§ Mr. StanleyI beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 8 leave out '37A' and insert '41'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.
§ Mr. StanleyFirst, I wish to explain that amendments Nos. 52 to 54 are not substantive. Their purpose is simply to secure the proper ordering of the new clauses within the tenants' charter provisions of chapter II of part I of the Housing Act 1980. They bring together the clause on secure tenants' rights to repairs and a new clause on heating charges under a new heading:
Other rights of secure tenants".The substantive amendment in the group is amendment No. 55. As the House will be aware, a significant number of council tenants using district heating are worried about their heating charges. They are worried about the lack of information on how those charges should be calculated and they wonder whether the basis of the apportionment of the cost of heating between individual tenants is reasonable.The Government have given further consideration to the whole issue, following the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on 20 April last year. On that occassion, the ten-minute Bill was in no way an empty expression of views, introducing no legislative progress. After detailed consideration of the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the Government moved towards the process of consultation. Although the Government were convinced by the merits of the case, I should like to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Gentleman, who was the originator of the provisions.
On 28 June, we issued a consultation letter to local authorities inviting their views on the possibility of giving public tenants statutory rights of information and legal 939 challenge in respect of heating charges, bearing in mind that private tenants already had such rights under schedule 19 to the 1980 Acts.
One of the purposes of the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill was to achieve greater comparability between the legal rights of council tenants who remain tenants and those who exercise the right to buy or to be lessees, as most of those on district heating would be, who would benefit from the extension to lessees of the protection provided by schedule 19 in respect of service charges.
As I said in Committee, we have concluded that it is right to make that further extension of the tenants' charter—hence the amendment. The amendment will give the Secretary of State enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations which supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by such tenants as will ensure that the proportion of the heating costs borne by each tenant is no greater than is reasonable.
The aim is to ensure, first, that tenants' heating charges are apportioned in a reasonable way between different dwellings and that the method of apportionment is open to challenge in the courts. Housing association tenants supplied with heat by their landlords are not included, as they are already protected under the fair rent system and schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
Secondly, secure tenants would be entitled to require their supplying authorities to furnish information about the costs incurred in supplying the heat and the charges payable to the supplying authorities. Secure tenants would also be entitled to require their supplying authorities to provide reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts and other supporting documentation and for taking copies or extracts from the documents. These rights would be broadly similar to the rights already enjoyed by tenants of flats in relation to variable services charges under schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
From the reactions to the consultation last year, I believe that local authorities broadly accept that there should be proposals on these general lines. We wish to introduce the necessary regulations as soon as we can, but local authorities will need reasonable time to organise themselves to discharge their new obligations. Moreover, given the variety of district heating and accounting systems, it is essential that there should be further detailed consultation with the local authority associations as to the precise form of the regulations and the timing of their introduction. That consultation will be set in hand as soon as possible. We should like the information regulations to be operational for the 1984–85 financial year.
I believe that this is a worthwhile and sensible extension of the tenants' charter for several hundred thousand tenants supplied by various types of district heating system. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorI wish to query part of the amendment, not because we are not concerned about heating charges—we made it clear in Committee that we are concerned—but because the Minister said that the amendment related simply to information for tenants. That is reasonable, but the second part of the amendment provides that 940
The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies"—and so on. On what basis does the Secretary of State believe that he will have sufficient information to establish reasonable regulations covering all the circumstances?I ask that question in the light of the recent report of the Department's auditing inspectors who have been reviewing housing supervision, administration, management and so on. One of their tasks was to examine district heating charges and the means of determining what charges were reasonable and the items to be included. I simply wonder how the Minister thinks that he can achieve something that his own auditing inspectors could not achieve after detailed inspection of the procedures for calculating the charges in several authorities.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)It is a real pleasure to support the amendment. I reciprocate the Minister's kind remarks. The amendment would not exist and these important rights would not be conferred for the first time on council tenants were it not for the sympathetic and understanding response that he and the Under-Secretary of State made to my ten-minute Bill last April.
The excessive charges that council tenants often have to pay for space heating and water is a longstanding scandal. Council tenants pay about twice as much for the same quantity of space heating and hot water as they would do if they had separate gas-fired independent systems in each flat. I am discussing those cases where there is what I call a communal heating system fired by a central boiler and where the charge is levied each year by the local authority to recover its costs. Normally, the local authority endeavours only to cover the cost of fuel and not the cost of the actual heating installations which lie on the rent account, but even the cost of fuel is enormously high in most of the systems.
The cost is so high for several reasons. First, many of these systems, because they were developed years ago, use oil and not gas and, for at least some years until the present day, oil has been more expensive. Secondly, many of these systems are old fashioned and inefficient. Thirdly, there is often grotesquely inefficient management of these systems within housing departments. Fourthly, it is normally impossible with these systems for the tenants to switch them off during the day to save money. That contrasts, of course, with the position of a person who has an independent system in his home where, if everyone in the home is out through the day, the resident can turn off the system and save money. More and more these days, both adults in the family are out during the day and could, if they were able to save money by it, do without heating during the day. Those are some of the reasons for the high charges that the communal systems produce.
On previous occasions I have given examples of the charges that prevail in my constituency. They bear repeating, especially for those people who believe that council tenants have an easy and cheap ride compared to the rest of the community. For example, on the Packinston square estate in my constituency, tenants pay, for hot water and three space heating outlets which normally work very badly indeed, in the region of £9 a week all the year round—call it £450 a year. A similar charge prevails on the Jessop estate where there are three outlets for hot air, although the properties are not normally hot, plus water for 941 a charge of about £450 to £500 a year. Not only the inefficiency of Islington borough council produces such charges. In my constituency, I have a large number of places which belong to the City of London corporation. The Golden lane estate, which rests in the foothills of the Barbican, has enormously high heating charges. For water and one space heating outlet residents will pay as much as £400 a year. On the Delhi-Outram estate in Islington, people have an efficient and modern system with hot water and plenty of radiators, but it costs them more than £800 for the service. I could give many other examples. There is the Spa Green estate, the Priory Green estate, the Stafford Cripps estate and so on.
There is another special reason why this change in the law will be specially welcomed in Islington. Over the past two years Islington borough council, by monumental incompetence in keeping its books—incompetence which is not to be ascribed to any party because it is the work of officers of the council and not councillors—has managed to overcharge tenants, even according to the system that it was trying to impose, to the tune of £650,000. That is an overcharge of £100 per dwelling over two years. It is an overcharge of £1 a week through two years. Tenants in Islington with communal heating systems were being charged too much. I do not mean that they were paying a charge excessive for the service that they were getting, although that, too, is true. I mean that they were paying that much more than the fuel that they were using actually cost the council. The council could not competently keep its books to enable it to know how much the fuel was costing. That justifies the provisions in the amendment that state that council tenants in future must be able to gain access to the books in the same way as private tenants can gain access to the books to examine charges affecting them.
8.30 pm
The Islington borough council intends not to refund the money in cash or cheque to those from whom it has taken excess charges. Apparently it intends to deduct it from payments due in the future, as if the council were offering largesse to the tenants instead of handing back the money which it should never have taken from them in the first place. I intend to ensure that that maladministration, in my view, and wrong decision, gets to the local authority ombudsman. I think that he will say that it constitutes maladministration leading to injustice for the residents affected.
If the new proposed provisions had been on the statute book over the past few years, Islington borough council could not have got away with that kind of overcharging. If the council could not add up the figures, the residents would have been able to do so if only they could have got their hands on the books. Once they had done that, if these provisions had been law, they would have been able to go to the county court to argue that the charge was unreasonable.
The provisions that the Minister is introducing will give to many thousands of tenants rights which, as I understand it, the Minister intends to make as near as possible identical to the rights now enjoyed by private tenants. That is, first, to have the right to all the information necessary to know what costs lie behind the charge and, secondly, the right to go to the county court to argue that the charge is unreasonable for the service provided.
942 The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench for the Labour party, a party which has not over the past two years taken much of an interest in this matter or done anything practical about it, raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylorrose—
§ Mr. CunninghamNo. The hon. Lady raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable. In the case of a private tenant, the court is the body that decides what would be reasonable. Although it is much easier in the case of most private blocks to work out what is reasonable, there are cases where the difficulties are comparable with the difficulties which apply to a council estate. If, for example, one of the very large and widespread housing associations such as Samuel Lewis, Peabody or Sutton estate wanted to pool the whole of its estate for the purpose of heating charges, then the issue would come up as to whether it was reasonable to do that for the whole of the estate or whether it ought to pool only within individual blocks in the tiny sections of the estates. That would be a matter for the court to decide.
I think that we shall get into enormous difficulties if we start to construct in the regulations that the Minister proposes to make rules that depart from the principle that applies in the case of private tenants. My understanding is that the regulations might give elaborate definitions of the information that tenants are to be allowed to get from the council. When it comes to what is enforceable in the county court, as I understand it, the intention is that the regulations will rest upon the definition of reasonableness and will leave the interpretation of that word to the courts, as in the case of a private tenant.
There has been a two-year battle to get the regulations changed. Once again I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction. From the very moment when the ten-minute Bill was moved last April, he made clear in words and in actions that the change would have his full sympathy and support. Consultations then took place between the Department of the Environment and local authority associations. Local authority associations were told to respond quickly. All this has been an admirable illustration of proper, productive co-operation between a Back-Bench Member and the Treasury Bench. Thousands and thousands of my constituents and many others elsewhere will express gratitude to all of us in the House who have taken part in the operation.
§ Mr. StanleyIf I may speak again, with the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind comments.
On the interpretation of subsection (2), my initial response when I saw the draft was the same as that of the hon. Lady. I did not wish my right hon. Friend to decide exactly what should be the criteria as to reasonableness in apportioning district heating charges. I am advised that subsection (2) does not enable the Secretary of State to lay down how "reasonable" should be interpreted. That is entirely a matter for the court, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury indicated.
943 Subsection (2) only enables the Secretary of State to impose the requirement by regulation that the method adopted by heating authorities to which the regulation applies will comply with the subsection. As I understand it, the regulation would simply indicate that there will be an obligation on local authorities to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by secure tenants as will ensure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable. In other words, the regulation would effectively reproduce what is stated in subsection (2).
I hope that gives a sense of relief to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It was a relief to me when I was advised that that was the interpretation because we do not want to be in the business of having to try to determine what criteria should be adopted for what is reasonable.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made: No. 53, in page 21, line 9, leave out 'section' and insert
'sections—
§ Other rights of secure tenants'
§ No. 54, in page 21, line 10, leave out '37B' and insert '41A'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
§ Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 21, line 23, at end insert—
'(c) The scheme will operate only where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant.(d) The landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors whose services must be used by the tenant and where a direct labour department exists the tenant must obtain two quotations one of which must be from the direct labour department.'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69.
§ Mr. RobertsI want to explain why Members of the Opposition have tabled these amendments and why we think they are essential. In justifying them, I wish to refer to what the Government are proposing and then point out how the amendments would operate in relation to that, and also what the amendments mean in relation to the policy of the Labour party on tenants' rights to repairs and the relationship that direct labour departments should have with those rights.
Clause 21, which these two amendments propose to change, is a blatant attempt by the Government to privatise the repair services of local authorities. There is no doubt about that. The proposal is that the Secretary of State can make regulations to provide a scheme for entitling secure tenants to carry out their own repairs. This would be done by the employment of private contractors and, if the clause is unamended, only by private contractors, even, it seems, where the local authority is not in default and is providing an adequate repair and maintenance service with which the tenants may be completely satisfied.
There are many objections to the clause. It would make things worse for the tenants. It effectively removes the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. One purpose of amendment No. 69 is to ensure that, if a privatisation scheme is to be introduced, an attempt should be made to spell out the landlords' obligations even when 944 the Government will not accept an input from the direct labour department where a private tenant wishes to have a repair done.
We wish to prevent the removal of the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. It is a great danger. Under the clause, some local authorities could take advantage of the scheme to offer a superficially attractive discount rent to tenants provided that they undertook to carry out all the repairs for which the landlord was otherwise responsible. To tenants, that might at first seem attractive. Eventually, however, the tenant might be worse off. The tenant might face big repair bills once the landlord's obligations had been destroyed in law following the introduction of the scheme and the tenant's acceptance of proposals from the local authority.
The costs to the local authority when the scheme is implemented will be considerable. It is a dubious claim that tenants' money will, in the long run, be saved. Local authorities will have to produce new accounting methods to identify separately the costs of every minor repair. There will be the cost of setting up the scheme and the cost of inspection to make sure that repairs are adequately carried out. This could be costly even for the local authority with an efficient repair and maintenance service if the new scheme is superimposed upon it.
It is worrying that the tenants taking advantage of the scheme will probably be the most able and the richer tenants who can fund the repairs in the first instance before claiming back the money. Some of these more able tenants may carry out the work at the moment without payment. Under the scheme, they will be entitled to payment. Costs will arise that will be passed on to other tenants. This concerns the Opposition.
8.45 pm
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is opposed to this proposal and supports, to some extent if not completely, our amendments. It has said, in submission to members for the Standing Committee, that it recognises that many council tenants are dissatisfied with their repair service, as Opposition Members also recognised. That is why in Committee we tabled our own clause, which we thought a fair and just one, to provide a proper right-to-repair service and a proper right in law to tenants to have repairs done where the local authority is in default.
In its submission, the AMA goes on:
We would therefore respectfully suggest that if the Minister is genuinely interested in improving the repair service for a majority of tenants"—having accepted that there are many inadequacies in many areas—a more thorough and well thought out series of proposals be considered rather than a very narrow scheme such as this and whilst it may appear superficially attractive it does nothing to solve the very many problems that do exist in the repairs service and may well make matters significantly worse.Amendment No. 68 simply requires the Secretary of State to use his powersonly where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant.In other words, if the tenant has served notice on the local authority that a repair needs to be done, and if the repair is not carried out within a reasonable time, it allows the tenant to have it carried out himself and to charge the local authority. If the Governemt are interested in ensuring that local authorities have an efficient repair service, this is one of the best ways of bringing it about. A local authority will not want tenants to do repairs themselves or 945 have them done and then charge the authority because it would be an inconvenience to the housing department, the direct labour department and the local authority generally. If such a provison existed, it would be a great incentive to local authorities to provide an efficient repair and maintenance service.Whatever the Minister may think, the council tenants that I meet when canvassing or running advice bureaux do not really want to have to do the repairs themselves or even the right to do them. They pay their rent and they expect the landlord to do the repairs. What we want is to make sure that local authorities provide this efficient repair and maintenance service and that tenants be given the right to do the work themselves and to charge the local authority if this service is not provided.
The second part of amendment 68 says that
the landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors.If the scheme that we are proposing were put into operation, and a secure tenant could get a repair done if the landlord was in default, the landlord should publish a list of approved contractors from whom the tenant would be required to obtain quotations. We do not think that this is unreasonable. Both the tenant and the local authority want to he protected from the inadequate builder who does a shoddy job. This is not an unusual proposal. Local authorities commonly publish lists of approved contractors for the guidance of, for example, owner-occupiers who are given improvement grants.Then we go on to say that if a local authority has a direct labour department the tenant must obtain two quotations, one of which must be from the direct labour department. This is not inspired by a doctrinaire desire to protect the public sector and direct labour departments, although I am sure that there are some doctrinaire reasons for the Government's proposals on this clause which will, as they privatise the repair service, destroy direct labour departments. In view of the restrictions that have already been imposed on direct labour departments by the Government, administratively and legislatively, through the 1980 Housing Act, this could be the last straw—or perhaps brick—to break the back of direct labour departments and force them out of existence.
If direct labour departments are to have a fair chance to survive, it is important that they be given a workload that will enable them to provide continuity of employment and remain in existence in competition with the private sector. However, as council houses are sold, as limits are placed on the work for which direct labour departments can tender, and as housing construction in the public sector diminishes because of the Government's reduction of the housing investment programme, direct labour departments are being squeezed more and more. That has nothing to do with competition. It seems that the Government are frightened of direct labour departments competing fairly with the private sector.
Will private contractors be invited to provide a tender to a council tenant who wishes a repair to be carried out? If so, why should direct labour departments not be allowed to place a competitive tender as well? If the Government believe in competition, it should surely apply to direct labour departments as well as to private builders.
Our amendment requires that a local authority tenant should seek at least two quotations, one of which should be from a direct labour department if one exists in the area.
946 We have also included the direct labour department to protect both the tenant and the local authority. After all, the local authority will be charged for the cost of the repair. It is appropriate to have a public sector input to prevent such things as price rings and to ensure that groups of builders do not get together, set their own high charges and make hefty profits. Direct labour departments are good at ensuring that the private sector knows that it cannot get up to such tricks. They are there as a check to prevent such things happening.
In Committee, a Conservative Member said that I did not live in the real world and pointed out that price rings were illegal. However, there are many examples of illegal price fixing. I tabled an early-day motion asking the Secretary of State for the Environment rigorously to investigate a blatant price-fixing ring set up by painting contractors in the north-west. They tried to extort nearly £200,000 from Manchester city council, after getting away with £92,358. The firms concerned clearly connived at sharing out the contracts between them, and charged prices up to four times as much as the estimates given by direct works departments. That Mafia-style approach to tendering was highlighted when all those firms submitted very high tenders after being invited to tender for the painting of a school. Another private firm put in a much lower tender, and was later asked to go on the list.
That shows that such price rings take place. Without an input from direct labour departments, I am sure that private builders would get together for such a purpose.
Labour party members, employers of direct labour departments and Labour councillors who sit on housing and direct labour committees have expressed anxiety not only about the Government's proposals but even about the proposals by Labour Members of the Committee to give tenants the right to have a repair service in law. All those people are rightly concerned that even the proposals in amendment No. 68 are likely to take work away from direct labour departments.
Those who rightly support the public building sector and direct labour departments should consider our proposals to give tenants the right to a decent repair service and the right to have their repairs done and then charge the council landlord, when the landlord is in default, in the context of the fact that this Government seem determined to privatise this whole area. We as Labour Members are trying to safeguard the direct labour departments by ensuring that they are included in any scheme that gives tenants the right to have repairs done. The next Labour Government will introduce a tenants' right to repair in the context of other proposals to revitalise direct labour departments.
Those who are concerned about direct labour departments are anxious because the base load of work of direct labour departments, on which they depend for their very existence—the repair and maintenance of council houses—will be taken away from them. That work is essential to direct labour departments if they are to survive, because they are restricted in the work that they can take on. At present, they do all council house repairs because they cannot tender for work for other local authorities. They are not allowed to tender for work in the private sector. They cannot do improvement work for owner-occupiers. They cannot compete with Wimpeys or Barratts for private sector schemes.
Other building concerns which build council houses for local authorities can work in the private sector when 947 council house contracts dry up. They can even go abroad. Direct labour departments cannot do any of those things. Under the next Labour Government, that will be changed. We shall legislate to allow direct labour departments to work for other local authorities and to tender, in competition with the private sector, for work in the private sector. I am sure that they will tender and win, and provide a service for the people of Britain, providing the type of competition that is necessary.
We hope that those who look at our proposals to give tenants the right to repairs will realise the context in which we do so. If the next Labour Goverment give council tenants the right to repairs, it will be done at a time when those direct labour departments are revitalised generally. In the meantime, these amendments are intended not only to safeguard those direct labour departments from a privatisation scheme that the Conservative Government want to introduce, but to safeguard council tenants from what, in my opinion, are ill-thought-out proposals which will not benefit tenants in the long run. Tenants want an efficient repair and maintenance service. They want the right to do repairs themselves only when the local authority fails to carry out those repairs. Tenants would prefer the local authority to do the repairs properly in the first place. The Goverment's clause is likely to have the opposite effect.
Amendment No. 69 is important if we want to protect council tenants. It is no good having a scheme which does not spell out for council tenants and landlords the landlords' obligations, the repairs that landlords should carry out and the timescale for such repairs.
9 pm
It is not possible, as Labour Members wish, to have a scheme whereby tenants can have repairs done when the landlord is in default unless we know of what they would be in default. That is why amendment No. 69 is an essential adjunct to amendment No. 68. If the Government do not accept amendment No. 68, surely there is no reason why they should not accept amendment No. 69, which in no way tries to destroy the Government's attempt at privatisation. Nor does it put direct labour departments back into the picture. It tries to prevent the schemes introduced by the Secretary of State from destroying what exists—the landlord's obligation to do repairs. It requires any scheme to publish and produce a statement of what the landlord is expected to carry out. Whether or not the landlord fails to carry out his obligations, the tenant has the right in law to do the repairs and charge the local authority. For those who prefer the landlord to fulfil his obligations there is a statement within the scheme setting out those obligations and stating what a council tenant should expect from a landlord when making a request to the housing department for a repair to be carried out.
I cannot see any doctrinaire reason against amendment No. 69, unless the Government want to destroy the tenant's ability to ensure that the landlord makes repairs. It might be that they want to force even more tenants to buy their council houses. If as well as having to pay high rents tenants cannot get their repairs done, they might be encouraged to move. That might be behind the Government's thinking but I hope not. If the Government cannot accept amendment No. 68, I hope they will try to 948 accept amendment No. 69 or at least say that something similar can be included when the Bill goes for consideration to another place.
I hope that I have done four things. I hope that I have shown that the Government's proposals are inadequate and will have the opposite effect to that which they wanted. They will make things worse for the vast majority of tenants rather than better. I hope that I have shown that the proposals of my hon. Friends are not against the council tenant having the right to a decent repair service—rather, the opposite—and that they are fundamental to our belief that council tenants should have the same rights as owner-occupiers, and even more. I hope that I have justified the need to include an element of direct labour involvement for the sake of the tenants and I hope I have allayed the fears of those who are worried about maintaining direct labour departments. Labour Members are putting forward their proposals in that spirit and to ensure that we keep a viable and, in the end, revitalised and thriving public building sector.
§ Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the rest of my hon. Friends on tabling these important amendments. The prospect of enabling tenants to carry out repairs with no consideration of the complexity of the problems involved suggests that whoever drafted the Bill had more experience of council houses than he had of council flats of the kind that are typical in my constituency in an inner London borough.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of tenants from one of my housing estates about the repair of doors. The tenants association is seriously considering not only whether a new door should be introduced for the fiats on the estate in question but how to test it properly to make sure that it is effective.
One of the points that the association made to me is that if the door is so strong that the tenant feels secure, the fire brigade cannot easily gain access, and may not be able to do so. Also, if the door is not properly fitted it may be hazardous for the tenant to go ahead with what amounts to a do-it-yourself door replacement by hiring a private contractor.
What about other elements of repair, such as a slight modification that may be attractive to those involved? For example, one might block out a tiresome ventilation outlet in a flat through which heat loss has occurred. What are the risks if there is not adequate supervision by the council of private repairs that are being undertaken? If there is adequate supervision, why should not the task have been done by the council in the first place?
A patchwork of different coloured doors or of different internal repairs does not offend me aesthetically. I am concerned about the safety of tenants, especially in high-rise blocks and landing access blocks if they go ahead with certain repairs that become extensive modifications and obstruct an exit in the case of a fire or access for the fire brigade.
Another example I can quote is that of floors. It would seem to be a simple matter. If there is something wrong with one's floor, one should call in the contractor to deal with it. In my constituency we have one of the densest estates in the whole of London. It is aptly named the Ethelred estate—apt because we all know one thing and one thing only about Ethelred, that he was perpetually 949 unready. When the estate was built the Tory GLC was determined to bring in private rather than public contractors.
The floors on the estate were to have in-built central heating and certain compounds that depend on precise specifications. Competition being what it is, and it is often rather ragged at the edges of the market, the contractors who undertook to install the floors in two houses—Groome House and Michelson House—skimped on the specifications. As a result, shortly after coming into their flats, tenants found that their chairs started to sink into the floor and the bonded cement began to turn into sand. Having done so, because the floor was warm, it immediately became infected by all kinds of exciting little creatures which were no doubt of great interest to a biologist but were not welcome to the tenants of the flats.
What was to be done about the repairs? I am not claiming that Lambeth council moved with lightning speed to undertake them. However, there was a real problem because this new type of bonded floor offered by the private contractor had not been extensively supplied before. It would be difficult to remedy the problem when the initial specifications had not been met. But allegedly a range of solutions was available.
The mind boggles when we hear Saatchi and Saatchi tell us that mass unemployment really works. The mind also boggles at the company who thought of the brand name epoxy resin, known to many of my constituents as "poxy resin". "Poxy resin" was the recommended solution for the floor in question. "Poxy resin" was applied in a test case. I am glad that it was applied in a test case in the flats in Groome and Michelson houses on the Ethelred estate. It was rapidly found that the effects of "poxy resin" could not only be scented at several yards but had noxious consequences.
Clause 21 specifies that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow tenants to carry out repairs and recover the cost. What would have happened in the Groome and Michelson flats if "poxy resin" had really caught on? One can imagine one neighbour turning to the next and saying, "We have got the stuff we need. It is called 'poxy resin.' Lay it down or get yourself a contractor to set it in.". Everyone would be knee deep in "poxy resin." One can imagine the effects of introducing it if, at the same time, tenants happened to get in private contractors to fit the heavy doors which are so strongly recommended as a security measure. One has a picture of tenants caught with "poxy resin" behind doors that cannot be opened because fly-by-night contractors have not properly fitted them.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is sensitive about the issues that affect inner London boroughs and constituencies such as mine. He and the Secretary of State may say that there is a remedy through the market or the courts. Tell that to the poor citizens and tenants of Groome and Michelson houses. When the floors went through and they asked the council to sue the contractors, lo and behold, the very reason why the specification of floors had been skimped in the first place had resulted in the disappearance of the contractors. In other words, far from the profit motive being the guarantee of good customer service, with financial difficulties and the declining rate of profit that faced the small contracting firm, it skimped on the specification and has gone bust. Therefore, there was no redress. Solving the problems of those premises involves the entire reconstruction of the floors.
950 We have had doors and floors, but what about something else that seems really simple, like a ceiling? The architect of this clause seems to have seen either semi-detached properties or council houses only. If he cared to come round and look in my constituency, either at the Hemans estate or parts of other estates, he would find flat roofs.
If the ceiling inside one's flat is leaking and it is damaging one's furniture and one is covering up the furniture, not using the room, and one applies to the council for a rebate because of loss of use of a room, one can at least get some money from the council and bring some pressure to bear. One may even engage the democratic process and get hold of one's councillor or Member of Parliament to get something done. But what happens if one gets in another fly-by-night cowboy builder? He might be much more ready to say that something can be done about the ceiling than mention the roof. He may say, "Yes sir, yes madam, we will see to it immediately. We will have someone in this afternoon or tomorrow morning and sort it out." It is obvious that if such a builder sorts out the symptoms rather than the causes of the damage, the damp will come through time and again. In key repairs that affect the inside of flats, we do not need a new slate on the roof or the unblocking of a drain but a new roof and new drainage system. Many council estates that were constructed in the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s have now come to the end of their natural life and need major modernisation and rehabilitation programmes.
The result for tenants who might, misguidedly, take advantage of the Government's proposal if this Bill goes on the statute book, because it appears to give them quicker repairs, will be not reduced costs and better service but, probably, higher costs. There will probably be higher direct costs and certainly higher indirect costs.
What will happen if a council is planning to modernise an estate? Where is the provision in the Bill that takes into account the decanting of an estate by a council? If such decanting occurs, the tenant may believe that he has the right to call in someone to carry out the repairs and to send the bill to the council. But what happens if the council contests the bill? Who, in the Lord's name, will determine what is a reasonable cost that does not exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the landlord carried out the repairs?
9.15 pm
There would need to be a dual accounting system to determine the cost of the repair. Not only would a private contractor carry it out, but someone from the council must evaluate its cost. We may be told that the council will have a rule of thumb test. Tell that to the tenant, when Johnny cowboy comes by and says, "Yes, madam. There is no problem. We shall do your sink top tomorrow". He may do the sink top the next day, but he may leave it detached 1½in from the wall at one end and 3½in from the nearest working surface. The tenant will end up with an unsatisfactory repair and will probably wish to take action against the builder, who by then—as in the case of the Groome and Michelson contractors—may have gone bust. The tenant may have to claim from the council a price charged by a private contractor well in excess of the real direct cost of the operation.
I talk with some experience of the difficulties involved. It was pointed out to me recently by a convener of the 951 direct labour organisation in my constituency that the replacement or repair of a sink top was not a simple operation. Thanks to the freedom of choice that we have through the market mechanism, one can apparently get 15 different sorts of sink top just for starters. When I had a sink top fitted, the commercial contractor assured me that the top that he supplied would fit exactly over the two cupboard units, but of course it did not. What happens when it does not fit? What happens when a private contractor does not give good service? How can one evaluate a normal cost, even for something as simple as putting in a sink top? One cannot do that, because it depends on the sort of top needed, whether new woodwork must be installed or whether the back facing of the sink must also be replaced.
I can assume only that the person who drafted this legislation has not only never lived in a council flat or house but has never seen the inside of one. That thought comes to me time and again when I see people commuting through my constituency. They look at some of the nice neo-Georgian exteriors of estates such as Vauxhall gardens estate, which overlooks Kennington park, and may think that they always look nice because the windows are painted. However, if they went inside those flats, they would see the real problems that exist.
How can we determine a reasonable cost? We have recently had a classic illustration of this problem. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—he is still only just the Member for that constituency—made a self-congratulatory speech on the amendment, which he assured the House, without waiting for its comments, would be of incalculable benefit to thousands of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in the Chamber, attacked Camden council for not reducing heating charges in full. What are the charges and how can they be applied in full? There is to be a remedy in the courts. The Minister has said that he is delighted that he will not have to decide what is a reasonable charge; it will be the courts' decision. If the courts' decision of what is reasonable for London Transport fares is anything to go by, then tenants' repairs will be open to mayhem.
There are one or two learned gentlemen in the other place to whom I should like to put a simple question because I am sure that it will land on their desks for them to decide. What does a judge understand by the concept of externality? What is the externality that the judge has to take into account in assessing reasonable costs to be paid by the council? If he is Oxbridge-trained, and almost certainly he is, and if he has done greats or politics, philosophy and economics he will clearly understand that it is something outside rather than inside—external rather than internal. However, if he has made his way from the labouring classes he might not view it that way. I have not noticed many judges recently making it from the labouring classes.
A judge may not know that the relevance of direct and indirect costs is crucial to this clause as to whether there are benefits from having public, municipal or collective building agencies which have externalities, can spread their services and have expertise in evaluating buildings. Such bodies will know, when it comes to evaluating an internal leak, that something is wrong with the building's flat roof. They will know that a problem has arisen time 952 and time again with an internal pipe. A private contractor will not know that. This means that instead of a fly-by-night cowboy patching up the job and leaving it the direct labour organisation can deal with it.
How do we assess overheads? Private contractors who want to obtain a bid do not include their overhead costs in the price. In some cases they do not even make provision for the most basic national insurance contributions. When giving their direct labour costs they do not make allowances for indirect costs such as rental and other changes.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) but I would go further and say not only that quotations should be required from direct labour organisations but that there should be a statutory requirement that when bids are made over a certain size for repairs they should be cleared by the relevant council committee and that its members should be satisfied that indirect as well as the direct costs have been included.
During the last election campaign there was a massive poster, as big as the doors of this Chamber, in Kennington park road courtesy of CABIN. It showed a collapsing house. It said:
Labour plans to nationalise your industry.That was a patent lie. The poster implied that houses only fell down in the public sector. On my estate the chronic troubles which have arisen are due to private contractors.We need tenants' rights and local control, but we do not need private cowboy builders ripping off the public. That is why I support the amendment.
§ Mr. CartwrightI hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will forgive me if I do not follow him through all the mysteries of externality. It is not a matter regularly on the lips of my constituents. If he referred to my constituents as coming from the labouring classes, he might get a rather rude reaction from many of them.
It is right to spend a little time discussing repairs, especially for local authority housing. All hon. Members who represent areas with large numbers of council properties know that that issue is one of the major causes of frustration among council tenants. They are annoyed most of all by the bureaucracy of the operation of local authorities. I am not making a political point—it affects local authorities of all political persuasions.
When my constituents first report a fault that needs to be repaired, along comes someone from the housing department. It is probably the estate officer, who looks at the problem and says that he will place an order with the works department. That is a straightforward matter, and one has merely to wait for the works department to sort it out.
However, if the problem is a little unusual, the estate officer consults the technical section of the housing department, which examines the problem. That section refers the problem to the architect's department, which in turn might have to consult external consultants with expertise in that area. All that takes time. Eventually, an order is placed with the works department. That procedure means a great many visits, which span a great many weeks. A number of promises are made, but they are usually not kept. Even when the order has been issued to the works department, there is the problem of different trades being involved. I know of cases in my constituency 953 where one trade installs window frames and another fits the glass. Sometimes people are left for many weeks with window frames with no glass. That sort of catastrophe affects the constituents of many hon. Members.
How will such problems be helped by the approach laid down in clause 21, and the amendments that have been proposed? There are two separate approaches to the problem. The Government believe that the whole operation of repairs should be private from the start. Once the council has approved the repair, the tenant is on his own. He can do the repair himself, bring in a firm to do whatever he wishes. It is a private arrangement. However, it still involves council bureaucracy. The council must still examine the problem, agree that a repair is necessary, decide what sort of repair is involved and what the cost will be so that the tenant knows how much he can spend. The tenant has to find a contractor. The Government's approach does not provide for any approved list of contractors. The tenant can give the work to someone that he has picked out of the advertisements in the weekly paper.
As I said in Committee, it is no part of my case to suggest that the entire building industry is filled from top to bottom with cowboys. To say that would be nonsensical. But we have all experienced a number of cases that suggest that there are some unscrupulous operators in the building industry. I put it no higher than that. We all know of cases where people have done some unpleasant things, often to the elderly, and then rapidly disappeared. There is a propensity in the building industry for firms to disappear as rapidly as they appear.
It is common sense to say that if we give tenants the right to bring in private contractors, there must be some degree of control over the operation. There must be some proof of quality and reliability from the firms which will carry out the repairs to council property.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a valid point when he said that tenants would rather not be involved in all the aggravation and hassle. Tenants take the simple view that they pay for their repairs in their rents and they expect the council to deliver the service for which they are paying. In an ideal world, they would far rather that the council did the job, and did it properly, than that they should have to argue with contractors and deal with all the problems and bother.
We are faced with a choice between the Government's approach to the problem of repairs, which is that it should be tackled privately from the word go, and the official Opposition's approach, which is that the council must try to do the repairs, but if the council falls down on the job the tenant must have a right to bring in an approved private contractor. I prefer the Opposition's approach. I believe that we should put pressure on councils to be efficient and effective. If the local authority knows that if it does not do the job properly the tenant has the right to have the job done by somebody else and charge the council, that will be a pressure wholly for the good.
9.30 pm
It is equally sensible that when a tenant takes tenders for a job the direct labour organisation—if there is one—should be among the tenderers. The direct labour organisation has a great contribution to make so long as it is efficient and effective and is able to stand up in the market place against private enterprise. It is sensible that the direct labour organisation should have to compete 954 against private contractors in the market for such repair work. In passing, I should like to say that although I support the Labour party's approach I should be happier if more Labour authorities operated schemes of that kind rather than seeking to do everything themselves and often doing it rather badly.
Faced with a choice between the totally private operation envisaged in the clause and the provision in the amendment, that if the local authority cannot or will not do the job properly the tenant must have the right to apply pressure, I prefer the second course. I shall therefore support the amendment.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Anyone listening to this debate would assume that the scheme was a Government initiative. I hear from my hon. Friends that the whole reform proposed over the last months with regard to tenants' rights to repairs was promoted by the Opposition, and that the Government took it up at a late date by adding this clause in Committee. I hope that those who follow our proceedings will realise that this was a Labour initiative, based on the views that we have spelt out on many occasions in our policy documents.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) moved amendment No. 68 because, as the House knows, he has great experience of housing management and control in Manchester where he built up a substantial reputation as chairman of the Manchester district housing committee. He brings to the amendment the value of many years of daily involvement in the area of repairs in relation to secure tenancies and properties.
I am not sure how it is possible for the Government to table a clause which refers to the making of a regulation to set up a scheme entitling secure tenants to the rights laid out in the clause without drawing the attention of the House to what that scheme may entail. Hon. Members cannot rationally discuss the Government's proposals without knowing what they intend. Our amendments may be ill founded. The Government may intend to comply with the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment in the scheme when it is published. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether our amendment will form the basis of the scheme that I hope he will put to the House, but there is no guarantee even of that, as it seems that the Government can introduce the regulations without seeking approval of the contents of the scheme in a debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain the procedure that he intends to pursue so that we may be assured that we shall have the opportunity to debate the scheme when it is finally produced.
Lines 10 to 13 refer to the scheme giving entitlement to tenants as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Our amendment seeks to qualify the Government's intention as set out in the Bill by giving the local authority the chance to do the work before a private firm is called in.
Many people in this country—not just those of my political persuasion—may regard local authority repair services in the wider sense and the personnel involved in those services as important services which should be retained. The Government provisions prejudice the possibility of retaining those services where there is a wider responsibility to the community under current local government arrangements. It may be argued that it is in the public interest to maintain a fully occupied and 955 efficient repair service within the local authority to fulfil those wider responsibilities, but the Government are prejudicing that possibility.
Secondly, we wish to ensure that the local authority draws up an approved list so that the wide boys and the cowboys do not have access to repair works that we know are important to many council tenants and sensitive matters to our electorates.
Every day of the week, the London evening papers carry advertisements under general classifications advertising the services of so-called experts in many areas of activity. People who ring the telephone numbers and invite such experts to their properties very often find that those who arrive are cowboys incapable of carrying out the work that they advertise. I was conned on one occasion myself and I do not regard my ability to select as entirely without foundation. If they could pull the wool over my eyes, it is unlikely that many of the tenants who invite these people into their homes will be able to select and reject and to ensure that the people carrying out repairs for them are suitable.
An approved list will at least ensure that local authorities establish and make known to their tenants the people of quality and substance in repair work. Cowboy operators exist in every part of the United Kingdom and often break the law in many ways. They often do not pay national insurance contributions, do not pay their taxes and are subject to no professional disciplines. Consequently, their activities merely prejudice the wider interests of our constituents. An approved list is therefore essential.
Finally, on the right of direct labour organisations to quote, the Government introduced a small measure some weeks ago to reduce the national insurance contribution for private sector companies. In the debate on that, the problems of the Liverpool direct labour organisation were mentioned. There is a feeling in the country that the direct labour organisations in the major cities are being deliberately obstructed by the Government and their activities prejudiced by the Government's dogmatic approach. Refusal by the Government to support our amendment today will be read by those who support the operation of DLOs and recognise their importance in local authorities as a further sign of the Government's prejudice and ideological dogma in relation to those important organisations within local authorities.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorAll Members who have spoken to the amendment this evening—and only Opposition Members have done so—have expressed considerable concern about the ability of council house tenants to exercise their right to have satisfactory repairs to their properties. Those hon. Members who have spoken referred to our debates in Committee and to the Opposition's amendment, which went a great deal further than the Minister's amendment, but was rejected. The amendment contained some of the safeguards that would be necessary if the system of improving the repairs procedure is to be successful in the future. While we are concerned mainly with tenants in the public sector, we should like to see this extended to the private sector. We acknowledge that repair rights exist in public health Acts and in housing Acts generally.
All hon. Members have experience from their constituencies of council house tenants who have been 956 dissatisfied either at the lengh of time it has taken for repairs to be completed or with the quality of the repairs. We all know that, especially at present, many local authorities are under a great deal of financial pressure from the Government and are not able to provide the service to their council house tenants that they would like to provide. The amendment we moved in Committee, which the Minister rejected, was aimed at giving a better deal to all council house tenants, in contrast to the proposal put forward by the Minister in Committee that we are discussing today.
We have five worries about the Government's proposals. First, the Government are giving the appearance of helping council house tenants but that raises a false hope because the Minister's scheme will not be of great assistance to the tenants in need of help. Secondly, under the Minister's scheme, there will be no control over the quality of the repairs made to council properties. Thirdly, the council house tenant will have the work done, will pay for the work and then recover the cost from the local authority. That is unsatisfactory. We all realise that few council house tenants would have the funds readily available to pay for a repair to be done even though afterwards they could recover the money from the local authority.
Fourthly, we are concerned about clause 21(3)(b) which suspends the landlord's obligation under a repairing covenant while any defect is being remedied under this system. In other words, if council tenants have repair problems such as those graphically outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) or of the type described by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), and decide to take advantage of the scheme, any other repair problems that come to light while the first problem is being dealt with by a private contractor will not be dealt with by the authority.
As the Minister's scheme is written, the repair obligations of the landlord are suspended for the time that it takes to settle the repair. That is unsatisfactory and dangerous for the rights of tenants. We are concerned that some local authorities may try to use this part of the scheme as a means of escaping their repair obligations overall by trying to persuade tenants to take on some responsibility for repairs, thereby suspending all the repair obligations that should be covered by the proposed legislation.
9.45 pm
Our fifth concern relates to direct labour organisations. Many of us fear that one of the reasons why the Government are promoting this scheme, which incorporates no controls on the quality of work or on who does the work and does not write DLOs into the scheme, is that they want to continue their attack to undermine DLOs. The Government, in other legislation, have already undermined their position and they intend to continue doing so. In only the past few days they have issued yet another press notice in which they explain how they will continue to turn the screw on DLOs.
The organisations are operating under many artificial constraints. They are expected to make a profit on their trading account of a size that few private building companies are able to achieve. They have to put out work to tender in a completely artificial manner and carry all the costs of that procedure themselves. The Government are deliberately making it difficult for DLOs, in the hope of 957 squeezing them out of existence. That is one of our objections to the Government's approach to the scheme and one of the reasons why we feel that the new clause that we introduced in Committee proposed a much better scheme for local authorities and local authority tenants.
Everyone who has contributed to the debate has agreed that in recent years council house tenants have had a raw deal. Over the past four years rents have risen by almost 120 per cent., and there are more increases due next month as a result of the Government's policy. Rents, as a proportion of the average wage, have increased considerably since the Government have been in office. I understand that 308 of the 367 housing authorities will be making a profit out of their council tenants and a profit on their housing revenue account.
Under this pressure, council house tenants are rightly demanding a better service from local authorities. We want to see them given a better service but we do not want schemes proposed to council tenants that mislead them, such as that which the Government have devised. In reality, their scheme is not an improvement. It fails to give tenants rights that they will be able to exercise. We are concerned that the Government are making promises which, in the end, will be meaningless to tenants and which will not give them the better service which they should have and which they deserve.
If the Bill is enacted with the clause as it stands, many cowboys will move into council house repair. The Minister has done nothing to control the quality of repairs. My hon. Friends have given examples of how cowboys can make many costly mistakes in the private sector. They have explained how cowboys or poor builders have made many building mistakes, which subsequently have been costly to local authorities. Probably we all have examples of cowboys who have operated in the building industry. There are those who have put asphalt floors on rotting wooden floorboards and disappeared before the asphalt has seeped through to create a new problem. The Minister is creating a charter for cowboys. Their work will cause council tenants far more headaches in future. The Government have introduced a sham proposal.
§ Sir George YoungOpposition Members have made enormously heavy weather of a relatively simple proposition that most council tenants could easily understand and which many of them are anxious to have available. What the Government are doing is basically giving tenants a choice. Where a local authority has failed to carry out repairs in time the tenant will have the option of doing the work himself and getting the money back from the local authority. That is a relatively clear proposition which will commend itself to most tenants.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I wonder what happens at her advice bureaux and whether she has the same experience as other hon. Members. On Fridays or on Saturday after Saturday we have a long catalogue of complaints from local authority tenants who have waited day after day for the housing department to put right relatively simple repairs. All we are doing in the Bill is giving tenants the choice to have the work done themselves, if they want to. If they do not want to avail themselves of the opportunity, they need not, and the local authority will have the obligation to put the matter right.
958 Opposition Members are trying to foist on local authority tenants a poor imitation of what the Government have proposed. It is hedged around with all sorts of qualifications that make it virtually worthless.
We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who managed to make a simple subject not just complex but unintelligible. He led us through a whole series of imaginative scenarios involving Georgian exteriors, epoxy resin, fire resistant doors and ventilation blocks, ending up with externalities, which somehow in his view had an enormous bearing on the subject.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and to other hon. Members who have questioned what the Government are doing that what we have suggested is happening. In the London borough of Havering a scheme has been introduced along the lines of the one which the Government propose should be made available nationally. It is intelligible to local authority tenants and to those who work in local authorities. It is saving tens of thousands of pounds for ratepayers in Havering. All the red herrings that have been introduced about inapplicability or complications are rubbish. The scheme actually works. What we are doing is making it available to local authorities throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked how it would operate. I think it would be helpful if he looked at c. 1234 and 1235 of the Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on 24 February, where there is an outline of how it would operate.
The procedure for making the regulations will be under section 151 of the Housing Act 1980 and will be subject to negative resolution.
In amendment No. 68, it is clear that the Opposition are bent on restricting the tenant's right of repair to such an extent that it would become almost useless. Their amendment would build in delaying factors so that repairs might be unattended to for much longer than under the Government's proposal.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Sir George YoungI am not giving way; I must make progress.
Not only is the reasonable time like a piece of elastic, but there could be further delay because of the need to get quotations from tenderers, not least from the direct labour organisation. In any case, where a landlord has failed to perform, tenants already have common law rights. The Opposition amendment adds nothing to those rights.
The Government's proposal is flexible enough to allow tenants to carry out repairs themselves. Of course, there will be limitations on the type of repairs on safety grounds, but the Opposition amendment entirely denies tenants the right to do the work themselves. As the hon. Lady said in Committee:
We think that the tenant should be limited in his choice." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1983:, c. 1241.]They had suggested that the tenant should not be able to do the work himself but should have to go out to tender, with one of the tenderers being the DLO. However, it is because the DLO has not done the work in the first place that the tenant will be interested in doing it to himself. What would happen if the tenant went out to tender and the DLO submitted the lowest tender but still did not do 959 the work? The tenant would be back where he started and he would have wasted two or three weeks. So from the tenant's viewpoint he would be far worse off than under our proposal.On amendment No. 69 I can be slightly more conciliatory. The House will know that we embarked on consultation arrangements with the landlord organisations before we laid the regulations under the Bill. The provisions sought in the amendment will be subject to discussion within the consultation. If we think it useful to provide a requirement along the lines of amendment No. 69, we shall consider whether this can be incorporated in the regulations.
It is worth reminding the House that public sector landlords already have a duty to tell tenants of their repairing obligations, as set out in section 32 of the Housing Act 1961. This explains what landlords' obligations are. Landlords may take on additional obligations in their tenancy agreements.
Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 requires public sector landlords to publish up-to-date information about their secure tenancies in simple terms. Among the information to be supplied is the effect of the landlords' repairing obligations. The discussions that we are having with landlords' associations will lead to certain categories of repairs being excluded from an absolute right for tenants to carry them out themselves. There are obvious cases where safety is a paramount factor. I do not wish to anticipate what the other categories might be.
I accept that the Opposition's proposal for landlords to publish time limits, within which the landlord undertakes to carry out repairs where the absolute right would not apply, might be useful. We shall explore this possibility with the local authority associations. Against that background, I hope that amendment No. 69 will not be pursued.
Amendment No. 68 would be a fraud on tenants. It would not give them the rights that they need and which I think the House is anxious that they should have. I hope that, if amendment No. 68 is pressed to a Division, it will be resisted.
§ Mr. Allan RobertsI thank the Minister for what he has said about amendment No. 69. As the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the intentions of the amendment, the Opposition will not be pressing it to a vote. However, we feel that amendment No. 68 is crucial and that the Minister has failed to understand the necessity for it. Nowhere does clause 21 state that the tenants will have the right to get the repair done where the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time. The clause is a blatant attempt at privatisation. It will enable the private sector to move in, and repairs to be done, whether or not the landlord is running an efficient repair and maintenance service and whether or not the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time.
The Minister blames the direct labour department for any repair that is not adequately carried out by the local authority. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that many local authorities already have their repair services run by private contractors and that private contractors fail to carry out repairs on time. The Sefton metropolitan district council, which covers my constituency, is trying to privatise the repair service. Private contractors fail to 960 carry out the repairs. Tenants in my constituency would love to go to the direct labour department to ask it to tender, to carry out the work and to charge the local authority. In that way, they would be able to get an efficient repair done by a building concern that is concerned about the tenants and about the council houses they are maintaining.
The Minister has failed to understand the concept of programme maintenance. The most efficient way of maintaining council houses and ensuring that the need to carry out many repairs does not arise, with the benefits that this brings to tenants and the local authority, is to operate on a programme basis. The Bill's proposals, if implemented on a widespread basis, destroy any possibility of local authorities planning programme maintenance in an efficient and effective manner for the benefit of tenants.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) not to blame the civil servants for the clause or to claim that they do not know about council properties. It is Ministers who are responsible for the clause. It is blatantly political. Ministers have obviously instructed civil servants, who may or may not understand what council housing is about, to draw up legislation that will privatise the repair and maintenance services of local authorities and hit direct labour departments so that the Government's friends in the private sector can benefit from the public purse. It is all being done in a way which will be detrimental and not beneficial to tenants.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 262.
963| Division No. 100] | [10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | |
| Abse, Leo | Dixon, Donald |
| Allaun, Frank | Dobson, Frank |
| Alton, David | Dormand, Jack |
| Anderson, Donald | Douglas, Dick |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dubs, Alfred |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Dunnett, Jack |
| Ashton, Joe | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Eadie, Alex |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) |
| Beith, A. J. | English, Michael |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Ewing, Harry |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Faulds, Andrew |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Field, Frank |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Flannery, Martin |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Ford, Ben |
| Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) | Foulkes, George |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) |
| Buchan, Norman | Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Freud, Clement |
| Canavan, Dennis | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Cant, R. B. | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Carmichael, Neil | Golding, John |
| Cartwright, John | Graham, Ted |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) |
| Coleman, Donald | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Haynes, Frank |
| Crowther, Stan | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Cryer, Bob | Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Home Robertson, John |
| Davidson, Arthur | Hooley, Frank |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Howell, Rt Hon D. |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Hoyle, Douglas |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) | Huckfield, Les |
| Deakins, Eric | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey) | Roper, John |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| John, Brynmor | Rowlands, Ted |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Ryman, John |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Sever, John |
| Kerr, Russell | Sheerman, Barry |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Lambie, David | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Lamond, James | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
| Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Silverman, Julius |
| Litherland, Robert | Skinner, Dennis |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark) |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Soley, Clive |
| McElhone, Mrs Helen | Spellar, John Francis (B'ham) |
| McKelvey, William | Spriggs, Leslie |
| McTaggart, Robert | Stallard, A. W. |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Stoddart, David |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Strang, Gavin |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Straw, Jack |
| Meacher, Michael | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Tilley, John |
| Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) | Torney, Tom |
| Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
| Newens, Stanley | Wardell, Gareth |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Welsh, Michael |
| Ogden, Eric | White, Frank R. |
| O'Halloran, Michael | White, J. (G'gow Pollok) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Whitlock, William |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Park, George | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Parker, John | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
| Parry, Robert | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton) |
| Penhaligon, David | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
| Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Winnick, David |
| Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Woodall, Alec |
| Richardson, Jo | Wright, Sheila |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | |
| Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Mr. George Morton and |
| Robertson, George | Mr. Ron Leighton. |
| Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) | |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon |
| Alexander, Richard | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Brotherton, Michael |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) |
| Ancram, Michael | Bruce-Gardyne, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Bryan, Sir Paul |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) | Buck, Antony |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Budgen, Nick |
| Banks, Robert | Burden, Sir Frederick |
| Bendall, Vivian | Butcher, John |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Chapman, Sydney |
| Best, Keith | Churchill, W. S. |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Blackburn, John | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Body, Richard | Cockeram, Eric |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Colvin, Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Cope, John |
| Bowden, Andrew | Cormack, Patrick |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Corrie, John |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Costain, Sir Albert |
| Bright, Graham | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Brinton, Tim | Critchley, Julian |
| Crouch, David | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | McCrindle, Robert |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | MacGregor, John |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Durant, Tony | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Eggar, Tim | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Major, John |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marland, Paul |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Mates, Michael |
| Farr, John | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mawby, Ray |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Mellor, David |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Forman, Nigel | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Moate, Roger |
| Gardner, Sir Edward | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Moore, John |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Morgan, Geraint |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Morris, M, (N'hampton S) |
| Gow, Ian | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Gray, Rt Hon Hamish | Mudd, David |
| Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds) | Murphy, Christopher |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Myles, David |
| Grist, Ian | Neale, Gerrard |
| Grylls, Michael | Needham, Richard |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Neubert, Michael |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Newton, Tony |
| Hannam, John | Nott, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
| Hastings, Stephen | Osborn, John |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Parris, Matthew |
| Henderson, Barry | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Hicks, Robert | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Pawsey, James |
| Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Hooson, Tom | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Hordern, Peter | Pollock, Alexander |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) | Porter, Barry |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman | Rathbone, Tim |
| Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Renton, Tim |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Kimball, Sir Marcus | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Rossi, Hugh |
| Knox, David | Rost, Peter |
| Lang, Ian | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
| Latham, Michael | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Lee, John | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shepherd, Richard |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Silvester, Fred |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland) | Sims, Roger |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Loveridge, John | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Luce, Richard | Speed, Keith |
| Speller, Tony | Waddington, David |
| Spence, John | Wakeham, John |
| Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Sproat, Iain | Walker, B. (Perth) |
| Squire, Robin | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Stainton, Keith | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Waller, Gary |
| Stanley, John | Walters, Dennis |
| Steen, Anthony | Ward, John |
| Stevens, Martin | Warren, Kenneth |
| Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) | Watson, John |
| Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) | Wells, Bowen |
| Stokes, John | Wheeler, John |
| Stradling Thomas, J. | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Tapsell, Peter | Whitney, Raymond |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Wickenden, Keith |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
| Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Thompson, Donald | Wolfson, Mark |
| Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Thornton, Malcolm | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Townend, John (Bridlington) | |
| Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| van Straubenzee, Sir W. | Mr. Carol Mather and |
| Viggers, Peter | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.
§ Amendment made: No. 55, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
§
'Heating charges
41B.—(1) In this section—
heating authority" means any of the following, namely a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns or the Development Board for Rural Wales which—
heating charge" means an amount payable to a heating authority in respect of heat so produced and so supplied whether or not, in the case of heat supplied to premises let by the authority, it is payable as part of the rent;
heating costs" means expenses incurred by a heating authority in operating a generating station or other installation for producing heat;
and a secure tenant is one to whom this section applies if a heating authority supplies heat produced at such an installation to the dwelling-house of which he is such a tenant.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies as will secure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for entitling secure tenants to whom this section applies, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, to require the heating authorities concerned—
(4) Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, regulations under this section may provide for any question arising under the regulations to be referred to and determined by the county court.
964
(6) Any reference in this section to heat produced at an installation includes a reference to steam produced from, and air and water heated by, heat so produced'.—[Sir George Young.]