§ 14. Mr. Willisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that income from rents does not exceed an annual rate of 3½ per cent.
§ Mr. WillisThe Question should refer to an "annual increase".
§ Mr. du CannFor the second time I shall do my best to answer. The Answer to the Question appearing on the Order Paper is: No, Sir. But I accept that it would be wrong if rental income—or indeed any other form of personal income —were to rise excessively in relation to the growth of the economy.
§ Mr. WillisIf the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would be wrong for a larger increase to take place in income from rents than 3½ per cent., surely there is an obligation on the Government to do something about it? Otherwise, the whole of the business the Government are going through is a piece of nonsense.
§ Mr. du CannI do not art the moment see any need for corrective action. It 620 should be remembered that rent accounts for only 5 per cent. of total domestic incomes today compared with 9½ per cent. before the war. If there has been some increase in recent years, that is entirely due to the fact that rents have been artificially kept down for a very long time.
§ Mr. CallaghanHow does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with his previous Answer? Is he not aware that since the new index was constructed, on 16th January, 1962, the increase in rents, which forms part of the retail price index, has been over 5 per cent.? How does he reconcile that with his view that it should not exceed an increase of 3. per cent? Will he take some action or does he want us to conclude that the Government's policy is to let prices go up and to keep wages down?
§ Mr. du CannThe Government's policy is nothing of the sort, as the hon. Member knows very well that the figures show.