HC Deb 28 July 1922 vol 157 cc886-8

(3) Land let by a council under the Allotments Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the full fair rent for such use and not more than a quarter's rent (except where the yearly rent is twenty shillings or less) shall be required to be paid in advance.

Mr. ACLAND

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "use" ["rent for such use"], to insert the words provided that such rents shall not exceed by more than fifteen per cent. the rents or annuities paid by the council on account of the allotments. This is a very important matter. To some extent we were met in Committee with regard to the amount to be charged to the allotment holders for rent, in that we were given the wording that land let by a Council under the Allotments Acts for allotments should be "let at the full fair rent," instead of some other words which were rather stronger, but it is undoubtedly the practice of many municipalities to take land for a certain rent and to let it to allotment holders at double that rent and, in fact, to make for the municipality out of the allotment holders a very considerable profit on the transaction. That, I think, is a mistake from the general point of view of the social and industrial life of the community. My experience goes to show that the possession of allotments on reasonable terms is of enormous benefit to a community, and avoids a very great deal of discontent and difficulty, especially in times of industrial depression and unemployment. Therefore, provided that the municipalities can reasonably cover all their expenses in administering their allotments, they ought not to make a profit rental out of them. The matter is an old one. It is a matter of controversy, and in order that the question may be raised again, and stand on record, I beg to move the Amendment, and will shorten what I otherwise would have said, and go to a Division.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I cannot accept this Amendment, and, in view of the alterations made in Committee, I really do not think it is in any way necessary or fair to the local authorities. In this Clause we are dealing with the rental of allotments in a new fashion altogether. As regards the rental to be charged, it is to be the "full fair rent" of what the land is worth as an allotment, and that is cut off entirely from the consideration of what was the cost of the acquisition of the land and the equipment of it. In the first part of the Clause we are dealing merely with the question of what considerations the local authority is to take into account when it proposes an allotment scheme, and we are not dealing with the rents to be charged at all. That comes in in Sub-section (3), but, as regards the considerations which an allotment authority has to take into account, it has got to make up its mind that when it charges a full fair rent, it will not make a loss, and it is allowed to make certain deductions from its expenditure which are set out in Sub-section (2, a, b, c).

Mr. ACLAND

Sub-section (2) does not refer to rents at all. As my right hon. Friend explained, these things have only to be taken into consideration in (a), (b) and (c) with regard to whether land shall be acquired or not, but once a decision has been come to to acquire it, they will be covered in the rent, if the rent is to be, as it is under the Bill a full fair rent, so that all these charges in the great majority of cases will be covered.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I am afraid we cannot go beyond what we have already put in—the cost in relation to acquisition on the analogy of the smallholdings. We have put in expenses incurred in making roads, and sinking fund charges in respect of loans.

Mr. ACLAND

But it has no effect on rent.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

At all events, I do not see my way to go further in that direction. I think our proposals are eminently fair to the allotment holder, and I do not think this proposal would be fair to the allotment authorities.

Sir C. WARNER

Does my right hon. Friend, who has moved this Amendment, really want to increase allotments in the country? If he does, surely this Amendment is the very way to stop them. It seems to me that all through the Debate, he has been trying to discourage allotments, and this Amendment is distinctly trying to discourage local authorities from putting this Bill into force. If the local authority make a profit, which I hope they will—though I do not think they will—then surely it is a great encouragement to them to extend the allotments. If they make a loss, it will prevent them from going in for allotments more largely. Surely if we want to extend allotments, we ought to encourage local authorities, and this Amendment is a restrictive Amendment in every way.

Amendment negatived.