HOUSING (REQUISITIONED PREMISES, RENTS) (Hansard, 4 April 1946)

§ Mr. Sparks (Acton)
I am very glad to have the opportunity this evening of bringing to the notice of the House a matter which has caused some anxiety to a number of families who occupy requisitioned premises. The anxiety has arisen very largely on account of the interpretation of the circular which was issued by the Ministry of Health regarding the revision of rents of families occupying requisitioned premises. Those concerned are overcrowded families, and homeless and bombed-out families who have had to be placed in premises requisitioned by the local authorities. When they entered into occupation the rents were agreed upon by them in consultation with the officers of the local authority, and were based upon the circumstances of the families concerned and fixed at a figure which it was considered they could afford to pay. It is now proposed that the rents shall be revised and I think the anxiety arises very largely from misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the method of revision. There is a great deal 1505 of confusion, as I have said, about the application of the circular in question. The circular is No. 224/45, and I am sure that the House will forgive me if I read the essential portion of that circular around which there is a certain amount of controversy and misunderstanding. It says: Where the accommodation provided for families is of a type which that family would normally occupy, the maximum charge determined as suggested would be a proper charge for the local authority to make. It is, however, recognised there will be cases where the charges so determined will be higher than the occupiers can reasonably be expected to pay, having regard to the accommodation they would normally occupy. This is particularly so where expensively rented blocks of flats are concerned. In such cases, local authorities should scale down the charges to what the occupiers might reasonably be expected to pay having regard to their status and the sort of accommodation they would ordinarily occupy. That is precisely the basis upon which rents are assessed already when persons are placed in requisitioned premises, and, in some cases, we have bombed-out families who are actually paying more rent in the requisitioned premises than they paid in the home from which they were bombed out, because it was arrived at by agreement with the local authority themselves. Then the circular says: Local authorities should proceed forthwith to make the re-assessments, but where an increased charge has to be made to the occupier, fair notice should be given before the increase is demanded. A month's notice would be reasonable if the increase is considerable in relation to the present charge. Further, where the increases are substantial, local authorities are authorised to raise the charges to the required level by successive stages until the appropriate final charge is reached. The whole re-adjustment should be completed by April 1st next. The circular, unfortunately, does not tell local authorities how they shall proceed to make the reassessment and it is most important that we should indicate to the local authorities clearly the method by means of which we propose to make these reassessments. I believe everybody will agree that there is a case to be made out for the reassessment of these rents, and if it is approached in the proper way and by the proper method, I believe it can be done without any hardship, indignation, resentment or anxiety on the part of any of the families concerned. Arising from that circular, I think it is generally true to say that many local authorities have interpreted the circular in this way, 1506 and they have caused to be sent to the tenants of requisitioned premises forms of notice which are very similar to the one which I propose to read to the House. The form which is sent to the tenants of requisitioned premises reads: I have to inform you that by direction of the Ministry of Health, there has been a general revision of the charges now being paid by the occupiers of housing accommodation requisitioned by the council for the use of persons who were previously homeless or inadequately housed. As a result of this revision, the charge, inclusive of rates and water, to be made by the council in respect of the premises which you occupy will be from the 1st April, 1946, subject to what is said below, the sum of £2 4s. 10d. per week instead of 19s. 4d. per week. This charge is subject to any alteration which may take place in the amount of the general rates. If, in your opinion, you have reasonable grounds of appeal against the revised charge, for example on the ground that you have been rehoused in accommodation superior to and therefore more expensive than the type of premises in which you would normally reside, you should apply to me within seven days of the date of this letter for a form of application for the adjustment of this charge. The only comment I would like to offer on that is that this person is being asked to pay an increased rent of £1 5s. 6d. a week, from 19s. 4d. a week to £2 4s. 10d. Here I would like to point out that the rent of the home which was bombed was only 15s. 2d. a week, but the man had been rehoused in requisitioned premises and is paying 195. 4d., which is 4s. 2d. more than the rent of the bombed-out home, and now he is called upon to pay a further increase of £1 5s. 6d. a week, unless he takes advantage of the opportunity of appealing within seven days of the date of the letter for a reconsideration of this charge.
Here I think the anxiety and the resentment come in because the tenant who appeals against that demand for increased rent is sent a form in which many particulars are asked for, including: Particulars of occupation and Income The income of the household from normal employment is as follows Gross wages before deduction of Income Tax, Health, and Unemployment insurances: Last week Average of last four weeks Occupation Works No. Name and address of employer That information is required from the applicant, the wife of the applicant, and other members of the household. In addition there are other questions which 1507 have caused a great deal of feeling. They are as follow: Other income of the household not included in the statement overleaf consists of: National Health Insurance benefit per week Workmen's Compensation per week Pensions (Old Age, Disability, etc.) per week Interest on Investments Any other income Then the form goes on to ask for other particulars, and if the person concerned feels he cannot pay the rent, he is asked to state what rent he feels he could pay.
I feel certain that the circular 224/45 has been misunderstood by the local authority, and my right hon. Friend has, in reply to Questions in the House, made it clear that there has been that misunderstanding. I am very anxious in bringing the matter to the attention of the House this evening, that we shall have from the Minister a statement that will clear up this very unsatisfactory situation. I think the House will agree it is very unsatisfactory that families who have been bombed out and, in many cases lost their furniture, should suffer further considerable anxiety when once they have been placed in requisitioned premises
Here I would say this, that when an air raid occurred and families were left homeless, we could not stand upon ceremony and say, "You only paid 15s. a week rent in this house which has been destroyed. We must wait and find a similar house in every respect for which the rent will not be more than 15s.' We could never work on that basis, for we had to rehouse these people as quickly as possible. Very often we had to put them into accommodation which was very much higher rented. Therefore, in putting a particular family into other premises, in assessing the rent we had to have regard to their circumstances and what they could afford to pay. Many of these bombed-out families agreed to pay higher rents to go into requisitioned premises than they had originally paid for their bombed-out homes. Therefore they thought that the tent question was settled, and at that particular juncture they were never advised that these rents would be reviewed or revised at any future date They went into the new accommodation feeling they were there until such time as their homes were rebuilt or made available for occupation. Consequently, a number of these 1508 families in requisitioned premises want to get back to their homes as quickly as possible.
I quite admit, on the other hand, that there are some families who are now housed in better circumstances who do not want to go back to the old conditions, and would prefer to remain where they are. In those cases there is a very strong case for saying to them, "If you will not go back to your original home, or if you will not accept a lower rented accommodation, then we must reasonably expect you to pay a higher rent than you are paying at the present time."
I want in conclusion to put one or two suggestions. I think it is generally agreed, in principle, that there is a case for the revision of these rents. I hope we shall do it in the right and proper way, and that in my view is to insist that there should be a withdrawal of this sort of means test. I think it is unfair and very unfortunate. It arises from misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the original circular which was sent out. I ask the Minister to consider first making a voluntary appeal to these families in requisitioned premises, pointing out to them the rent they are paying now and the standard rent of the premises and asking whether they cannot make an increased contribution in order to bridge the gap between what they are paying and what the State is having to pay by way of subsidy. I feel sure that a considerable number of people will feel willing to pay an increased rent. I, cannot say how much it will be, but I am sure they will be prepared to make an effort to pay more than they are paying. Those who make no effort to bridge to gap, ought to be offered alternative accommodation at a lower rent so that the margin of subsidy paid by the State is reduced correspondingly. Once alternative accommodation is offered at a lower rent, and the tenant refuses to go—refuses unreasonably—I think we have a sound case and are justly entitled to ask for more in payment. There would be a certain amount of justification in that case for inquiring into the means and ability to pay. Failure to accept alternative accommodation at a lower rent should be sufficient reason for asking a person to pay more rent or to state particulars of his income. On the basis of that information, the local authority could assess the new 1509 rent having due regard to hardship and ability to pay.
I hope the Minister will be able to clear up this position, because it is worrying a very large number of families, particularly in large towns and cities. Some local authorities are now applying the proposals for the revision of rent, and some are not doing so, so that it is more than ever necessary that we should have the position cleared up. I believe my speech tonight is rather an anti-climax because my right hon. Friend the Minister has, I believe, taken some steps already to clear up the matter. I hope he will take advantage of the opportunity of making clear to those bombed-out families in requisitioned premises exactly what he expects of them and in what way he expects local authorities to go about the job of revising the rents.

§ Mr. Maude (Exeter)
I feel personally grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for raising this matter because I class myself among those to whom he referred as surprised at the inability to envisage the possibility of these rents being put up in the future. When the first letters came to me complaining of rents being put up, I began to realise that in the near future there might be a serious problem. I do not think that the problem is yet very grave. Certainly in my constituency there have been very few complaints, and no doubt local authorities are trying to administer the instructions temperately and kindly, as well as economically, but a new matter has been coming into the forefront recently. That is, these poor people, for most of them are poor people, are not only worried about having to pay more in rent, but about the rates they have to pay, which are a considerable burden. Take as an example my own constituency, where the rates have suddenly to go up by 4s. 6d. in the£They have that extra burden of rates. I am a little afraid that unless it is now explained carefully what the position is, and we as Members help as far as we can, by explaining it to our constituents, the question may become grave and difficult, That is why this opportunity should be seized and an explanation given of the Government's intention.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key)
I am glad 1510 of the opportunity which has been given to me to make plain the situation. During the war, tenants of requisitioned premises were of two kinds. These were called homeless, that is, rendered homeless by enemy action, and those who became known as the inadequately housed. Very often the class to which a person belonged was a matter of chance. Homeless people trying to find a place for themselves often got into the condition of being inadequately housed. In dealing with these two classes of people, the homeless persons, in the normal way, paid the rent of the house in which they had previously lived, adjusted to their continuing commitments, and additional expenditure in which they might be involved by extra travel, and so forth. The general principle applied to the inadequately housed was that they should pay the normal rent of the premises they were inhabiting, that is, roughly, the rent recoverable under the Rent Restrictions Acts. At the end of the war, we had these two different classes in requisitioned houses. It became obvious that requisitioning would have to continue for some time, and it was felt only right that the problem should be dealt with as a problem of housing people generally inadequately housed, and try to bring all into the same sort of arrangement.
I have to admit that the first circular we sent out about this was probably not as clearly worded as it might have been, and there was certain resentment about it. It was sent out in October, 1945, and it called for the reassessment being dated back to 1st October, 1945. It might have been possible, in the interpretation of that circular, to have said that there was some sort of means test applied to it. That was adjusted by a circular which was sent out in December, 1945, which laid down that the two types of person dealt with, the homeless and the inadequately housed, should be treated in the same way but that in respect of all of them, the maximum that could be charged for the rent would be the recoverable rent under the Rent Restrictions Acts, or, if no such rent existed, the rent of comparable premises in the area, Plus8 per cent. of the cost of improvements or structural alterations rendered necessary. Where a particular house was sub-divided into two or more flats, the maximum recoverable rent was to be apportioned among the families concerned. It was 1511 made plain in that circular that, in all cases, these were the maxima that could be charged by way of rent. In individual cases they would often be higher than the occupiers of particular premises were normally in the habit of paying, and the circular said that, in those cases, local authorities were to scale down the charges to what the occupiers: might reasonably be expected to pay, having regard to their status and the sort of accommodation they would normally occupy. In so far as the occupiers of these premises are persons who might occupy houses provided under the Housing Acts, local authorities should treat these premises as though they were so provided and, in appropriate cases, they may make rebates as they would for their own houses. Actually, in that Circular there were three distinct categories of people to be dealt with. There were those who were occupying accommodation of a type which they would normally occupy. They were to pay the recoverable rents under the Rent Restriction Acts that a landlord might normally charge. Secondly, there were those who were occupying accommodation superior to that which they would normally occupy. They were to be charged a rent scaled down to what they would have paid, if the accommodation were in fact the type they normally occupied. Thirdly, there were those who might be regarded as people who would be accepted as tenants of council houses, if such houses were available. They were to have the charges assessed as if the accommodation was in fact provided in the local authority's own houses, and rebates could be given to them accordingly.
I claim that that is a just and fair way of dealing with the ability of the various classes of people to pay. It happens in regard to requisitioned houses there were 80,000 tenants. Of these 80,000 at the end of November. 70,000 were homeless and 10,000 were those who would be called inadequately housed. It is true that the changes, in so far as any would be made, would normally lead, where increases had to be made, to increases for those who were called homeless and very often decreases for those who were inadequately housed, who had been charged too much. Naturally we got complaints from anybody in whose case there was any increase at all. I do want to emphasise that that increase was merely to be judged upon their normal ability to pay, 1512 in regard to the accommodation they would normally occupy. We tried to impress upon the local authorities that that was the scheme which they should follow. I had an opportunity of seeing a deputation representative of the local authorities. Also, I would say we have, this week, tried still further to explain to the local authorities exactly what was meant by the circular that was sent out. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that I cannot accept responsibility for the wording of the notice that he read out. It was sent out by the local authority and had nothing to do with my Department. So far as I could see, the increases which he quoted were a gross violation of the terms of the circular as the circular was sent out
There are two other things I want to say. There is here no question of bridging the gap. We are not asking that rents shall be increased in order to bring up the income to what the outgoing is, so far as the requisitioned premises are concerned. We are merely asking that the rents shall be looked at, so as to adjust the rents fairly between one person and another, according to their normal ability to pay. The other thing is that there is no means test in this. We have said quite definitely to the local authorities, that they are not to go into the question of the means of the people to pay. Their test is to be "What did they normally pay in the premises which they normally inhabited? "We have this week sent out further instructions to them, and I end by quoting one paragraph from that further circular: I am to emphasise that no question of a means test arises. The only question which the council have to determine is the type of accommodation which the tenant would occupy in normal times and the rent appropriate to that accommodation. In other words, they are to say, "This person before lived in a particular type of house, paid a particular type of rent and now lives in something superior, but still pays the rent of the house he would normally have inhabited," and I think that, if local authorities will only interpret the circular in the terms in which it has been sent out, there should be no grounds for complaint so far as tenants of these houses are concerned.