RESERVE POWER TO LIMIT RENTS (Hansard, 15 May 1978)

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we may also discuss Lords Amendment No. 5, page 12, line 7, at end insert— (b) in average income receivable from the standard rents of all houses or part shares of houses,

§ Mr. Brown
These are important amendments and satisfy I hope, the spirit of an amendment that was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). I gave an undertaking then that the order-making power could be used, if necessary, to limit average rent increases of authorities. The amendments are needed to make absolutely clear that the power could be used in that way.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
The Minister should at least give us more explanation about what is planned here. This proposal seems to depart so much from the Government's previous statements and from their manifesto commitments that we need to know exactly where we are.
Hon. Members will be aware that when the Government were elected they said that they said that they would do certain things in housing and would deal with the issue of rents. We had first, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will be aware because he will have told this to his constituents, an assurance that the Government would reverse the serious fall in the housing programme. That was in 1974. We have just had the Government's latest housing figures for Scotland which show that the total number of houses built was the lowest since 1962. Far from reversing a decline, the Government have made the situation worse.
185 Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), and others complained bitterly about the Conservative's Housing Finance Act, speaking of the vicious rent rises planned. A great deal of capital was made out of that. Our Act provided for an average increase per year per house of £39. This was regarded as scandalous. Under this legislation the Government have removed the amount which we specified for rent increases. Instead of moving in the direction they promised, the Government have gone to a situation in which the top limit for rent increases specified in the legislation has been entirely removed. Instead the Government seek to replace that limit by the words in Lords Amendment No. 5.
Are the Government saying that they hope to have control over increases for specific houses and for the generality of council houses in any district council area? Would it not be more sensible to allow local authorities a little more flexibility? The Minister described the amendment as "important" but that is not really so. It is simply an attempt by the Government to pacify people such as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire who compaigned bitterly against the sensible Conservative Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act which gave, for the first time, a real protection to tenants with limited incomes and which gave a specified amount for average rent increases. The Government have simply removed the top limit placed on such increases.
The Government have much to answer for in connection with their housing manifesto. They said that they would increase house building. It has slumped. They said that they would repeal our housing Act. All that they have repealed is the top limit on rent increases. They also said that they would try to clarify the situation. They have made it more complicated.
On a more general point, you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of our rights in this House of Commons, that there are three important amendments to which we are coming. The Minister is well known as one of the Labour Party's Left wingers. We can see that he has had the corners cut off him by the responsibilities of Ministerial power. I hope that those who are still 186 true to the extreme Left traditions, as I know the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire tries to pretend that he is, together with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who speaks a great deal of Left-wing nonsense—

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
I am a well-known moderate.

§ Mr. Taylor
I hope that the Minister will share the views of moderates like myself and consider what would have been the position of this Bill if we had not had the House of Lords to make sense of what, unfortunately, is a hastily planned Bill, with many drafting and other faults.
If we had not been able to rely on another place to sort out the Bill that left the Government and the draftsmen in such confusion, we would have been in a difficult situation. I hope that in answering the debate the Minister, along with his colleagues, will pay tribute to another place for the work that it has done in making sense of a Bill that left this place in rather a sorry state.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
Is the hon. Gentleman for or against the amendments?

§ Mr. Taylor
If the Minister will make an honest endeavour to explain the exact result of the amendments—we are wondering whether they are necessary—I shall be only too glad to give a clear indication whether we think that they are good. As the Minister has not clarified the position to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends, I am afraid that at present the answer is "I do not know".

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), especially those at the end of his contribution about not knowing whether the amendments are good. The new subsection will read as follows: The Secretary of State may by order limit or restrict any increase (a) in income receivable from the standard rent of any house or any part share thereof (b) an average income receivable from the standard rents of all houses or part shares of houses to which a local authority's housing revenue account relates. Who on earth is supposed to understand all that? Is that the very best that another place can do in drafting? I have 187 rarely found a more complicated subsection. I hope that the Minister will try to explain the intention of the subsection in basic English.

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown
About three-quarters of the contributions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) had nothing to do with the amendments. However, we are used to that. I hope that my hon. Friends will not be provoked by his mistatements in putting some of us into a Left-wing category and others of us into a Right-wing category.
It is totally consistent with the Government's views to give freedom to local authorities. However, freedom has to be exercised with responsibility. There cannot be the dictation that the hon. Member for Cathcart was talking about, including threatening Clydebank and those in other areas.
We believe in giving freedom, and the assurance that I have given is quite consistent with that policy. I refer to a fallback position of having power to make an order that could do one or two things or both, either to limit the increase in rent of an individual house or the average increase in rent income of an authority. The amendments make that clear, and that power is quite consistent with our philosophy and the assurances that I have given.

§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)
I hope that the House will understand that if I find the Government's conversion so breathtaking that I cannot let this occasion pass without commenting on it briefly. I recall all that we went through during the passage of the Housing Finance (Scotland) Act 1972. Is the Minister saying that the party which spent week after week in 1972 complaining its head off about the provisions of our Bill, which put an absolute limit on any rent increase of £39 in a year and a limit on the average rent increase of £26 in a year, now proposes that there should be no specific limits? Has this proposition been referred to the Labour Party Conference for its approval? I very much doubt whether it has.
It seems that in 1972 I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as he then was, who is now 188 Lord Campbell of Croy, were far too gentle. However, I cannot object to that which the Government propose. It appears that the Labour Party does not want any limits. It seems that it wishes only to have the power to step in at the last moment when matters have developed and it is probably too late. The Government will produce an Order-in-Council. We all know what that means. There will be months of delay before anything is done.
Council tenants in Scotland will have no assurance that any help from the Labour Government will come to them if their local authority imposes unreasonable rent increases. We are witnessing an amazing conversion. I recommend to my hon. Friends that we in no way oppose the enlightened view of the Scottish Office. At long last it appears that there is some glimmer of sense appearing in the Labour Government's housing policy. However, they will have to make their peace with the Labour activists at local level and I am sure that they will not like it.

§ Mr. Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall put the two amendments together.