The reply, if one can call it a reply, given by the Minister on this amendment is very unsatisfactory. The Minister stated that this was originally introduced by a Minister here who was a member of the Labour Party. There is no use in the Minister trying to throw that across my path in relation to this amendment, because when a Labour Minister did introduce this originally there was some protection for the local authority. I am not dealing now with the case of the aggrieved person vis-à-vis the present occupant of the post of Minister for Local Government. I am looking to the future. We none of us know who will be the Minister for Local Government called upon to decide this issue at some time in the future. In dealing with legislation we must always bear in mind the fact that we do not know what attitude a particular Minister may take at a particular time. I think that is a fundamental point to be considered in relation to this amendment. It is certainly a point worthy of consideration.
When this was first introduced some years ago the local authority had some say at least in the matter. Now the overriding decision is in the hands of the Minister for Local Government in the case of an aggrieved person appealing against the decision of the local authority. It is quite contradictory for us to stipulate for more progressive local government on the one hand and, at the same time, insert a clause in a Bill whereunder the unanimous decision of a local authority can be completely nullified by a decision of the Minister. If we reach that stage in local government, then all local government will be on the broad highway leading to destruction because it will no longer be possible to have the views expressed collectively by a local authority and its executive officers properly considered by the central authority. That is the difficulty under this section.
The Minister has given no indication of what he considers to be a fair rent. If a local authority is not satisfied in the case of a first application for this rent, which, after all, over ten years represents £400 to a local authority and if the Minister is not prepared to consider that difficulty in assessing what we regard as a fair rent, what is there to prevent these new-found landlords from charging a rent of £4 per week? At the present time they are charging rents ranging from £3 2s. 6d. to £3 10s. 0d. per week and who will decide ultimately in the case of new houses where the demand outstrips the supply if these landlords find it convenient to charge up to £4 per week? Is there any protection afforded under this measure to the prospective tenants of such houses? Is there any means by which rents can be limited?
I was amazed by the way in which the Minister acted in relation to this amendment. We have tried to meet this measure by offering criticism of a constructive nature. Yet the Minister gets up and ignores every point raised and refuses to touch on the possibility of the disability which will be imposed on incoming tenants as regards the rate that must be paid because the landlord can escape the responsibility of paying rates. That burden will be placed then on the shoulders of the incoming tenant. Yet the Minister does not consider it worth his while to suggest any possible remedy in that respect. It seems a waste of time to discuss this at all.
The Minister has taken unto himself the right to ride roughshod over decisions. He has the machine behind him. He has the voting strength behind him. Nevertheless we shall continue to expose what we believe to be blatant difficulties and disabilities imposed on tenants in rural areas or those living in proximity to cities or towns. If the Minister wishes to continue on that road, let him do so. He can take that onus on himself. He is so important in his own estimation that he can refuse to listen to any form of constructive criticism. He demonstrated that attitude last night and again to-day. Eventually he will find, irrespective of which side of the House he happens to be on, that time will prove all that has been said here and the justification for some of the amendments that have been refused by him will be abundantly demonstrated. We will be justified in asking for this protection for incoming tenants, a protection that the Minister has blatantly refused to provide.