HC Deb 04 April 1962 vol 657 cc523-45
Miss Herbison

I beg to move, in page 25, line 43, at the end to insert: (4) Subsection (5) of section seventy-three of the Act of 1950 shall have effect as if there were added thereto the words "provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent". Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, states: The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require. If this Amendment were accepted, that provision would continue: provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent". We discussed in Committee two other Amendments which sought to ensure that the Secretary of State, whom we consider is taking unwarranted powers under this Clause, would at least use those powers not only where a local authority was charging rents that he considered to be too low but where a local authority were charging rents that were excessive. The Under-Secretary tried to make the case that those powers are already there—that the Secretary of State could intervene where a local authority was charging too high a rent—but the whole tenor of the debate on Second Reading and the whole tenor of the debate in Committee has quite clearly shown that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking in this Bill, the powers that he already has under a local Measure of, I think, 1947, and those he has under Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, are regarded by him only in the sense that they shall be used to deal with local authorities that are charging rents that are too low.

We on this side want to ensure beyond any doubt at all that the Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where a local authority is charging rents that are too high. One local authority might be considered to be charging excessive rents. The tenants in another authority might consider that their rents are also too high. Some local authority rents might be considered by any reasonable person as being too low. Despite that, the Amendment is designed to deal solely with excessive rents. In Committee last month the Under-Secretary said: It would follow that if the rents were found to be too high the Secretary of State, under power given him in this Clause, could make a rent scheme laying down lower rents in exactly the same way as he could lay down higher rents. The hon. Gentleman continued: It is not for the Secretary of State to say what a reasonable rent is … for any particular area. All through the Bill we have been puzzled by the inability of the Under-Secretary to tell us what the Government believe to be a reasonable rent. The Under-Secretary added: At the moment, it does not seem to him that the situation in Milngavie warrants his interference. That does not, however, stop residents in the town who feel aggrieved from making a complaint and giving my right hon. Friend the opportunity to consider the matter further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1962; c. 974, 976, 978.] That remark must have led the Committee to believe that no complaint whatever had been made by any tenant in Milngavie to the Secretary of State. That is just not the case. Information has been supplied to me—it came only yesterday—from a tenant in Milngavie who read a report of the debate. Perhaps I should add that we took care to ensure that he read the whole of the debate. My correspondent states that in Committee I quoted from the White Paper the figures of the average standard rent in Milngavie which, according to the White Paper, is £69 16s. 2d. Even that figure was 20 per cent. above the next highest standard rent being charged by any local authority in Scotland. My correspondent goes on to say that that figure of £69 16s. 2d. has been challenged time and again by the tenants of Milngavie.

At a ratepayers' meeting last week the town treasurer made a clear statement that the average standard rent in Milngavie was not £69 16s. 2d. but £80 19s. 8d. Since this information comes from the town treasurer, does the Minister consider this—and I am citing Milngavie as an example because other local authorities may be in this position in the future—to be a reasonable rent? If one takes the average gross annual value, which the Secretary of State thinks is a reasonable rent, it works out at £53. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an average standard rent of £80 19s. 8d. is excessive? My hon. Friends certainly do. Referring to our proceedings in Committee, my correspondent states: . . Mr. Galbraith gave an assurance that Mr. Maclay had powers to reduce rents. The letter points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asked the Secretary of State in November last year if he was prepared to use his power regarding Milngavie. At that time the Secretary of State replied, "No, Sir." My correspondent points out that the Under-Secretary of State suggested that any dissatisfied resident could complain to the Secretary of State and continues: In November the local Tenants Association did so complain and were informed that the Secretary of State was satisfied with the position in Milngavie. It is clear, therefore, that this very high standard rent in Milngavie is not considered by the Secretary of State to be excessive, and my hon. Friends and I want to ensure, by the Amendment, that consideration will be given to this matter.

We have made it clear that we do not want the Secretary of State to interfere, but if he is going to interfere with local authorities in one way we want some protection for people such as those living in Milngavie and others whose rents may be raised to the same degree. If the Under-Secretary today insists that his right hon. Friend already has power to do this, he should have no hesitation about accepting the Amendment which will spell out his powers. If he accepts it we will believe that he is interested in these people who are forced to pay excessive rents, just as interested as he is in those who are paying what he considers to be too low rents. All ratepayers should be considered by the Secretary of State. At present the right hon. Gentleman seems to consider every ratepayer but the one who lives in a local authority house.

Mr. J. A. Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I do not wish to detain the Committee but this is a matter in which every hon. Member should be interested. It is one which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has described as a topic which interests hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. There was considerable controversy and genuine disagreement on this subject in Committee. I would venture to say, however, that all hon. Members opposite agree on one point: that quite a lot of rents—and I put it no higher than that—have been too low. They would also agree, I think, with the utterances of some of their hon. Friends—among them the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my own constituent, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), each of whom has gone perfectly openly on record in the last few years as saying that they do not disagree that some rents in Scotland should be raised.

7.0 p.m.

Where there is tremendous room for honest disagreement is on the question of what is a reasonable rent level. What seems reasonable to some seems out of the question to others, and what struck me as being two extreme examples are worthy of consideration. The first I heard on a television programme at Christmas time, when a Glasgow town councillor, an Edinburgh town councillor, Dr. Whitley of St. Giles' Cathedral, and a chairman were discussing the question of rents in Scotland. I have with me the transcript which the B.B.C. has sent me of an extract which interested me and from which I should like to quote.

The chairman said Now, the average rent in Scotland just now is about 10s. 1d. Is this not"—

Miss Herbison

On a point of order. You will be aware, Sir William, that the Amendment is a limited one dealing with powers which the Secretary of State should take to deal with excessive rents. So far, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been dealing with what he considers to be low rents.

The Chairman

I appreciate the point of order. I have been listening carefully to the debate and there are limits beyond which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman will not go.

Mr. Stodart

I am trying to show, and hope within the next twenty seconds to show, what one person thinks is an excessive rent. The chairman said: Is this not in fact too low …? Bailie David Gibson, who, I think, is the housing convener of Glasgow, said: Surety not. Is there something very wrong with a thing because it's cheap? Does it need to be dearer? The … first essential, do we not agree that it's a good thing from the health point of view to have a cheap food policy, to have a cheap housing policy, to have a cheap policy for health, health services and so on? As a matter of fact, you make them so cheap you make them free which is a wise thing. Those were the words of the housing convener of Glasgow Town Council. Obviously, if Bailie David Gibson considers it a good thing if rents were free, even 5s. or 10s. 1d. would be regarded by him as grossly excessive. I merely say this as an illustration of how difficult it is to arrive at what is a reasonable rent.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

Is the hon. Member aware that he promised to give a quotation that would show what somebody thought was an excessive rent? Bailie David Gibson did not say that a rent of 10s. 1d. was excessive, as the hon. Member will see if he looks again at his quotation.

Mr. Stodart

This makes it very clear how difficult it is to arrive at what is a fair rent.

If one is to find out what is an excessive rent, we also have to find out what is a fair rent. At the other end of the scale, as one who is several benches behind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has not managed to satisfy the Committee about what he considers to be a reasonable rent, I am happy to say that I consider a reasonable rent to be somewhere between the suggestion of Bailie David Gibson and the highest that I have been able to find, and that is the example of a council which deducts one-seventh of a person's income for rent, excluding rates. That seems to me to be excessive. I make no bones about saying so. The answer lies somewhere in between, possibly round about the half-way mark.

Mr. Dempsey

What is it?

Mr. Stodart

The half-way mark would be round about 7 per cent.

In trying to arrive at what is a fair rent beyond which the rent would be excessive, one has to try to take yardsticks and make comparisons. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said in Committee that one must judge on rents being paid elsewhere and at other times. One yardstick which is not unfair is the ratio of rent to earnings today and pre-war.

In 1939, rent was an average of 5s. and earnings averaged 69s. Funnily enough, that ratio was exactly 7 per cent. Today, average rent is 10s. 1d. The figure for average earnings in Scotland is a matter of great dispute, but looking at it in its most favourable light, it is am average of £12 a week, the figure which has been agreed by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson).

Mr. Emrys Hughes

But the cost of living has gone up since 1939.

Mr. Stodart

The ratio of rent to earnings today has sunk from 7 per cent. to 4 per cent. If one calculated 7 per cent. of £12 today, what I think would be a reasonable rent on average is about 16s. 9d. to 17s. a week.

Mr. Gourlay

Surely, the hon. Member is trying to colour the argument because when he compares pre-war rent with present-day rent he is not giving the whole picture. He should say what it costs a person to live in a house and compare rent and rates pre-war with rent and rates today. Those are the comparative figures and not solely rent.

Mr. Stodart

I do not propose to develop this argument, but the hon. Member will find that even if he takes rent and rates as a percentage of earnings, it will not help his case very much. In any event, I do not accept the argument that one is bound to take rates into consideration, because I cannot see why the householder in a corporation house should not face up to the rates. For example, the rating in Edinburgh includes 1s. 3d. for the health services. 1s. 4d. for housing, 1s. 7d. for cleansing and 13s. for education. Surely, all these things are not to be tied together with rent, but must be regarded separately.

Miss Herbison

On a point of order. I must again call notice, Sir William, to the fact that we are working under a Guillotine, not of our seeking, but of the seeking of hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the points again being made by the horn. Member are as far away from the Amendment as they possibly can be.

The Chairman

The Amendment deals with excessive rents. Therefore, it would seem to be quite in order to argue what is or is not an excessive rent. In so far as the hon. Member uses that as his argument, he is in order.

Miss Herbison

Further to the point of order. When I rose to my feet, the hon. Member was telling us what part of the rates—not rents—in Edinburgh went for health and what part went for anything else. It seems to me to be wrong that our time should be used for these purposes when it is so limited.

The Chairman

Both sides of the Committee come into this. I heard the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) specifically raise the matter of rates besides rent, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) responded. I am sure, however, that the Committee appreciates the situation and that no time will be unnecessarily wasted.

Mr. Stodart

I thank you, Sir William, for forgiving my following the trail laid by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay).

My only further point is that as the gap widens between money earned and rent paid, it inevitably means that there must be an increased subvention from the rates. That is inevitable. The City Treasurer of Edinburgh has told us that 200,000 ratepayers there are helping to pay the costs of maintaining 35,000 council houses.

We often hear stories about very wealthy council house tenants. These stories always reach the headlines, and for that reason it is clear that these people form a very small minority. But there is no doubt—I have many examples of this—that many people in my constituency living in their own houses are less well off than certain tenants living in council houses. There is without doubt an injustice being perpetrated in that respect.

Mr. Ross

That applies to the farming subsidies, too.

Mr. Stodart

It is most unfair for the hon. Gentleman to try to divert me into discussing agricultural matters.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

On a point of order. Since the start of the hon. Member's speech right up to the present moment, he has adduced an argument on low rents. He has just said that the Edinburgh City Treasurer has to find a subvention because of the low rent policy in that town. Every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered has had absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment, which is concerned with excessive rents.

The Chairman

Of course, there is a connection between a rent being high and a rent being low, but I remind the Committee that the words of the Amendment to which we must try to adhere as closely as possible are provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent". That must be the criterion by which I judge whether what an hon. Member is saying is in order.

Mr. Stodart

I think that I have convinced you, Sir William, that, before one can decide what is an excessive rent, one must have some idea about what is a reasonable rent. I have given my idea of what is a reasonable rent.

Mr. Willis

What is it?

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I dealt with that matter. That is his loss—and, of course, mine.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

The hon. Gentleman has given a yardstick by which he thinks rents should be judged. He must, therefore, concede that excessive rents are being charged. My question to him is this: if he is in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to raise rents which by his standards are low, is he in favour of the Secretary of State intervening to lower rents which by his standards are high?

Mr. Stodart

I agree that logic certainly demands that investigations should be made.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Hamilton

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) did not address his argument very closely to the Amendment. That was not very surprising, because throughout the Committee stage we repeatedly asked the Minister and hon. Members opposite what they meant by "a reasonable rent". It is true that there can be arguments about what is an excessively low rent, what is an excessively high rent and what is a reasonable rent, but we must take the Government's view as expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Committee.

This is the first time that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has ventured into a discussion about what is a reasonable rent. He never referred to a rent of 7 per cent. of a person's income in Committee, as far as I recollect. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was much more specific. In Committee, I quoted what the hon. Member said on Second Reading, which was this: I suggest that my right hon. Friend might very well have laid down as a suitable standard the gross annual value fixed this year by the local assessor in each local authority area. He then went on—and these are the relevant words— Personally, I do not think even that is half enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November. 1962: Vol. 649. c. 1444.] In other words, the hon. Gentleman thinks that a reasonable rent is about £100 a year.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West thinks that a reasonable rent is 7 per cent. of a person's income. It has been said that rents in Milngavie are roughly £80 a year. Therefore, according to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, rents in Milngavie are not excessive. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West agree with that? Will he rise to his feet and assert that rents in Milngavie are not excessive? I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering. It appears that he is not willing to do so.

Hon. Members opposite always talk as though all rents in Scotland were unreasonably low. What we are seeking to do in this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to take power to deal with rents which are excessively high. It is interesting that right hon. and hon. Members opposite always refer to excessively low rents in connection with local authority tenants. But the Government connive at providing people with houses at no rent at all. They happen to be grace and favour houses.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now in serious danger of going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Hamilton

I was about to say that one could not call that an excessive rent. If hon. Members opposite want to tackle the rent problem, they should start much nearer home. Why pick on local authority tenants?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West gave us the usual story about the poverty-stricken people living in private houses subsidising the local authority tenant who has two cars standing in the street outside his house. What about the poor tenant who is subsidising the wealthy farmers, some of whom are sitting on the benches opposite and who are drawing subsidies? No question of other poorer people subsidising them is raised. I am much poorer than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, yet I am subsidising him. He does not suggest that his subsidy should be reduced in order that my tax problem might be relieved.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Hamilton

I merely wished to put the picture in perspective. We are dealing with people who are paying excessive rents, and "excessive" implies a judgment by somebody. We wish to know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite regard the rents charged in Milngavie as excessive. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is on record as saying that they are not and that they should be increased by at least 25 per cent.

The hon. Member recommends a rent of not less than 7 per cent. of a person's income. That is roughly 1s. 6d. in the £. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many industrial workers in Scotland are receiving less than £9 a week. The average rent in Scotland is 10s. 1d. Therefore, people are paying more now than the sum which the hon. Gentleman suggests is a reasonable rent. He must, therefore, support our Amendment. We suggest that the Secretary of State should take action against authorities charging rents on average of 10s. to workers who are receiving less than £10—and there are many of them in Scotland. If it is right for the Secretary of State to take action against authorities which are, in his view, charging excessively low rents, we say that he should take action against those authorities which are charging excessive rents. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in solving this problem, we will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brewis

If we look at the Toothill Report, we see that if we had an average figure of 18s. per week for rents in Scotland, that would do away with the need for any rate contribution at all, and that an average rent of 15s. a week would do away with a rate contribution in excess of the Exchequer contribution. I think that gives us some guidance as to what rents might be.

I have heard the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) say in Committee and here time and time again that we should trust the local authority, because the local authority would know what is right. When we consider rents, there are various things to be taken into account, such as the capacity of the tenant to pay and the amount of work which the landlord does to maintain the property—and sometimes landlords do internal decorations, fit washers to taps and so on, and in such cases, they would be entitled to a bigger rent. Incidentally, when we look at the provisions of Clause 25, we find that local authorities will have to take on a bigger repairs burden than that which they often carry at the moment. Therefore, it seems to me that the people to decide the rents are the local authorities.

I am very surprised at the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North putting forward this point, because Section 73 (5) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, provides The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require. The whole point of this business has arisen because Dunbartonshire and Glasgow have not reviewed their rents at all, and that is where the trouble started

Sir M. Galpern

I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension with regard to Glasgow. I can assure him that Glasgow has on two occasions reviewed the rents, but there is no direction to the Glasgow Corporation and no indication that, as a result of the review, the Corporation must raise the rents to astronomical figures. Having reviewed the rents carefully, with the expert advice of the city factor and the assessor at that time, the corporation came to the conclusion that certain adjustments were required, but these were not acceptable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that Glasgow did not review rents.

Mr. Brewis

With very great respect, I wish to differ from the hon. Gentleman. I have here a copy of the Shaw Report on Glasgow rents, and, reading from page 14, recommendation 6—

Mr. Ross

On a point of order. I am wondering, Sir William, what exactly this has to do with this Amendment.

The Chairman

I have been listening carefully, and I do not think that the hon. Member has gone further from the Amendment than the other examples which have been put from both sides of the Committee. I appreciate that the Committee should keep as closely as possible to the terms of the Amendment. May I remind the Committee once more that this Amendment is to add the words— Provided that any such change shall not result in the charging of an excessive rent. That is what we are debating.

Mr. Brewis

I was saying that the local authority had to review the rents and to see whether they are too low or excessive. In the case of the Glasgow Corporation, it has on many occasions since 1953 refused, on being so moved, to review rents, and that is why it was necessary to hold this inquiry.

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman has just made a very excellent case that rents are the concern of the local authority, and he went so far as to say that, in his opinion, the local authorities were the people who should decide. What is he complaining about when they do decide?

Sir M. Galpern

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "from time to time"? Who is to determine what time is to elapse? Since 1953, rents in Glasgow have been reviewed twice.

Mr. Brewis

The hon. Gentleman will find, if he reads that Report, that the local authorities are under a statutory duty under the 1950 Act. I will read the provision again: The authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.

Mr. Fraser

On a point of order. I submit that, on this Amendment, no one is entitled to discuss whether or not local authorities are entitled or obliged to review rents. As a matter of fact, I think we all appreciate that local authorities are obliged to review rents. I submit that we are only entiled to consider whether we should add to the responsibilities of local authorities, in addition to what is provided in Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act, that any such change which it might make shall not result in charging an excessive rent. The question before the Committee is whether or not we should put this limitation upon local authorities when they have to review rents, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not applied himself to the Amendment.

The Chairman

I suppose the effect of a change suggests that a review might be made before the change takes place, but I hope that the hon. Member will not go further than he needs on this Amendment.

Mr. Brewis

I was merely arguing that these words are necessary, because we should leave it to the local authority, taking all things into account, to decide whether rents are excessive or not. For example, Milngavie recently reviewed rents and, in my submission, the local authority is the best body to decide whether the rents are reasonable or not.

Mr. Ross

As far as I can gather, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) thinks that when rents are too high, they are reasonable—that is what he said—and, in such a case, we should trust the local authority.

Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more objective about this? We are dealing with a Bill the whole purpose of which, as declared by the Government and agreed by back benchers opposite, as hon. Members who have read the Bill or the White Paper will realise, is to raise rents in Scotland. Does any hon. Member opposite deny that? The purpose of the Bill is to raise rents. The purpose of the power taken in Clause 29, to which we shall come later, is to raise rents, and if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to read the White Paper on housing, he will see that that is perfectly clear. Indeed, in the same way, the purpose of a new Clause which is on the Notice Paper, and to which the hon. Gentleman has put his name, is to raise rents in respect of another section of houses altogether. That being so, surely we are in the position, or will in future be in the position, that in Scotland we may have local authorities going far too far in respect of many people who are quite unable to pay anything like economic rents and who are faced with a situation in which the rents are excessive. These things have happened in Scotland before. These default powers have had to be used in respect of the responsibilities of local authorities, and Secretaries of State from time to time have had to intervene.

If it was right, as hon. Gentlemen opposite admit, for the Secretary of State to have an inquiry in regard to local authorities whose rents are low, he will surely appreciate that it may well be necessary in future, if not now, to have this power to intervene in respect of excessive rents. That is the whole point, and the only thing we are discussing at the moment—whether or not. by any change that is made after a review of rents, the rents charged are excessive. The tenants or ratepayers may complain to the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman, having examined their complaint, may set up an inquiry. That is what we are discussing. We now want to put these words into the Bill as a future protection for the people of Scotland. I should be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman opposite would go to his constituency and deny this right. Would the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who sat so silent until he was questioned by one of my hon. Friends in regard to what rents are in Milngavie, go to Inverurie in his constituency and tell them that their rents should be raised? He knows quite well that he has not the courage to do that. He Likes to argue and to make vague generalisations about low rents, but when he has an opportunity to protect his constituents from being charged excessive rents, according to his or someone else's standard, he prefers to dodge the question and perform a Parliamentary "twist" without discussing the matter at issue. This is purely and simply a matter of affording some protection to Scottish council house tenants from what may be in the future, after the Bill is passed, very much higher and even excessive rents.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hendry

I was invited by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) to intervene during his speech. I did not do so because I was asked a specific question and I would far rather deal with this whole matter generally and hope to answer all the questions which have been put to me as I do so.

We are here concerned with reviews by local authorities of rents and with their making such changes in rents and rebates from time to time as may be most appropriate. That does not mean that the rents have to be increased or decreased. It means that the local authorities have to alter rents and rebates to meet the circumstances of their particular case.

In Scotland, as in other places, there is a vast range of incomes of tenants and what may be an excessive rent for one may be very much less than a proper rent for another. If a person can afford to pay an economic rent for his house, he should do so. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would suggest that the rents being charged in Milngavie are anything like the economic rents. There is no mysterious fund from which the cost of the upkeep of houses can be drawn. Apart from subsidies, the cost of upkeep can come from only two sources—rents and rates—and both are contributed by the people who live in the area of the local authority concerned. I say without fear of contradiction that if a person can afford to pay the full rent, he ought to do so. When we discussed Clause 11, which provides for the building of houses without subsidies, hon. Members opposite agreed that the rents for those houses should be the economic rents.

The Amendment is concerned with a local authority which is charging excessive rents, but I know of no local authority in Scotland—and this is the question which I was asked—which is charging excessive rents. There is another side to the question of the review of rents and that is the review of rebates. Every local authority should be concerned both with proper rents and proper rebates.

Mr. Willis

This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Ross

It is not in the Amendment.

Miss Herbison

On a point of order. Rent rebates and what is happening with rent rebates have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, which is specifically concerned with local authorities charging excessive rents, a matter with which the hon. Member has not been dealing.

The Chairman

Anything connected with whether a rent is excessive must be in order, and so far as the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. West (Mr. Hendry) covers that point, he is in order.

Mr. Willis

Will the hon. Member answer one plain question? Is he or is he not in favour of protecting people against excessive rents? That is the only question before the Committee.

Mr. Hendry

I thank you for dealing with that point of order as you did, Sir William. I will try my hardest to keep even more strictly in order. I do not think that the question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was strictly in order.

Mr. Willis

Of course it is. It is the only question.

Mr. T. Fraser

On a point of order. Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) the only question which is in order? Is not the question before the Committee whether a local authority should not be able to charge an excessive rent? Is that- not the question which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has to answer, whatever he may think an excessive rent is?

The Chairman

I saw nothing out of order in the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Hendry

I will be guided by you. Sir William, and—

Mr. Willis

Further to that point of order. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to protect tenants against excessive rents. The hon. Member has now stated that he has no intention of addressing himself to this question? If that is so, is not his speech out of order?

The Chairman

If I am of opinion that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is out of order, it will be my duty to interrupt him.

Mr. Hendry

May I revert to my argument?

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman does not have one.

Mr. Hendry

The Amendment will produce absolutely nothing, and hon. Members opposite will agree that legislation which means nothing is bad legislation and should not be passed. The 1950 Act provides machinery for dealing with an excessive rent. It also provides that a local authority must consider rebates and make such changes in rebates as may be necessary from time to time. That is the best safeguard for ensuring that poorer tenants are looked after.

Mr. Rossrose—

Mr. Hendry

I cannot give way. Hon. Members opposite have complained enough about the passage of time, and I must take a leaf out of their book and refuse to give way.

The 1950 Act provides that a local authority shall have a duty to consider not only rents, but rebates, and that is an adequate safeguard for tenants who are not able to pay what the local authority regards as a proper rent. If in reviewing its rents and rebates a local authority fails to make proper provision for a person unable to afford to pay the rent, that person has the simple remedy of complaining to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the 1950 Act, and saying that that local authority has failed in its duty. The Secretary of State will then have a duty, under the Bill, to take disciplinary action against that local authority, no matter whether it has failed to charge a sufficient rent or whether its rents are too great.

Mr. Manuel rose—

Mr. Hendry

I cannot give way because of the passage of time.

Mr. Manuel

With his views about the under-charging of rents, I wonder why the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not initiated an agitation for a review of rents in Aberdeenshire, which charges only £20 18s. a year, while Dunbartonshire, a county about which the hon. Member is constantly complaining, charges £6 a year more than the county which he represents.

Mr. Hendry

That is something of a red herring, but at the risk of getting out of order, I ask permission to answer to some extent. The hon. Member has not kept himself up to date. Aberdeenshire now charges a rent of 10 per cent. over and above the rateable value.

Mr. Manuel

That was my latest information.

Mr. Hendry

It may be the hon. Member's latest information, but it is completely out of date.

I can put what I have to say in a nutshell. The provisions of the 1950 Act and of the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State can interfere if rents being charged are too low, as in the case of Dunbartonshire where they are 2s. 10d. a week, or too high for the tenants to pay. In either case a complaint can be made to the Secretary of State. In fact, a complaint does not have to be made. He can on his own initiative take action against a local authority to bring rent and rebates into line with the circumstances as appropriate in the area at the time.

Mr. Galbraith

We have had an interesting, lively, and, I think, fairly wide-ranging debate on this Amendment. Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act requires a local authority from time to time to review rents and to make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require. The Amendment seeks to add the proviso that any change in rents resulting from such a review shall not result in the charging of excessive rents.

The Amendment is not concerned with the new provisions that we are proposing in Clause 29 to enable the Secretary of State to make a rent scheme where a local authority has been found to be in default. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is now turning her attention to the existing provisions of the 1950 Act and seeking to amend the provisions relating to a local authority's rent fixing obligations which have remained unchanged under both Labour and Conservative Administrations since 1949.

When the hon. Lady moved the Amendment, she expressed great concern about the possibility that a local authority might charge rents which were excessively high. In fact, she mentioned only one example, the small burgh of Milngavie, and it seemed to me that she was making rather heavy weather of this case. There has been no marked tendency on the part of local authorities in recent years to charge rents which are excessively high. As my right hon. Friend has said on a number of occasions, the trend has been in the opposite direction.

Mr. Manuel

In his opinion.

Mr. Galbraith

I should have thought that it was also the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the rents charged by many local authorities in Scotland were too low.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Gentleman says that his right hon. Friend has referred to this on many occasions. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman's statements are much too all-embracing, and that we continually have this lambasting and denigration of local authorities and municipal tenants. We believe in charging reasonable rents, but we think that this slur should not be cast generally on municipal tenants in Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith

I did not intend that at all. My right hon. Friend has on frequent occasions recently had to complain about a trend in the opposite direction from that about which the hon. Lady was complaining. In any case the protection for tenants against being asked to pay rents which are unreasonably high in relation to their resources is provided by the existence of a proper rebates scheme; and I know that there is a proper rebate scheme in Milngavie.

The hon. Lady and hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt have it in mind that if this provision were added to Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act it might be easier for the Secretary of State to find a local authority in default on the ground that it was charging rents which were excessively high. Here again, as on an Amendment put forward with a similar object in Committee, I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that their concern on this point is unnecessary.

Section 73 (5) which they are seeking to amend refers to changes in rents; but the rents which result from any such change must, in the terms of Section 71 (1) of the 1950 Act, be "reasonable,"—as indeed must all rents which local authorities charge for their houses. If, therefore, a local authority charged rents which were excessively high, this could not be said to be a reasonable level of rents; it would therefore be possible for the Secretary of State after the normal procedure of inquiry had been gone through, and if he thought fit, to declare that authority in default for charging rents which were unreasonably high. The words which the hon. Lady wishes to add to Section 73 (5) would not add anything to the protection already available to tenants against the charging of excessive rents. For this reason I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 194.

Division No. 149.] AYES [7.46 p.m.
Abse, Leo Harper, Joseph Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Albu, Austen Hart, Mrs. Judith Pentland, Norman
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hayman, F. H. Popplewell, Ernest
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Prentice, R. E.
Awbery, Stan Herbison, Miss Margaret Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Probert, Arthur
Beaney, Alan Holman, Percy Proctor, W. T.
Benson, Sir George Houghton, Douglas Randall, Harry
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Rankin, John
Blyton, William Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Bowden, Rt. Ht. H. W. (Leics. S. W.) Hunter, A. E. Reid, William
Boyden, James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rhodes, H.
Brockway, A. Fenner Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Robertson, John (Paisley)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Callaghan, James Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Chapman, Donald Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Short, Edward
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Cronin, John King, Dr. Horace Small, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Darling, George Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Spriggs, Leslie
Deer, George McCann, John Steele, Thomas
Dempsey, James McInnes, James Stones, William
Diamond, John McKay, John (Wallsend) Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Driberg, Tom MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Swain, Thomas
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Edelman, Maurice Manuel, Archie Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mapp, Charles Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Marsh, Richard Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Evans, Albert Mason, Roy Timmons, John
Finch, Harold Mayhew, Christopher Wainwright, Edwin
Fletcher, Eric Mendelson, J. J. Weitzman, David
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Millan, Bruce Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Forman, J. C. Milne, Edward Whitlock, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R. Wilkins, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Monslow, Walter Willey, Frederick
Galpern, Sir Myer Moyle, Arthur Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gimburg, David Neal, Harold Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Gooch, E. G. Oliver, G. H. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oram, A. E. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gourlay, Harry Oswald, Thomas Winter-bottom, R. E.
Greenwood, Anthony Owen, Will Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Padley, W. E. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Paget, R. T.
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Parker, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hannan, William Pavitt, Laurence Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Bullard, Denys Duncan, Sir James
Aitken, W. T. Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Eden, John
Allason, James Cary, Sir Robert Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Arbuthnot, John Chataway, Christopher Elliott, R. W. (Nwc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Chichester-Clark, R. Emery, Peter
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Barlow, Sir John Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Errington, Sir Eric
Barter, John Cleaver, Leonard Farr, John
Batsford, Brian Collard, Richard Finlay, Graeme
Bell, Ronald Cooke, Robert Fisher, Nigel
Berkeley, Humphry Corfield, F. V. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Costain, A. P. Foster, John
Biffen, John Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Fraser, Ian (Pymouth, Sutton)
Biggs-Davison, John Craddock, Sir Beresford Freeth, Denzil
Bishop, F. P. Curran, Charles Gammans, Lady
Bossom, Clive Dalkeith, Earl of George, J. C. (Pollok)
Bourne-Arton, A. Dance, James Glover, Sir Douglas
Box, Donald d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Deedes, W. F. Goodhart, Philip
Boyle, Sir Edward de Ferranti, Basil Goodhew, Victor
Brewis, John Digby, Simon Wingfield Gower, Raymond
Brooman-White, R. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Brown, Allan (Tottenham) Doughty, Charles Green, Alan
Browne, Percy (Torrington) du Cann, Edward Gresham Cooke, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Loveys, Walter H. Ridsdale, Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Lubbock, Eric Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) McLean, Neil (Inverness) Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Russell, Ronald
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) McMaster, Stanley R. Scott-Hopkins, James
Hastings, Stephen Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Seymour, Leslie
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maddan, Martin Shaw, M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maginnis, John E. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Hendry, Forbes Maitland, sir John Smithers, Peter
Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Marshall, Douglas Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Speir, Rupert
Hobson, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stodart, J. A.
Holland, Philip Mills, Stratton Studholme, Sir Henry
Hollingworth, John Miscampbell, N. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Holt, Arthur More, Jasper (Ludlow) Talbot, John E.
Hopkins, Alan Morrison, John Tapsell, Peter
Hornby, R. P. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Teeling, Sir William
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Nabarro, Gerald Temple, John M.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Neave, Airey Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Hughes-Young, Michael Noble, Michael Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Hutchison, Michael Clark Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Iremonger, T. L. Osborn, John (Hallam) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Page, Graham (Crosby) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
James, David Page, John (Harrow, West) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Jennings, J. C. Panned, Norman (Kirkdale) Walder, David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Wall, Patrick
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Peel, John Ward, Dame Irene
Kerby, Capt. Henry Percival, Ian Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Peyton, John Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pott, Percivall Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Langford-Holt, Sir John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Leavey, J. A. Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Wise, A. R.
Leburn, Gilmour Pym, Francis Woodnutt, Mark
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Quennell, Miss J. M. Woollam, John
Lindsay, Sir Martin Ramsden, James Worsley, Marcus
Linstead, Sir Hugh Rawlinson, Peter
Litchfield, Capt. John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Longbottom, Charles Rees-Davies, W. R. Mr. Gordon Campbell and
Longden, Gilbert Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Mr. McLaren.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House, pursuant to Order [17th March].

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.