Council House Rents (Hansard, 27 October 1982)

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, The Government's concealment of their plan to raise council house rents until after tomorrow's by-elections. The matter is specific in that I have in my possession a Department of the Environment working document that considers a variety of options for raising council house rents for the forthcoming financial year and which contains formulae for raising rents by an average of £2 a week. Furthermore, two weeks ago, I publicly warned that the Government planned to raise rents by £2 a week. That warning was widely reported, but no attempt was made by the Government to deny it. They would certainly have denied it had it not been accurate.
Last weekend, I repeated my warning and challenged the Secretary of State for the Environment to deny it. Once again, the warning was reported in the press, and once again the Government's silence confirmed it.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) raised the matter with the Prime Minister at Question Time. The Prime Minister gave an evasive answer when it was open to her to deny it, if it were possible for her truthfully to do so. Therefore, this plan for a £2 rent increase is unquestionably specific.
It is important for two reasons—first, because more than 5 million council tenants will be affected by this further 15 per cent. rent increase on top of the 112 per cent. rent increases already forced on council tenants by this Government and, secondly, because tens of thousands of electors in Northfield and Peckham will be affected by this latest, damaging Tory rent increase.
Those electors vote in by-elections tomorrow, and before they vote they have the right to a full explanation by the Government why they intend to raise their rents by 15 per cent. when they plan to limit pay increases to 3½ per cent.
The matter is urgent because not only is this the eve of poll in the by-elections but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, it is the last day of the parliamentary Session. Two years ago, on the last day of the Session, the Secretary of State for the Environment tried to avoid revealing his plans for raising council house rents until Parliament was no longer able to question him. As a result, the admission of Black Rod was delayed on that day.
The Secretary of State is now trying the same kind of shifty manoeuvre all over again, with the added aggravating circumstance that he is attempting a cover-up that will conceal important information from electors in two by-elections. Parliament will not sit again for a week, and if we do not debate this matter today, we shall be unable to do so for at least a further week.
I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to grant priority to this debate, not only in the interests of this House but to protect the rights of tens of thousands of citizens who tomorrow have the responsibility of casting their votes and who have the right to know the truth about the Government's plans to increase their rents.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, The Government's concealment of their plan to raise council house rents until after tomorrow's by-elections. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for a debate tonight which would change the order of the business before us. I listened carefully to what he said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a ruling, and no one wishes to quarrel with it. It is entirely a matter for you to decide, as you have said on many occasions. However, is it not an unfortunate position—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order.

§ Mr. Winnick
I am, Sir.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I decide whether it is a point of order.

§ Mr. Winnick
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not pursue the matter with me.

§ Mr. Winnick
It is a different point.

§ Mr. Speaker
As long as it is a different subject that is not related, I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman. But if it is related, I warn the hon. Gentleman that I shall take a very poor view of him after I have given a ruling.

§ Mr. Winnick
I am referring to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said happened two years ago. Is it not unfortunate that one must resort to direct action until one gets a statement from the Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman was pursuing the same matter—[Interruption.] His parliamentary conduct is not in question at the moment.