HL Deb 20 March 1956 vol 196 cc577-89

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Power to abolish or reduce subsidies

2.—(1) The Minister may, at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, and thereafter from time to time, by order direct that, in respect of, or of the site of, dwellings of any description specified in the order, or such dwellings in any area so specified, exchequer subsidies under this Act—

  1. (a) shall cease to be, payable; or
  2. (b) shall be reduced to such amount as may be specified in the order; or
  3. (c) shall be payable for such reduced number of years as may be so specified.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any subsidies payable under subsections (1) and (3) of section three of this Act

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Clause 2 enables the Minister at any time after March 31, 1956—that is, in a fortnight's time—to reduce or abolish any of the subsidies which are provided under this Bill. I do not know when this Bill may become law. It is inconceivable that the Minister can abolish the subsidies before the Bill actually becomes law, but theoretically he can, by Order in Council, within a few days of the Bill becoming law, reduce or abolish any of the subsidies provided under the Bill. He has already told us that one of the subsidies which he will reduce within a year or so will be The subsidy for general housing to relieve overcrowding; and without going over the ground which we covered on Second Reading, the argument for the Bill is that it is now desired to concentrate upon slum clearance and redevelopment on a vast scale of existing new towns, but mainly on slum clearance. It is the desire of the Government that high priority should be given to slum clearance. I understand that the Minister is so enthusiastic about it that he is going around a few towns to look at some slums, so that he may know exactly what he is about to clear.

The local authorities have been asked to prepare a five-year programme, and they have done so; and it is proposed to clear some 350,000 houses in the five years. The local authorities will have considerable difficulty, because, while the Bill has been going through the House, the whole of the financial structure upon which it is based has largely disappeared, or at any rate has gone greatly to their disfavour. They will not be able to borrow money in the usual way through the Public Works Loan Board; they will have to pay a higher rate of interest, and so on. But most of the local authorities, regardless of politics, are going to play the game and will do their best to clear the slums, or to clear such numbers of them as they are able within the first period of five years.

The least that can be asked from the Government is that local authorities should have some kind of assurance that the subsidy for slum clearance will not be interfered with. It should not be possible at the whim of a Minister to submit an Order in Council and either terminate or reduce the subsidy. I think that is the least that the local authorities can ask. I know that the Order in Council has to be passed by a Resolution of each House, but we, who have been in politics for any length of time, know that any Government having a majority will get their Affirmative Resolution passed. While I should not wish to tie down any Government for all time, circumstances may change in such a way as will make it necessary to put an end to slum clearance —anything may happen. But, in such circumstances, I submit that the right thing is to bring in a Bill and get it passed by Parliament, and not to have these subsidies terminated at virtually short notice. Local authorities are making immense preparations: they are taking on additional staff to survey houses in detail, building up their organisation and going to a great deal of trouble to embark on this slum clearance programme, and I submit that they ought to be assured that the subsidy will be continued, if only for the period of the five-year programme.

I am therefore moving that while I accept the position that Her Majesty's Government may, by an Order in Council, terminate the £10 a year subsidy which Parliament has now decided should be payable in respect of other housing, that should not apply in the case of those houses set out in Clause 3, subsections (1) and (3), of this Bill. I am principally concerned with slum clearance and new towns and I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance. The Amendment as drawn would make it impossible for him at any time to withdraw the subsidy by Order in Council. I should be perfectly content if I were told that at a later stage of the Bill such provision would be made, at any rate for the period of the five-year plan. I hope it will be possible for us to be met on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 38, at end insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any subsidies payable under subsections (1) and (3) of section three of this Act.")—(Lord Silkin.)

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was quite correct in saying, first, that the Bill aims to reduce the subsidy for houses for general need and, in a year or two, to abolish it altogether; and, secondly, that the slum clearance proposals within the measure are an essential part of the whole Bill. That is perfectly correct. The main purpose of the Bill is, in fact, to encourage local authorities to devote far more of their effort and time to abolishing slums in their midst. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would prevent the Minister from abolishing or reducing the subsidies in almost any clause within the Bill without a special Act of Parliament.

I think I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was not the intention of my right honourable friend to reduce in the near future the subsidies of £22 1s. 0d. and £24. During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place my right honourable friend gave a categorical assurance to the House that he was not contemplating any reduction in the subsidies for the purposes which I have mentioned. Some years hence it may well be feasible to reduce or even to abolish those subsidies; but under the terms of the clause as it is drafted any order to that effect must come before another place for an Affirmative Resolution. It is clear that such an order need not come before your Lordships' House, but I have no doubt whatever that if, in the near future, the Minister sought to reduce or abolish subsidies for the cases which I have quoted and endeavoured to secure approval of that by an Affirmative Resolution in another place, it would not be long before we in this House had a Motion down calling attention to the action taken by my right honourable friend. If, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the Minister does have a whim to reduce it, then the procedure which I have outlined will have to be undertaken.

I appreciate the purpose for which the noble Lord put this Amendment down: that, in his opinion, if the Minister should propose to reduce or abolish these subsidies it would be far better that that should be done by a new Act of Parliament. I have discussed this Amendment with my right honourable friend and he is firmly of opinion that it would be far better to leave the clause as it is at present, leaving power to the Minister, if occasion should arise, to propose to another place, by an Order in Council, that the subsidies should be reduced or abolished. But, as I have mentioned, it is not the intention of my right honourable friend to abolish or to reduce these subsidies for some years hence, and in view of the provision contained in subsection (3) of this clause I would suggest to your Lordships that we should leave the clause as it stands in the Bill at the present time.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl will not be surprised to hear that his reply is considered entirely unsatisfactory. If the Minister has no intention of reducing the subsidy, that seems to me a perfect reason for accepting the Amendment. The Amendment to the clause stands only if the Minister should be seized with a desire to reduce the subsidy. If he has no intention of reducing it, my Amendment cannot hurt him. Furthermore, there is an assumption that the Minister is to be Minister for five years; but if anything is certain in political life it is that the Minister will not be Minister of Housing and Local Government for the whole period of the slum clearance programme. That may be an argument for leaving the clause alone. But he may have a successor, even during the lifetime of the present Government; so that any undertaking which he gives is not really valid. I cannot ask the noble Earl to reconsider the matter. We can only show our displeasure at the reply in the usual way.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—

Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS
Attlee, E. Burden, L. [Teller.] Rea, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Greenhill, L. Silkin, L
Kershaw, L. Strabolgi, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Mathers, L. Winster, L.
Ogmore, L. Wise, L.
Amulree, L. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Selkirk, E. Glyn, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.) Hampton, L.
Bridgeman, V. Hawke, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Cilcennin, V. Jessel, L.
Crookshank, V. Leconfleld, L.
Albemarle, E. Devonport, V. Milverton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Goschen, V. Monk Bretton, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Monkswell, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Balfour of Inchrye, L. Moyne, L.
Glasgow, E. Birdwood, L. Salter, L.
Home, E. Carrington, L. Saltoun, L.
Lindsay, E. Chesham, L. Strathclyde, L.
Macclesfield, E. Conesford, L. Teviot, L.
Munster, E. Elton, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.56 p.m.

LORD WISE

Before the clause is passed in its present position in the Bill, there is just one small point that I should like to raise: it will not cause a Division; it is just a question of the order of the clauses. If your Lordships will refer to the arrangement of the clauses in the Bill you will notice that it starts in Clause 1 with new housing subsidies. Then comes Clause 2, which provides power to abolish or reduce subsidies. Then in Clauses 3 and 4 we come to the rate of subsidies, while in Clause 5 power is given to increase subsidies in certain circumstances. In the interest of tidiness, it occurred to me in reading the Bill—and I believe that it might also contribute to its better understanding—that it would have been better to have put Clause 3 as Clause 2, Clause 4 as Clause 3, and then to have brought together the two clauses which either abolish or reduce subsidies or increase them. I am no Parliamentary draftsman, but it seemed to me that it would be better to keep together the two clauses which refer to increase or reduction of subsidies and to keep together those which refer to the rates of subsidies. I merely put that forward as a suggestion. Possibly it might make the Bill a little more tidy than it is at present.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I would only say, having examined this Bill for some few months past, that I should not like to see the order of the clauses changed. I am bound to admit that the reason why the clauses are in this particular order is unknown to me, but I should have thought it infinitely better to start off with the power to reduce or abolish subsidies and then to state in the next clauses what the rates of the new subsidies would be—subject, of course, to what may occur some years hence under Clause 2 of the Bill. However, I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention, and also that of Parliamentary counsel, to the observations made by the noble Lord. But I would suggest that as the Bill has now gone some considerable way towards reaching the Statute Book, we should leave it as drafted at the present time.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Rate of subsidies for dwellings]:

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3) (d), after "industry" to insert "or commerce." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of Clause 3 deals with the case where the Minister may provide additional subsidy, in agreement with the local housing authority, for the purpose of meeting the special housing needs of industry yin the area. The perfect example of that may be the setting up of an atomic energy factory, and the consequent necessity to provide housing for the workers. It would be unfair to expect the local housing authority to provide houses at their own expense, especially since no subsidy will be available. Another type of case may be where the Government decide to decentralise one of their own offices. The Committee may remember that the Minister recently declared that it is the policy of the Government to carry out a further measure of dispersal of Government offices. A considerable amount was done during war time and a small amount afterwards, but to-day it is the declared policy of the Government to disperse as many as possible of their offices centralised in London. In pursuance of that policy, it may well be necessary to provide office accommodation in some area outside London on a large scale—equivalent, for example, to the moving of the National Insurance Department to Newcastle. That seems to me exactly equivalent to the kind of case contemplated by subsection (3) (d). If it is right to provide subsidy in the case of houses needed for industry, it seems to me equally right to provide a similar subsidy where housing is required because of the transfer of a Government Department. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl has been instructed to say in answer to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 25, after "industry" insert "or commerce."—(Lord Silkin.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Subsection (3) (d) is devised to encourage local authorities to provide dwellings for workers in industry which are vital to the well-being of the nation and to the whole of our national economy. As my right honourable friend stated in another place, there are obvious examples. The first we had in mind was coal-mining. In the course of moving his Amendment, the noble Lord mentioned atomic energy plant, and I might add generating stations. By his Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seeks to enlarge this paragraph so that local authorities will have power to provide houses for office staffs who are moved out of congested areas. In support of his Amendment Lord Silkin quoted the fact that over a period of years Her Majesty's Government have moved a number of civil servants from the metropolis to Newcastle, Blackpool, Bath and other towns, which will come to the mind of the noble Lord. That was what my right honourable friend said to the Town Planning Institute at their dinner the other night. Perhaps the noble Lord either attended that dinner or has refreshed himself on what the Minister said on that occasion.

With the best will in the world, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that, on this occasion, there is a need to include office workers in the same category as industrial workers. We shall all agree with my right honourable friend's view that we should try to persuade firms to move their office staffs away from congested areas. Moves of that sort are already covered by subsection (3), paragraphs (c), (e) and (f). As the noble Lord will already know, having been Minister of Housing in his time, the present Minister, or any future Minister, will always he ready to consider with every sympathy and care any scheme for the general relief of overspill; and houses needed for any such scheme would attract a subsidy of £24 under the paragraphs I have mentioned. Paragraph (d) of subsection (3), however, deals with an entirely different set of circumstances, and in view of the other paragraphs my right honourable friend considers that there is no need to include office workers in this paragraph. The two cases are quite distinct. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree that my observations are correct and withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

I have reflected upon what the noble Earl has said; but again I am not convinced. I visualise the case where the Government themselves want to move a Department outside London and, in order to do it, have to provide houses for some of the staff. Some labour may be found locally, but a certain amount of labour from London will have to be housed. If this is not going to be done, there is no point in the move, because its whole purpose is to take people away from London into new areas where offices will be provided. To the extent that it will attract people, it will put an unfair burden on the local authorities who have enough to do to clear the slums, to which they are being asked to give priority. If, in addition, they are being asked to deal with people who come from London, surely the matter should be dealt with by means of a subsidy. However, I understand that the noble Earl is not in a position to accede to this and, looking around at the heavy Benches facing me and at the large number of "backwoodsmen," I do not propose to divide the House but will allow the Amendment to be negatived.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BURDEN

I wish to raise a question of great importance to the local authorities in what I might roughly describe as the south-west Essex region. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill provides for a reduction to £10 a year of the subsidy on houses for general needs—and it may be, as we discussed in a previous Amendment, that that £10 will disappear entirely—while the subsidy for houses in new towns, and for some other purposes, will be £24 per house. The local authorities who are in some difficulty over this clause are those where the areas have been developed, broadly speaking, during the present century. With the exception of West Ham, almost all the houses in in the areas concerned have been built by private enterprise, leaving little scope for municipal development within the areas. Without troubling your Lordships with a large number of figures, I should just like to quote two sets. The average number of houses completed up to March 31, 1945, for all county boroughs with a total population of over 13 million was 35.6; whereas in the built-up areas to which I refer, such as Dagenham, East Ham, Ilford, and Leyton, it varies from 3.4 to 9.3.

In the post-war housing development of these local authorities they were encouraged to go outside their own municipal boundaries, and land was acquired in different parts of Essex, often in face of opposition from the local authorities in the area but with the express sanction of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. What has happened? These houses have been built up as dormitory areas, from where the men and women travel to town. There are few, if any, local industries as compared with the development in the new towns. The reduction of the subsidy on those houses, and its probable ultimate disappearance, will have a serious effect on the finances of the local authorities concerned.

I understand that representations on this matter have already been made to the Minister, and he has suggested two possible ways in which these local authorities could meet the situation. The first is that the exporting authority, if I may use that term, should come to an agreement with the authority at the receiving end for that authority to take over the houses as part of a new town development, and thus qualify for the £24 per annum grant. But the local authorities concerned are coming up against the difficulty that these other local authorities will not take over the houses. The other suggestion of the Minister is that, with the number of municipal houses within their area, the local authority could spread the rents and thus lessen the load on the houses which have been built outside the area. But, as I pointed out a moment ago, as against the trend in all other areas, this south-west corner of Essex comprises built-up areas, leaving little or no scope for municipal development of housing, and therefore there are few houses in those areas built by the municipal authorities over which the load could be spread. So that both the suggestions of the Minister, which were put up in correspondence, break down.

The local authorities in the areas concerned take a serious view of this matter. They are all highly rated areas because, in the main, they are residential; they have not large properties of any kind on which to transfer part of the load of the rates, and there is a grim prospect indeed for the local ratepayers. I would suggest, with no desire to be too hard, that it would be a shocking thing if these authorities, having been encouraged by the Minister to go outside their areas to provide for their housing needs, were now to be compelled to shoulder this responsibility arising from a reduction in the subsidy. In the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the Bill it is said that grants may be given for houses provided by local authorities of congested or over-populated areas by large-scale development in other areas. What is meant by "large-scale development"? One authority of which I have some knowledge has developed in different parts of Essex some 4,278 dwellings. Could that be called a "large-scale development," or would the definition of that expression be confined to a certain specific area? I know that we have little time at our disposal, but I believe that in the words in the Explanatory Memorandum which I have quoted there may be sonic way of escape for these highly rated local authorities who face the prospect of even heavier rates arising out of the reduction in the subsidy. As the matter stands, they cannot claim the £24 per annum. Would it be possible for some interpretation of the words "large-scale development" to be given to the local authorities concerned, in order to help them out of this difficult situation? I should like to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill whether, if there is time (and I hope that there will be), there is any possibility of some discussion taking place between the representatives of the local authorities concerned and the Minister, to see if some way out of the problem facing these local authorities cannot be found.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am glad the noble Lord has raised this question, because it gives me an opportunity to try to interpret correctly what he has said about this difficult subject, and also to convey to him the views which the Minister holds on this matter. In considering the proposals for schemes of comprehensive development of what I might describe as of a "new town" character the Minister proposes to look favourably at those which represent large-scale enterprise; but he will not rule out proposals for a more modest development, since he is more concerned, as he naturally must be, with the all-round character of the development rather than with its size. However, he feels that it is important that any schemes should make provision—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with this—not only for residential development of all types but also for industry and commerce, and that there should be adequate shopping, recreational and cultural facilities, together with places of worship. In other words, the development should result in a self-contained and balanced community. And on that point I do not think there will be any dispute, on whatever side of the House we may sit.

Where these particular facilities already exist in the district to an extent sufficient for the increased population under the scheme, there will, of course, be no need to provide new ones; but as the noble Lord knows, the power to pay the subsidy of £24 for buildings built by exporting authorities under paragraph (e) of subsection (3) rests on the assumption that the authority will be burdened by extra costs which would not occur if the dwellings were provided in its own area. My right honourable friend therefore will not approve proposals merely for residential development unaccompanied by other works, even though it could be argued that additional housing might be provided without overloading industrial, commercial and social facilities of the area. I hope that that statement answers the noble Lord's observations. He also asked me whether there would be any possibility now of discussions between my right honourable friend and the local authorities. I will certainly convey the noble Lord's views to my right honorable friend, but I think it would not be much use at this stage having discussions with the local authorities.

LORD BURDEN

Do I understand the noble Earl to say that it is possible that some of the small development might be considered for the £24 grant, but that each case would have to be looked at on its merits? It is possible that they may cone in for that subsidy.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I think that is true.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.