§ 66. Mr. E. SIMONasked the Minister of Health at what rent a house built under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill in Manchester could be let, assuming that the cost of the house was £500; that the rate of interest was 5 per cent.; that the estimate of the treasurer's committees of the local authorities that repairs, insurance and management will cost £6 10s. per annum is correct; that the rates charged would be those charged at present on similar houses in Manchester; will he show the different items in his calculation separately; and also show what the difference in the rent would be if the subsidy were that at present in force under the 1923 Act, under the assumption that the local authority was contributing a further £6 per annum for 20 years in addition to the Government contribution?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYOn the hon. Member's assumptions and on certain other assumptions as regards repayment of loans which it is necessary to make, it is estimated that the rents, exclusive of, rates, chargeable on the basis of annual deficits of £13 10s. for 40 years and £12 for 20 years would be 7s. 9c1. and 9s. 4d. a week respectively. But I would remind the hon. Member that local authorities are under no obligation under the 1923 Act to make any contribution at all out of the rates, and few, in fact, contribute the equivalent of £6 a year for 20 years. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the calculations.
§ Mr. SIMONDoes that mean that the maximum reduction in rent that can be made, if the full subsidy is given under the present Housing Bill, is 1s. 6d., as against the rent charged under the 1923 Act?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYNo, the hon. Gentleman is not justified in making such an assumption, because it is based on the tenants getting benefits under the 1923 Act which they do not at present get.
§ Mr. SIMONIn cases in which the full benefit is being given under the 1923 Act, as is the case in Manchester, would it be correct to say that the maximum reduction that can be made is 1s. 6d.?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThere is, as I have already stated, no obligation on local authorities to make a contribution of £6 a year. It is quite true that, if local authorities were generous enough to make a sufficiently large contribution, then it might actually be that the rents under the 1923 Act would be less than under the proposed Bill.