HC Deb 24 June 1969 vol 785 cc1187-8
15. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he again refused the request of the Greater London Council that he should not interfere with their proposal to increase the rents of those of their tenants who could afford such increase.

27. Mr. Hunt

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will reconsider his decision to refuse the latest application from the Greater London Council for an increase in the rents of its council properties.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)

When I met the council on 15th May, I explained that the proposals submitted on 6th March were not acceptable because rent increases could be avoided by charging to loan more of the capital expenditure met from revenue. The statutory position is that these proposals stand rejected and cannot be reconsidered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is not this also a case in which the decision of an elected local authority was overthrown by a bureaucrat? Why did the Minister ask the G.L.C. to borrow to pay the salaries of some of its housing staffs at a time when interest rates were at a record level and when the Government were priding themselves on having reduced their borrowing commitment to nil?

Mr. Robinson

No, Sir. The reasons why the proposals were rejected were clearly set out in the orginal letter. They were reiterated at my meeting with the representatives of the council. The procedure that we recommended that the council might follow is one which is followed by all other housing authorities and is in no way unreasonable. It was merely asking the council to conduct its affairs in the same way as other councils.

Mr. Hunt

Is it not true that under the G.L.C.'s rent rebate scheme the full increase would have been paid only by tenants well able to afford it? Can the Minister suggest what I am now to tell people living in my constituency, often in far less affluent conditions than some of the council tenants, when they are faced with a rate increase to recoup at least £2 million this year and £4 million in a full year as a direct result of the Minister's arbitrary and indefensible action?

Mr. Robinson

I have already explained to the House on more than one occasion, as I explained to the representatives of the Greater London Council when they came to see me, that there is no need whatever for the rate to be increased. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads what I said and tells that to his constituents.