

§ Mr. Channon
No.

§ Mr. Freeson
Whatever he was indicating, he will agree that his right hon. Friend would not, out of the blue, initiate an increase in the ceiling. I do not argue with that provision in the 1969 Act and I am anxious to preserve some flexibility in this legislation. But it is a flexibility which is applicable, as the subsection says, to a particular case or class of case.
I am seeking to establish something rather more broadly based than that. I seek to establish that the Minister may have the power to do what all of us have agreed in Committee should be the position, that is, a power generally to increase the allowable ceiling for grant-aided expenditure. There is no power in the Act, or in the Bill which amends the Act, to enable such a general increase in the ceiling of grants to be introduced by the Minister on an Order placed before the House. I make that reference because earlier the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister could introduce an Order. Even subsection (3) as it stands makes no reference to an Order being placed before the House. It states that he may agree, on requests being made to him by a local authority in particular cases or a class of case, that there is a need for a variation in what is still the generally accepted ceiling.
I repeat, nowhere in the Act is there a discretionary power on the part of the 442 Minister to introduce a general review. That being so, legislatively we are in the position that we were in prior to the Housing Act 1969, and this is one of the weaknesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has referred. He indicated that there is a need to look at the operation of the Act and to fill it out to the extent that the Act is not as good as it should be.
There is no way round this. The Act does not give the Minister a general power. It gives him the power to vary the position in a class of case or a particular case. We all welcome that, and I do not question it. But I seek to establish clearly and specifically in the Bill that the Minister may introduce a general variation, an increase, in the ceiling of allowable expenditure for calculation for grant purposes, instead of just having the discretionary power to vary the position in a particular case or class of case. A "particular class of case" and "particular case" cannot mean all housing improvements, and it is that power which I seek to establish.
As my penultimate point, I put the matter this way. If it is the view of the Under-Secretary and the Minister that they do not need this power, that it is something which they would not wish to have the power to do, or that it is implicit in the Bill or is to be found somehow in an interpretation of the Act, as distinct from a specific explicit statement in legislation, there can be no argument against the new Clause. It means that the Minister and the Under-Secretary agree with the principle I am enunciating.
On expenditure in connection with amenity improvements in general improvement areas, in Section 37 of the Act we have already a subsection which is virtually identical to the new Clause, within the context of general improvement area amenity grants. If both sides wish to have the same general power in the Minister's hands in connection with specific improvement grants as the Minister already has in connection with amenity grants in Section 37(5), there is a clear case for having it written explicitly into the Act. We all agree that there should be such a power.
I argue that the Minister's present power is limited by Statute and that, if he 443 sought to extend Section 5(3) by a general increase in grant levels or in the ceiling on expenditure for grant calculation, this would or could be ruled to be ultra vires. If this view is sound, as I believe it to be, it becomes even more essential that the Clause be accepted. The whole basis for tabling the Clause is not merely that I think that this is a missing element from the 1969 Act, but that we have seen evidence of steeply rising costs and, if we are to accept the view, as perforce we have to, expressed by the Under-Secretary earlier that there is at present no case for increasing these figures specifically, the Minister needs the power to vary expenditure when the Government come to the conclusion that there is an urgent need to do something which there was not the power to do under the previous legislation dealing with improvement grants : hence the drop in value under the 1949 Act.
These are my various reasons. I want to introduce into the legislation governing improvement grants on individual properties the same power as already applies on the more limited level of expenditure with regard to amenity grants for general improvement areas. There can be no argument against the principle. I look forward to hearing how it can be explained that subsection (3) gives this general power when it refers to particular cases or classes of cases.

§ Mr. Amery
I take it that this is not a probing Amendment but is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill.

§ Mr. Freeson
Yes.

§ Mr. Amery
The objective is certainly a laudable one with which I have great sympathy. The objective is to give the Minister power to increase by Order the cash limits of improvement grants paid by local authorities to private owners under Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1969. It is true that, unless these existing limits are raised, they would have the effect of restricting the extent of the financial assistance given by the Act. For instance, an owner spending £2,000 on improving his house, and who would apparently be eligible for a 75 per cent. grant of £1,500 under the new provisions, would find himself subject to the existing limit of £1,000 on his improvement grant. The Secretary of State already has the power 444 to make Regulations, although these could apply only generally throughout the country.
The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked Section 5(2) of the 1969 Act. Section 5(2) provides that the improvement grant limits shall be £1,000, or £1,200 in the case of properties of three or more storeys, or such other amount as may be prescribed". Section 27 defines "prescribed" as meaning, prescribed by regulations made by the Minister". Section 85 provides that any regulations under the Act shall be made by Statutory Instrument, in the case of regulations under Section 5(2) subject to the negative procedure.
In order to deal selectively with the areas to which the Bill applies—this is the problem we are up against now—the Secretary of State intends to adopt the method available to him under Section 5(3) of the 1969 Act, which enables him to approve higher amounts of grant for particular cases or particular classes of case. He will in due course approve higher amounts of £1,500 instead of £1,000 in Section 5(2)(a) and £1,800 instead of £1,200 in Section 5(2)(b). The approval will be included in the Circular to be sent to local authorities as soon as the Bill has been passed.
As the point is already covered under the existing arrangements, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no need to pursue his new Clause.

§ Mr. Freeson
Before agreeing to his request not to press the Clause, may I put this specific question to the Minister? Should he or any future Minister wish to vary the grant levels throughout the country, not just in specific cases but generally under the Bill or in other circumstances, has he the power to do so?

§ Mr. Amery
That is my understanding, under Section 5(2).

§ Mr. Freeson
As this is a serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I have raised it in all seriousness for the purpose of clarification, may we have an undertaking that he will look at the question again between now and the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so that there will be no doubt on this score?

§ Mr. Amery
I am not giving this off the cuff. In my view, there is no doubt, but we shall look again in case there is the slighest margin of doubt. As far as I am aware, there is no doubt whatever touching the assurance which I have given.

§ Mr. Freeson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
I have to announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the two manuscript Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson).