from a Parliamentary correspondent
+ is scarcely necessazy to comment upon the new clause in the Rent Bills; one merely has to repeat what was said in the House of Commons to see why i:cank Allaun was so disturbed when the details were announced. The following extracts make clear the general lines of the clauses:
In moving, Mr. MacColl, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of, Housing and Local Government, (Widnes, Labour) said: "... The new clause provided for a limit on the amount of increase of rent that could be charged by the landlord of 15% in any one year...At the first stage an order would be made affecting any area and rents would be frozen at the existing old controlled levels. At the second stage the landlord could apply to the rent officer and from the rent officer either he or the tenant could go to the rent assessment committee and the machinery would fix a fair rent within the meaning of Clause 22...Having got his fair rent, the landlord was limited by the clause in the amount he could claim from the tenant. He could not claim more than the fair rent. He could claim up to the fair rent provided that his claim did not provide an increase of more than 15% a year, and the next year he could charge another 15%....and go on until such time as he reached the fair rent..eo"
Mr, Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Aston, Labour) said the second of these clauses re-enacted most of the provsions of Section 11 of the 1957 Rent Act. Labour members had fought Section 11 at the time; he was alarmed that it should be restored....He did not like the idea of either de-control or recontrol by order or regulation. It would be administered humanely and at the proper time by the present Minister, but the legislation would leave an instrument in the hands of Mr. Crossmen's successors who might not be so humane. Mr, Frank Allaun (Salford, East, Labour) said this clause was a disastrous mistake. He feared that loopholes would be found in Clause 22ee. No one knew exactly what rents the tribunals would fix. In Tottenham there was a’ row of houses - of two up and two dowm = for which tenants were paying 28s, a week plus rates. One house had been affected by creeping de-control snd the landlord charged 80s. a week plus rates. Suppose the tribunal reduced that figure to 60s. When it dealt with the controlled rents would it raise them from 28s. to 60s?
The most significant speech, however, was made by Mr. Brooke (Hampstead, Conservative) - scarcely a progressive on housing matters, one would think. He said that in general he welcomed the new clause and the Minister's ‘approach, He had long thought in the light of experience that the original 1956 Rent Bill was slanted too much in the direction of complete de-control and not sufficiently in favour of raising controlled rents to a sensible level.’ This praise, coming from a leading Tory, is potH disturbing and tends to confirm Messrs Silverman's and Allaun's worst fears. If a man like Fenry Brooke is saying, in effect, that the present clause is better than the Tory Rent Act there must be something wrong somewhere!