§ 2.52 p.m.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind their wages and prices policy, what action they propose to take to curb the present tendency on the part of some landlords to increase the renewal terms for short leases for flats in Greater London to the extent of 42 ½–44 per cent.; and whether they are aware of the increasing shortage of unfurnished accommodation for rent.]
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, the noble Lord does not mention the period for which the current rent has been in force but I have no evidence of increases of the size he mentions for periodic or 3-year tenancies. For dwellings which come within the protection of the Rent Act—which are the vast majority—the rent officer can be asked to determine a fair rent. The Government are well aware of the shortage of unfurnished rented accommodation within the rateable value limits which attract Rent Act protection. For this reason the Government attach great importance to the protection given by the Rent Act in relation both to security and rent.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The periods I have in mind were three, five, and seven year leases. Does he not think, bearing in mind the Government's White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, that in effect tenants should be given similar protection when they have leases which come above the ceiling to which the Rent Acts refer—that is to say, £400 in Greater London? In the White Paper great stress is laid on the fact that there should be fair rents in the private sector. Would not my noble friend agree that this should apply equally to tenants of properties below or above £400 rateable value in the Greater London area?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think the simple answer is that when we did not lower the rateable 997 value figure which carries with it rent protection below £400, it was in order to give security of tenure to the tenants. On the other hand, we did not want the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market to dry up completely. We felt that if we raised the figure above £400 this might happen; and the object of the Rent Act is, as you know, to protect people who if they lost or could not afford their homes would experience difficulty in finding somewhere else to live. People who can afford to live in rented accommodation having a rateable value of more than £400 usually have sufficient means to find alternative accommodation.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a great shortage both of flats and houses for renting? Because of this, is not the Government's encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses not only misguided but utterly political?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think house ownership has always been a good part of Conservative philosophy which does no harm to anyone.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, do the Government realise—and here I must declare an interest—that there are a large number of people at present occupying flats having a rateable value of above £400 and who would be incapable of paying the new rent that has been demanded of them, sometimes amounting to double the amount they are paying at present. Do not the Government think it time that the rateable value was increased from £400 so as to give certainly middle-class people an opportunity of being able to live, instead of having to be thrown out of their homes?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, we believe that if we pushed up the rateable value limit for protection the amount of unfurnished accommodation coming on to the market would be very little. The answer probably is that if people did not insist on living in central London, but were content a 998 little further outside, they might find what the noble Lord is looking for.
LORD JANNERYes, my Lords, but surely, if nobody is suggesting that there should be an unfair rent and fair rents are being set for those houses of below £400 rateable value, there is nothing to prevent a fair rental being demanded for properties of over £400 rateable value.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords, the Francis Committee, as your Lordships' House will be aware, did recommend the other way, that existing limits were too high. We believe that in £400 we have struck about the right balance.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend (because I think this is an important matter, and there have been these increases of the percentage that I have given for short tenancies) whether my noble friend has seen the article in the Sunday Telegraph last week-end headed, "Financiers move into the Flat Business"? I will quote from it if I may. It says:
London flats have become a favourite hunting ground for a new type of property operator often backed by City finance".Does he not feel that, for people who are living on fixed incomes, this is something which, in view of the shortage of unfurnished accommodation and bearing in mind the White Paper, Her Majesty's Government should look into at the moment?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords, it is something we should look into. We are doing so, and when our housing policy begins to take effect I think we shall find it beneficial to the country.