I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

It has turned out that if, in the case of a house which now comes under the Rent Restrictions Act, a grant is given to improve the House under this Bill, whereby the house comes under the conditions of the Bill, and the owner of the house goes on to make further improvements at his own expense, he will not have the benefits he at present has under the Rent Restrictions Act. Under the Rent Restrictions Act, if an owner makes improvements at his own expense, he is entitled to charge 8 per cent. on the rent. Under this Bill, if he makes further improvements after receiving the benefit of a grant under the Bill, he would be denied the right to charge that 8 per cent.

The passing of this Bill is not intended to deprive a person who wishes to make improvements on his house of his rights under the Rent Restrictions Act, and the purpose of the Clause is to restore the house to that position under the Rent Restrictions Act. If an owner makes further improvements, the Clause empowers the local authority to give a direction that the owner may increase the rent by an amount specified in the direction not exceeding 8 per cent. of the cost of the works carried out at his own expense. This is purely a restoration of the existing conditions if the house has been dealt with under the grants given under this Bill.

This Clause coming upon us like this with little notice, necessitates my asking another question. As I understand it, the allowance of 6 per cent., about which we have argued so strongly, is in respect of a proportion of grant made available for improvement. But a further stage of improvement may take place, that grant having been used according to this new Clause, and for that the second part of the grant of 8 per cent. of the cost is to be allowed.

indicated dissent.

I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but do we not read, in this new Clause, that 8 per cent. is allowed here as an increase in rent, whereas only the 6 per cent. was allowed earlier.

Where public money is involved, the grant is 6 per cent. Where an owner is using his own money and no public money is involved, the permitted increase is 8 per cent. What we are doing here is restoring, in regard to that house, the possibility of the local authority's empowering the owner to increase the rent up to 8 per cent. on money spent by him.

It seems inconsistent; it seems to add certain weight to our previous argument that 6 per cent. was too little if, in fact, an improvement grant of 6 per cent. only is allowed, and under the Rent Restriction Act, a grant of 8 per cent. of the capital employed is allowed.

Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that we should make it a uniform grant of 6 per cent.?

No, I am suggesting that it should be 8 per cent. as we have suggested all along.