HL Deb 23 October 1975 vol 364 cc1626-7

[Nos. 5 and 6]

Clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("( ) A council shall perform their duty under this section by a general increase of the rents of those of their housing revenue account dwellings in the part or parts of their area to which the certificate relates; and a council may make any such increase notwithstanding section 111 of the Housing Act 1957 (charges for local authority's houses).")

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:

Because a council's discretion as to the performance of their functions under the Bill should not be fettered.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, if it were not for the overwhelmingly odious character of the first point raised by the noble Lord, I think I should have described this as one of the most odious things the Government have done. The situation is this: the beneficiaries of the wrong-doing of the 400 were the rent-payers of that particular area. They arc the ones who gained by it and of course they formed a captive electorate, a sort of Pretorian Guard keeping the malefactors in power as councillors. The one innocent party in the whole proceeding is the ratepayer. The Government and their tiny majority in another place propose that councils shall have the option, whether and to what extent, to make the burden rest on those who have gained from their dereliction and, whether and to what extent, it is to rest on the wholly innocent party. One should have thought they might even have had the decency to bear the political consequences themselves, since they talk about the political consequences, and put it on the taxpayer. Distasteful as that would have been, at any rate the burden would have been less. But instead they must put it at the discretion of the council to benefit their own Praetorian Guard and put the burden on those whom they have spent their time oppressing. It is less odious than the last Motion which the noble Lord proposed but probably there is less to be said in favour of it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.