HOUSING IMPROVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERMEDIATE AREAS (Hansard, 13 July 1971)

§ Mr. Freeson
I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after "works", insert "or expenditure".
Linked with that Amendment is the second Amendment, also in page 1, line 14, after "completed", insert "or incurred".
Our original suggestion, to replace "completed" with "approved", was not accepted as being in order. The matter has been raised in debate time and time again as a serious point. It was raised in the past 10 minutes by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, when we debated Clause 3.
There can be no doubt that we cannot rely in practice simply on works being physically completed, if we are to get the effect that we all want from the Bill. In addition to the views expressed by hon. Members we have had representations from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, which urged that we should seek to have "completed" replaced by "approved". That could not be done, but probably the phraseology of this Amendment is better and more accurate, and I should have been wiser to use it in the first place. I seek now to use the language to be found in the Money Reso- 446 lution, in which there is an either-or situation, otherwise the expression completed or incurred would not have been found necessary.
I can only assume that in accepting that Resolution Parliament has agreed that public money should be spent under the terms of the Bill not only for completed works but for works which have not taken place but on which expenditure has been incurred. To make sure about my interpretation of "incur" I consulted our old friend, the Longer Oxford Dictionary. The definition that concerns us now is : to render oneself liable to ; to be liable through one's own action ; to bring upon oneself … If the Government accept the Amendment they will agree to the Bill's applying wherever work has been agreed to—by whatever legal or physical process, must be interpreted in law—and which results in an incurring of expenditure, and that it is not the actual completion of works which constitutes the incurring. It may seem light-hearted to look up dictionary definitions, but I thought it was well to put on record that I had checked the meaning.
The Amendment is fully in line with what we all seek in the Bill and with the Money Resolution. Whatever other views the Government have been unable to accept, I hope that they will at least accept this Amendment so that they and the local authorities can take the start of works for the purposes of the increased grant aid. Otherwise, as hon. Members have said and as the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has represented to hon. Members, there is likely to be a slow down in work in the last six months' operation of the Bill, and local authorities and others dealing with particularly difficult circumstances in those areas of housing which are most urgently in need of help under the Bill—Glasgow, London and other big cities and some of the worst areas within the intermediate and development areas—will find that the Bill is not operative in the latter part of its life.
I do not propose to repeat our arguments that the Bill is narrowly drawn and that there are other stress areas which should benefit as will Glasgow, for we have already discussed these matters, but it must be our job to ensure that, within 447 its present limits, the Bill makes money available to increase expenditure to achieve our purposes. We shall have been wasting our time and just playing around with the subject if the Bill can produce results on the ground for only six to twelve months.
I say that to underline what has already been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee. The Amendment is in the terms of the Money Resolution and I hope that it will be accepted so that the Bill will be operated in the spirit which we want.

§ Mr. Channon
I congratulate the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) on ingeniously finding a formula for getting his Amendment within the terms of the Money Resolution and thus being able to raise the issue which he wanted to discuss. I congratulate him because the words "or incurred" occur in the Money Resolution, and we all recall the interesting debate we had on the Money Resolution on Friday.
The words "or incurred" in the Money Resolution refer in particular to Clause 2(2)—
So far as expeneature eligible for assistance under the said section 37 consists of expenditure on providing land, this Act shall apply as if the expenditure were expenditure on works so eligible carried out on land and completed at the time when the expenditure was incurred, and as if the application for financial assistance had been made at that time. Some works necessitate local authorities acquiring land, and for the purposes of the Bill the date of the acquisition of the land, when the authority has incurred the expenditure, will be deemed to be the date when the works will have been completed, or otherwise none of this would rank for the higher grant.
That is why the words "or incurred" appear in the Money Resolution and that is what it means when it uses the words "completed or incurred".

§ Mr. Freeson
Before we get too far along this road, and we have gone far enough already, the hon. Member is misrepresenting the position. The Money Resolution cannot be restricted as he suggests. The fact that that was in the Minister's mind when the Money Resolution was drawn up—that it related to a particular point in the Bill—is not the 448 point now before us. The Amendment is in order and, if passed, it would mean that the Money Resolution would cover expenditure incurred on other matters. Nothing in the Money Resolution relates to expenditure incurred on the purchase of land and the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a false point. He may wish to argue substantively on the point but I hope that he will accept the arguments put on both sides of the House and from outside before we finish tonight.

§ Mr. Channon
I will deal with the point the hon. Gentleman made. I was explaining the Money Resolution. Whether the Amendment, if passed, would have the effect he wishes is another question.
There is some doubt—I put it no higher—about the effect of the Amendment if carried. No one can complain about that. It is extremely difficult to draft Amendments to Bills. I am advised, however, that the Amendment would not have the effect the hon. Gentleman desires.

§ Mr. Freeson
In law?

§ Mr. Channon
Yes. I do not make a particular point of it but it is important. We cannot be categorically certain that this is so, but there is doubt, and in law it may be that the point at which expenditure is incurred is the point at which the builder is paid. If the courts put that interpretation on it, then what the hon. Gentleman is seeking would not be achieved. It would probably have the opposite effect and would not help his case.
The substantial point he is making concerns why we fixed the two-year period and why we decided on completions rather than starts or approvals.
I am not sure I can give an answer which will satisfy the hon. Member or whether there is any statistical or logical basis on which one could defend what we have done. Whether it should have been approvals or completions is a matter for argument. We might have said it should have been approvals within 18 months or completions within two or three years. Whatever time limit was chosen, the Opposition and hon. Members on this side would have been entitled to question the logic behind it.
449 The Minister decided that this policy needed a short-term boost. We wanted a short, quick spurt to bring forward the maximum amount of work that could be achieved within a limited period. Only time will tell whether we have adopted the right period. But we decided to have it on completions rather than approvals because it was much more likely to get the work brought forward as quickly as possible if it were known that it had to be completed within a stated period. That was the argument which influenced my right hon. Friend.
3.15 a.m.
I believe that a lot can be done in this period. Wherever I have been in the development areas since this scheme was put forward, I have found great enthusiasm and a wish to get on with the job. I have not been to Scotland but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells me that the same applies there. My right hon. Friend and I have been to a considerable proportion of the development and intermediate areas since the introduction of the Bill and, as I have said, we have found great enthusiasm. We want to get people moving now. We believe that they are beginning to move and that there is great interest. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked earlier whether people knew about the scheme. A lot of people certainly do and I think that the arrangements for letting people know about it are satisfactory. If they are not, we shall take the necessary steps.
I cannot say that there is any statistical or absolutely logical reason for having a two-year period rather than, say, three years, or for having completions rather than approvals. But we believe that this is a satisfactory way of tackling the problem and getting a quick, short, sharp spurt in order to achieve as quickly as possible as much work as can be achieved in these two years.
This being so, I cannot advise acceptance of the Amendment, although I would like to do so. I could not advise it even if I wished to meet the hon. Gentleman's point because there is doubt about the legal position. I believe, however, that we have a satisfactory basis in the 450 Bill. The House will have an opportunity to judge our success when the time comes. I know that hon. Members hope the scheme will be successful. We are more likely to get on quickly if we go for completions rather than approvals within a certain period. At the meetings which my right hon. Friend and I have had, the local authorities and the builders have not complained about either the proviso on completions or the time limit. I believe that we can get a substantial amount of work done in the time scale we are laying down. I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman's case on strict statistical or logical grounds, but I hope he will see that there is sense in what we propose and will not press the Amendment.

§ Mr. Freeson
We have argued this point many times and have been unable to persuade the Government. They have made up their minds not to consider the matter further. I believe that, as a result of the Government's insistence on the Bill in its present form, we shall get a very short burst of activity and that it will be well within the two years. I think that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the A.M.C. and we are right and the Government are wrong on this point and that the Government are undermining the purposes of the Bill by their rigid attitude. However, there is no point in arguing the matter further, since there is no sign of movement by the Government on it. But I believe that they will regret their attitude as they see its effects.