HC Deb 23 April 1929 vol 227 cc845-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I wish to raise a point of some constitutional importance affecting the Ministry of Health. I am sorry the Minister of Health is not here, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is fulfilling a long-standing engagement in the country. The point I wish to raise is the refusal by a Minister of the Crown to receive a deputation on a subject of great importance, from the corporation of a city, which deputation was to have been accompanied by the four Members representing that city in the House. The subject matter of the deputation affects 42,000 of the poorest householders in Hull who have had an increased burden of £52,000 placed upon them as the result of a series of Measures passed by this House between 1925 and 1928 dealing with rating and valuation. This has arisen largely owing to bad drafting, a combination of circumstances peculiar to Hull and an unexpected legal decision in the case of Nicholson v. Jackson. The deputation, proposed to seek advice on what was admittedly a complicated matter and to put before the Minister certain constructive suggestions, which I understand would not have cost the Treasury a penny piece. The Minister is usually very courteous and to the surprise of everyone who knew the facts, he declined to receive the deputation.

The deputation was to have consisted of the Lord Mayor, the chairman and and vice-chairman of the Finance Committee, the chairman of the Assessment Committee and two other councillors. There is a majority of Conservatives on the council and of the four Members of Parliament who were to have accompanied the deputation, three are supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's party and I am the fourth. Would Birmingham or even Woolwich have been treated in this way? The Minister of Health is not a dictator; he is not a Mussolini. He is a public servant paid by the whole body of taxpayers, with certain duties to perform, and, if the council of the corporation of a city of 300,000 inhabitants wish to discuss a matter of this importance with him, it is an affront to the whole country to say that they cannot be received. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what happened when the Postmaster-General refused to receive a deputation from the newspapers. Of course, in that case the Press was concerned, and the Prime Minister soon rapped the Postmaster-General over the knuckles. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me some explanation and, above all, to reconsider this decision and to see if we cannot have the benefit of the Ministry's experts in this matter.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

I am glad to have the opportunity of removing any misapprehension which may exist among the citizens of Hull in regard to this matter. The complaint of the hon. and gallant Member, I understand, is solely directed to the fact that my right hon. Friend does not think it desirable or expedient at the present moment to receive the deputation. My right hon. Friend has already given a great deal of time to the situation that has developed in Hull recently. So far from failing in his duty, he has to the best of his ability pointed out to the Hull Corporation exactly what the position is. There has been considerable correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Corporation. Following that correspondence is a later letter saying they had some further suggestion to make. A very obvious reply to that is that before coming up, at the expense of the ratepayers, they should inform my right hon. Friend what it is. The hon. and gallant Gentleman evidently knows what the suggestion is because he said it would not exist the taxpayers a single penny, a comforting reflection in these days.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It would mean legislation and it would be out of order to discuss it on the Adjournment.

Sir K. WOOD

If that is the proposal of the Hull Corporation, they had better put it in a communication to my right hon. Friend, for it is a very astonishing situation that the Hull Corporation, alone of all corporations, should come forward with a proposal for legislation in regard to their assessments. It is very largely on account of the fact that the Town Council has thought fit to continue the payment of allowances to owners at the maximum permissible rate long after the conditions which might be held to have justified them when originally fixed, that the ratepayers find themselves in the position they are in to-day. Also the gross assessments and rate compounded houses have been increased by more than 50 per cent. over their pre-War figures. While I am not in a position to criticise responsible bodies as to the level of assessments, I am certainly aware that many of these cases no doubt create special difficulties, which I am glad to think have been overcome by the great number of corporations up and down the country. My right hon. Friend believes that in the majority of rating areas the gross value of controlled houses has not been increased in the course of general revaluation by more than 40 per cent. above the pre-War level, yet the Town Council of Hull have increased theirs by over 50 per cent. When they are looking around to blame other people for the position in which they find themselves, I think they must direct their attention a little to what has happened in Hull itself by their own action, and which I repeat very much affects the position in which a very large number of these poor people find themselves, I am not at all prepared to assent to the view of the hon. and gallant Member, who has no doubt tried to make the best case he can for the Council to-night, that the difficulty is due to bad drafting, or to the legal position, or any matter of that kind. He has only to look at the position of other authorities and at what has happened in connection with assessments of small houses, and compare it with what has happened in Hull, and I think that there he may find one of the reasons for the position in Hull.

The citizens of Hull ought to know that in 1928 the Government brought in a Measure, which many hon. Members will recall, which had the very object of easing the position of the small tenants, and, so far from ignoring Hull on that occasion, the Town Clerk, who has since, unfortunately, died, and another representative from Hull, were invited to attend a conference and put the difficulties of Hull, in common with other towns and cities, before the Ministry. As a result of that conference, a Bill was introduced into this House which has very largely met the situation at any rate in other great towns and cities.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is rather unfair on a man who has died, but it is denied in the City that he did agree. He protested. That is the information given by his colleagues.

Sir K. WOOD

At any rate, the council attended the conference and were fully aware of the reasons actuating the Government in bringing forward their fresh legislation, and as I say in practically every other case no such difficulty has arisen. It seems to me that when Parliament has cast upon the local authorities of the country special duties in connection with this matter, it is difficult for me to say more than I have said, because it would be very unwise, inasmuch as the Hull Council have full authority and responsibility in this matter, if my right hon. Friend had endeavoured, in an improper way, to take away from the council duties and responsibilites which had been given them by this House. But I must say that if I was in the position of an occupier or a tenant of one of these houses, I should not, speaking quite personally, be content to acquiesce in the course which the Hull Council have taken.

I should be very much inclined to adopt the remedies that have been given in the Act of Parliament to people for that particular list to be amended. As the House knows, this can be amended at any time within the next six months, and if any amendment is made in the list, that amendment will go right back to the very beginning of the half-year. If the matter could be put right in that way, nobody could be damnified in that connection. That would be the course that I should be inclined to adopt if I were faced with the action taken by a corporation, which has been taken in this particular case. If there be a large number of people affected in this way, and undoubtedly heavy burdens have been placed on a large number of poor people, I think it is at any rate well worth consideration by those who are interested in their welfare that the action of this corporation might be tested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is the landlords, not the corporation.

Sir K. WOOD

I am referring to the action that the corporation have taken in the whole matter with regard to the assessments which they made. As far as the Ministry is concerned, we have tried to treat the local authorities in the nature of partners; that is the spirit that has actuated the Minister throughout the whole of his administration of the Ministry of Health, and we should not like to feel that there is any ill-feeling between any corporation and the Ministry. If any responsible officer of the Hull Corporation would like to attend at the Ministry and go into the matter further with our officials on this highly technical matter, I will certainly facilitate a proposal of that kind. If, on the other hand, they have any reasonable proposal to make to my right hon. Friend, the very least that the council could do is to say quite frankly what it is they want. If they have any reasonable proposal to make, they would be best served by not hesitating to make it to my right hon. Friend. I cannot under present circumstances think that any good purpose would be served by us receiving a deputation, but we will receive any communication they may like to make. If an officer likes to come up to the Department and consult with our head official, I will see that he gets every attention and consideration. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. LUMLEY

I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that any great constitutional question is involved as far as receiving or not receiving this deputation is concerned. Rather do I think that there is a difference of opinion as to who is actually responsible for the increase in the rates. The situation in Hull at present is that the poorest houses—that is, those up to £10 rateable value, and totalling 42,000 houses—are faced with an increase of 6d. per week in their rates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Much more in some cases.

Mr. LUMLEY

On an average, I think it is 6d. a week, as far as the £10 rateable value houses are concerned. It is contended by my hon. and gallant Friend and those who support him in Hull that it is the Government who are responsible for this by reason of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, as amended by the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928. They assert that the increase is entirely due to the reduction in the compounding allowances made to landlords. As the House will remember, the maximum allowance to landlords under those Acts is 15 per cent. In Hull, previous to 1928, the allowances to landlords was 35 per cent. If it were true that the whole of this increase of 6d. a week were due to that reduction in compounding allowances I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government were responsible and therefore might be expected to receive a deputation to ascertain what remedial measures could be brought about, but that is not the case. The greater part of this increase of 6d. a week is due not to the reduction in the compounding allowances but to the action of the local authority themselves in their treatment of the gross valuation of those poorer houses.

In the valuation of 1924 the gross value of these houses was fixed at 15 per cent. above the pre-War rates, but in the valuation which has just taken place, the 1928 valuation, their gross value was raised by a jump of 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. above pre-War rates. The average throughout the country, I understand, is only 40 per cent. above pre-War rates, and so the responsibility for this considerable jump in the gross value of these poorer houses, which is reflected in the rates which they have to pay, rests entirely upon the local assessment authority. It is no use, therefore, for anybody to say that this increase of 6d. is due to the reduction of the compounding allowances; on the contrary, it is due to the method employed by the local assessment committee in Hull in making this big jump in fixing the gross value of these poorer houses.

It must be perfectly obvious to my hon. and gallant Friend that, if that be the case, the Ministry cannot interfere, for one of the great points made when the Rating and Valuation Acts were passing through this House was that the local assessment authorities must remain quite independent and free from any kind of political control or Government interference. Therefore, it is no use asking the Government to receive a deputation. The only thing that the Minister of Health could say to such a deputation would be that it was the corporation, the local assessment authority, which had, in its own discretion, in its own wisdom, largely caused the increase in the rates on the poorer houses; and, if that be all that he would be able to say, and if there is no action which the Government could take, but if the responsibility for this lies on the local assessment authority, I can see no reason why a deputation should be brought up at the expense of the ratepayers of Hull.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.