HOUSING (RENTS). (Hansard, 23 September 1931)

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I desire to raise a matter that concerns the Minister of Health and to urge that the rents of working-class houses should be reduced by 40 per cent. When cuts are the order of the day and we find the Prime Minister, both in his wireless speech and 1781 in his speech in the House, justifying cuts in unemployment benefit on the ground that the cost of living has fallen, I want to prove that, as far as one of the most particular items in working-class life is concerned, there has been no reduction but a decided increase, and that is in the rents of houses. I want to do all that I can to appeal to the Minister of Health, because, owing to conditions that he introduced when he decontrolled rents, the poor people—at any rate, I can speak authoritatively for the West of Scotland—have been bled white. I have in my possession—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Do the proposals of the hon. Member require legislation If he is after legislation, I am afraid he is not in order. Or is it by administration?

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
It is by administration, and not only that, but the rent question in this country, as far as this House is concerned, goes back to 1913, when this House first decided that it would say what were to be the rents of working-class houses in this country, and it was done by Order in Council, so that the same can be done here again. We find that the rents of working-class houses enter largely into the expenditure of that class. In 1919 the Tory Government gave the landlords the right to increase rents by 47½ per cent. The first increase was 33⅛ per cent., and they got that increase because in 1915 the working class forced the Government to pass an Order in Council that for the duration—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not see how this can possibly be done without legislation. Perhaps the Minister can inform me.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain)
I was waiting to hear some suggestion from the hon. Member as to how it could be done by administration, because I was under the impression that the proposal he wished to bring forward was a proposal for new legislation. I do not see how by administration it is possible to alter the rent of decontrolled houses, which are under Statute.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
It will not take me long, and, if you will permit me, I will explain to the Minister how this is working out, in a terribly hard fashion for the poorest of the people.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That may be so, but I should not be doing my duty if I allowed the hon. Member, on the Adjournment Motion, to make proposals which would involve legislation. I cannot allow him to do what I would not allow other hon. Members to do.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I have no desire to go beyond the Rules of the House, but when cuts are the order of the day I wish to show that as far as rents are concerned—in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that the cost of living had gone down and that that was the justification for reducing unemployment benefit—I wish to show that in 1926 and 1927 the landlords and factors of Glasgow owing to decontrol, have taken large sums of money from the poorest people. Here is the statement on the matter drawn up by the City Assessors of Glasgow. Since decontrol the poorest section of the people have been exploited to the extent of £57—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member admits that this was done by legislation, and obviously it cannot be undone without legislation.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I am sure that your Ruling will be accepted by my hon. Friend, namely, that in this Adjournment period we are not permitted to raise questions that necessitate legislation. Within the last few weeks, however, precedents have been made in this House that have been a break with tradition. I would suggest that it would not be too big a break in these days, when private Members' rights have been reduced to such an extent, to extend a certain amount of latitude on the Adjournment Motion. I want to put the point that under the Rent Restrictions legislation the owners of houses are permitted to impose on their tenants a certain additional percentage over the pre-War level. We believe that that might have had some justification in the period of soaring prices, but it has no justification now. It is true that as regards the large proportion of that increase of rent, it would require legislation to abolish it, but there is a certain fraction of that percentage increase which the landlord can only impose on condition that he is making substantial and effective repairs to the property. The majority of the landlords are not making these repairs, 1783 and it is within the competence of the Minister of Health administratively to say to them, "Unless you can show me that you have made substantial repairs you must cease to charge that additional fraction." Therefore, I put it to you that it is within the competence of my hon. Friend to raise the question of the 40 per cent. increase.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I said before that it would be in order to raise now anything that could be done by the Minister of Health in his Department. If the hon. Member can show me that he is asking for something the Minister can do without legislation he would be in order, but o far as he has gone he has been suggesting legislation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
On that point of Order. I submit, in the first place, that the Minister of Health is not the administrator as regards Scotland.

§ Mr. MAXTON
We are not speaking for Scotland.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The Minister of Health is not the person responsible for that part of the administration in Great Britain. Whether a, landlord is carrying out his duty in respect of repairs is a matter entirely for the local authorities. If the tenant can bring a certificate from a sanitary inspector that the house is not in a proper state of repair, he can refuse now to pay the 25 per cent. increase of rent on that account.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
It is not my fault that the Minister of Health is replying. I put my question to the Prime Minister, who handed it on to the right hon. Gentleman, so it is not I who am to blame. This is a very serious matter for the very poorest people in the country, and I am giving the hard facts.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am not concerned at the moment with the hard facts but with the Orders of this House. The remedy of those hard facts suggested by the hon. Members is one that needs legislation.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
Would it be in order for the hon. Member to bring forward a statement of hardships in order to persuade the Minister of Health to make an appeal to property owners voluntarily to reduce rents? That would not involve 1784 legislation, but it would involve the Minister of Health simply making an appeal to the property owners to take action. Unless it is something which is part of the duty of the Ministry of Health, I am afraid it cannot be dealt with because it would involve legislation.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Over and above the 47½ per cent. that has been permitted by law, the factors in the West of Scotland have put 48.99 per cent. on the poorest of the people. I am asking the Minister of Health to use his good offices to have that stopped. Since the right hon. Gentleman introduced his decontrol the blood has been sucked from the poorest of the poor, over and above that 47½ per cent., to the extent of £57,541 3s. Those are the figures stated by the City Assessor of Glasgow, and we should do something to stop those difficulties, because when the increase of rent was allowed, it was given on the distinct understanding that they would make the necessary repairs because there had been no repairs done during the War. Before they got that increase there were certain things to be carried out and they were automatically looked upon by the poor folk in the West of Scotland as things that would be done by the landlord, such things as whitewashing walls and doing some of the painting. None of those things has been done, and the tenants have to do all that themselves, and then comes along the blood-sucking lot. What I have given are not my figures, and surely in those circumstances something should be done. Only a month ago, in the Dumbarton Sheriff Court, the sheriff gave those factors an increase of 1½ per cent. for collecting the rates. That is what is going on, and surely the House of Commons can do something to protect the poorest of the poor. If we cannot do something in the House of Commons we shall have to try elsewhere. I am doing all I can to get something done here. I do not want to put out any threats, but something has to be done, and I make an appeal to the Minister of Health.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am afraid that the hon. Member has found his style rather cramped by the limitations of Debate under the Standing Orders of the House, and I am equally handicapped in replying to him, because I am quite at 1785 a loss to know what is the final suggestion which he puts before me and asks me to consider.

§ Mr. MAXTON
The suggestion is that you might do something.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Something, yes; but what? The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that he was speaking As a Member of the House of Commons and not as a Scottish Member, but he will recollect that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in his illustrations has quoted only figures applying to the city of Glasgow. Obviously it is not my business to make any appeal to the factors in the city of Glasgow. [Interruption.] I certainly can in my private capacity as a citizen make an appeal to landlords in Birmingham but why should one stop at landlords of one par- 1786 ticular kind. Why should not one make an appeal to all landlords—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But the question arises, what appeal am I to make? I would remind the hon. Member that, under the existing Act, the tenant can apply to the county court for an order suspending—

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I have stood in the court and appealed for days for these people, and now I have come here to the highest court in the land. If we get nothing here, we will appeal to something else, and that is force. [Interruption.] I have told you, and, by God, you will get it.