§ Mr. Robin F. CookI beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 23, leave out, '15' and insert '10'.
I shall be brief in introducing the amendment, which is a minor proposal which flows from an amendment of mine which was successful in Standing Committee. That amendment was made to Clause 16 and it reduced from 15 years to 10 years the potential life of a building in which the local authority could insist on improving. That was an amendment that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) forgot to mention in the otherwise illuminating letter that he sent to the Scotsman earlier this week.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that there were consequential amendments resulting from that amendment, and I would have thought that this would be one of them. Unless we make the amendment we shall create the paradoxical situation in which a local authority can insist on a higher standard for a building with a life of 10 years but the building may not be granted an improvement grant by the local authority. That is how I read the Bill. If that is correct, I am sure it is not the intention of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment.
§ Mr. Malcolm Rifkind (Edinburgh, Pentlands)I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) wishes to convince the Liberal and Nationalist Members present that they should support the amendment, but whether they support it or not I hope that the Government will consider it seriously because it is a fair and reasonable suggestion.
There are at least four reasons why the amendment deserves close attention. First, at the very least 10 years is a 1668 lengthy period which in the case of many old houses would be a useful life and would make them worth improving. Secondly, such a provision could be used where only one standard amenity was lacking. We are not necessarily talking about properties which are grossly lacking in necessary amenities. Thirdly, under subsection (4) the owner of the property would normally receive only a 50 per cent. grant and would clearly therefore wish to invoke powers under the clause only if he was prepared to meet a substantial proportion of the cost. Where the owner believed that expenditure was justifiable, his view would carry considerable weight. Fourthly, local authorities are sometimes over-optimistic in assessing the time by which they intend to deal with certain properties.
As it stands, the clause refers to whether the property is in the opinion of the local authority
likely to be available for use as a house for a period of at least 15 years".Although the local authority might at the time in question believe that it will be in a position to deal with the property in a much shorter period, more often than not its assessment would be likely to be over-optimistic in view of the capacity of its officials to carry out the work.
§ Mr. MillanI can accept the amendment. It is a logical extension of the amendment to Clause 16 that I accepted in Committee which provided that a local authority in a housing action area could have a house brought up to the higher standard, which includes the provision of standard amenities, where it had a life of at least 10 rather than 15 years.
In this part of the Bill, which deals with standard grants generally, it is logical for the same time limit to be applied, and I am happy to recommend that the House should accept the amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.