REPEAL OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCREASE OF RECOVERABLE RENT ON ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS (Hansard, 10 June 1980)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217.

§ Mr. Rifkind
Section 24 of the 1971 Act enables a landlord to increase the rent for a regulated tenancy, for which there is no fair rent registered, by 12J per cent. of the cost of certain improvements that have been made. Little use has been made of the provisions, and they fit somewhat uneasily with the other two ways in which rents can be increased.
The effect of the new clause will be that in future the only ways in which rent can be increased to take into account improvements or for any other reason will be by rent agreements between the landlord and the tenant, or by the matter being referred to the rent machinery in order that a new fair rent can be registered. That seems a much more straightforward system, rather than continuing with the power that has rarely been used in the past. The amendments are consequential on the new clause and I recommend them to the House.

§ Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)
I preface my remarks by saying that it was with considerable dismay that we saw the large number of amendments and new clauses tabled by the Government. Many were tabled at the last minute, and we even had a starred new clause for consideration.
That is an abuse of the procedures of the House. In some cases, the amendments arise out of discussions in Committee and it is proper for the Government to table appropriate amendments on Report in those circumstances. Some amendments arise out of matters raised by the Opposition and I have no complaint about them, either. However, many of the new clauses, including new clause 1, do not fall into that category. They raise separate issues that do not arise out of debates in Committee or on Second Reading. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
No doubt the Minister will say that many of the new clauses, including new clause 1, are basically technical, but it is not a matter of the House accepting the hon. Gentleman's word for that. We ought to be able to make our own inquiries about the effects of the new clauses. When they are tabled at the last minute, and often in complicated or obscure terms—as amendments to previous pieces of legislation that turn out to have been amended subsequently, anyway—it is difficult for us to know what the Government are doing.
The Under-Secretary has kindly supplied me with notes on the new clauses. That is helpful, and nothing that I say is meant to be grudging in that respect. However, while that is a courtesy to me, which I appreciate, other hon. Members are equally entitled to know what the Government are doing.
There are so many new clauses that they almost represent a new Bill. That is an unsatisfactory way of legislating. I hope that the Government will take that point on board, because none of us has had time for consultation with outside interests on the new clauses, some of which could significantly affect the interests of large numbers of people outside. That is undesirable, particularly in housing legislation, where whatever we do has a considerable impact outside.
319 I do not intend to do more than raise one or two points on the new clauses, mainly in the interests of clarification. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary will not take that to mean that I consider the new clauses to be unimportant.
It may be that certain points will have to be raised in another place. I should like to see amendments made to a number of new clauses. If we were dealing with the Bill in different circumstances and did not have a substantial amount of additional business to get through today and tomorrow I would have tabled amendments, despite all the difficulties with which we have been faced.
I hope that in another place the Government will take account of the fact that there will have been no substantive discussion of the new clauses in this House. I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily, because we have some important issues to deal with later. On this new clause I simply say that if the Minister tells the House that the provisions relating to increases in rent and rates to take account of the cost of improvements have been little used, I accept that there is a case for abandoning those provisions.
The provisions affect the interests of landlords and tenants, and I suspect that most hon. Members have not had an opportunity of making inquiries to see whether these amendments are acceptable. In this case we take the Minister's word on trust. I am willing to do that on this new clause, but before the Bill goes to another place it may be that, following inquiries, we shall wish to have matters raised in the other place that are not easily raised in the House today. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. I do not object to new clause 1.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)
I wish to comment briefly on new clause 1. Among the new clauses and amendments discussed in Committee was one that I presented to give additional powers to rent assessment committees to impose obligations for repairs to be carried out. It seems that new clause I suggests that rent can be increased after repairs have been carried out. That is the obverse of what was discussed in Committee.
Will the Minister offer any comment on that and say particularly why, on reconsideration, 320 he has found it difficult to accept that rent assessment committees should have the power to restrict rent increases where landlords fail to carry out repairs to those properties that are deficient?
I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about the flood of Government amendments. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee were always delighted to see Government amendments flowing from the amendments that we had tabled, or at least from points that arose during the course of debate.
Will the Minister explain what has gone wrong with the parliamentary draftsman who has changed the Bill in this fashion at this late stage? Would it not have been more satisfactory if these technical changes had been incorporated in the original version of the Bill, so that they could have been discussed in Committee, where more time is available? I respect any Government who come forward with changes, but perhaps the Minister has become over-enthusiastic in his treatment of the House this afternoon.

§ Mr. Rifkind
I say in reply to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I regret there are a substantial number of Government amendments. I believe that it will be helpful to the House to know how those amendments are constituted.
There are 156 Government amendments. Of these, 27 are in specific response to undertakings given in Committee. A further 90 are drafting or technical amendments mainly consequential on Opposition amendments accepted in Committee and as a result of undertakings given. That is a total of 117 amendments.
Of the remainder, 23 are repeals of various provisions in the schedules and are in no way new material. Sixteen only of the grand total of 156 introduce any significant element of new policy, as does new clause 1. The House will, therefore, see that over 90 per cent. of the provisions arise either directly as a result of deliberations in Committee when Opposition amendments were accepted or where undertakings were given to consider them.
321 In responding specifically to the question from the hon. Member for Dundee, East about rent assessment committees I can say that when such a committee presently considers an application for a rent increase it will normally consider whether such an increase is appropriate or not, given the existing condition of the property. It would be quite inappropriate for a rent assessment committee, or a rent officer for that matter, to say that the condition of a property justified an increase but that an increase would not be granted unless a landlord made further improvements.
The new clause provides that where improvements have taken place, instead of using the somewhat archaic system of the 12½ per cent. procedure it is more appropriate to reach either a new fair rent registered in the normal way or, where landlord and tenant are agreed, to use a voluntary rent agreement. That is a more sensible way of recognising improvements that have already taken place. That is the concern of the new clause.