§ 2.34 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT MONSELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the use of buildings, originally intended for residential purposes, as offices by themselves and nationalised industries, together with the growing practice of allowing flats to be let on expense accounts, is causing a severe shortage of flats in London and exorbitant rents.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)My Lords, the Government are using far less residential accommodation for offices now than was the case ten years ago: and they give their full support to the policy which the London County Council, as local planning authority, have been following for some years of refusing planning permission, save in exceptional circumstances, for the alienation of residential accommodation to office purposes. They also support the steps which the local planning authority have taken to encourage the provision of more flats in the inner areas of London, and they welcome the City's Barbican scheme, for instance, which includes a considerable amount of residential accommodation.
§ VISCOUNT MONSELLMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the two largest blocks of service flats in London no less than half, in the aggregate, are let to companies; that, at the same time, there are a great many buildings which before the war were used as flats and 104 are now being used as offices? Is this not bound to send up the price of flats?—as it is doing.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I am not aware of the actual cases to which the noble Viscount refers. I do not know which are the two largest blocks of residential flats—
§ VISCOUNT MONSELLService flats.
EARL WALDEGRAVE—but I think it is common knowledge that a number of such flats are used for business occupation. The Government have no detailed information about such lettings, however.
§ VISCOUNT MONSELLMy Lords, do the Government intend to allow this rise in the cost of London flats to go on? They are now building a block of flats in London where I estimate the cost is going to be between £5,000 and £6,000 a year. How many people can afford to live in them unless they take the late Lord Chesterfield's advice?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I have forgotten what the late Lord Chesterfield's advice was, but I think this hardly arises out of the Question. The Government are aware, of course, that the pressure on housing accommodation in London will cause prices to rise, but I do not know what steps the noble Viscount suggests should be taken.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be one step in the right direction if the Government seriously considered a tax on capital gains?
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, would it not be possible for the Government perhaps to give a lead in this matter by coming out of the large block of flats in Queen Anne's Mansions which have been occupied by the Admiralty, I think, for quite a long time now?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I do not think I should be expected to answer questions about a capital gains tax arising out of this Question—
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHWhy not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE—but I would say this. I understand that there are now only 233 leased houses and flats used as Government offices in the 105 London area, and of these some 205 are planned to be released in the next three years.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my question does arise out of his Answer, in view of the fact that a good deal of the cost now complained of by the noble Viscount is due to the enormous capital gains in property in the last four years? They have been absolutely stupendous.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I have no doubt that that question could arise, but I must, I am afraid, decline to answer it on this occasion.
§ A NOBLE LORD: The noble Earl cannot answer.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, is not the important thing to recognise, first of all, that flats are being erected at exorbitant rents which very few people can afford to pay? Is that a desirable use of scarce land? Is it not far better, and far more economical, to provide accommodation for people who need it at rents they can afford to pay rather than at these exorbitant rents?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I think, surely, that this matter must be decided by the discipline of the market, as it is called. If these flats are being put up at rents nobody can afford, they will presumably remain empty.