HL Deb 30 January 1984 vol 447 cc453-65

3.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Most of the Bill will be familiar to your Lordships. It is the Bill which came before this House last spring, but was lost at the Dissolution. It extends the right to buy in important new respects; it gives secure tenants valuable new rights; and it introduces a new system of building control.

I shall speak first about Part I of the Bill dealing with the right to buy and tenants' rights. There is certainly no need for me to stress the remarkable success of the Government's right to buy policies. The figures speak for themselves. Between April 1979 and September 1983 some 640,000 tenants in Great Britain bought their homes either under the right to buy or under voluntary sales schemes. The rate of sales is still high. Last September, in England alone, there were some 130,000 applications to buy in the pipeline.

The Government received a massive endorsement of their right to buy policies at the last general election, and the continuing level of sales is very encouraging. Nevertheless, there are still tenants who are unnecessarily denied the right to buy, and there are points in the legislation which have caused unnecessary difficulties for tenants seeking to buy. This Bill will give more tenants the opportunity they seek and remove difficulties which others face.

As I have said, the Bill also deals with tenants' rights. May I remind your Lordships that it was this Government who first introduced the tenants' charter in 1980. This Bill will introduce important new rights, most notably the right to repair.

I shall deal very briefly with the provisions which were in the Bill when it came before your Lordships' House last year and which were then endorsed by your Lordships. Clause 1 extends the right to buy to secure tenants whose landlord does not own the freehold of their dwelling, and who are consequently excluded under the present rules. We estimate that this provision will benefit some 50,000 secure tenants of public sector leasehold property. Clause 2 will extend the right to buy to disabled tenants whose homes have been adapted for their use. This is a welcome change, which my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox initiated last Session.

Clause 3 and Schedule 2 will reduce the qualifying period from three to two years, and increase the maximum discount from 50 to 60 per cent. Tenancies of other public sector bodies will in future count towards right to buy entitlements. Clauses 9 to 11 will give my right honourable friend new powers to assist tenants seeking to exercise their right to buy. Clauses 12 to 17 introduce the new right to shared ownership for tenants who cannot afford to buy outright.

There are other interesting measures which we shall no doubt want to consider in Committee. But for the sake of brevity I now turn to three new provisions introduced since the Bill was last before your Lordships' House. The first is the extension of security of tenure and the right to buy to certain county council tenants. County councils are not housing authorities, and the majority of their lettings are associated with some non-housing functions: accommodation provided for police officers, wardens' and caretakers' housing, and dwellings let on a short-term basis on land held pending development. Counties were excluded from the 1980 legislation for this reason: it would clearly not be appropriate to extend the right to buy to such "operational" tenancies. However, experience since 1980 suggests that there are also a considerable number of county council tenants in dwellings which are no longer required for strictly operational purposes. It is not easy to defend a situation where these tenants are denied security and the right to buy simply because their landlord happens to be a county rather than a district council.

In order to protect councils' interests in housing used for operational purposes, we are proposing to refine the categories of tenancy excluded from security of tenure and the right to buy under the 1980 legislation. The House may want to explore the detail of these changes at Committee stage. Our aim has been to protect from sale those dwellings which are clearly needed by councils in some operational context.

The Bill also proposes changes to the current restrictions on the sale of elderly persons' dwellings. As these will be of particular interest to your Lordships, I should like to say a few words about them. What we are talking about here are not sheltered dwellings—those provided in groups with special facilities, such as a resident warden. That type of accommodation will continue to be excluded from the right to buy. We are talking about bungalows, flats, and so on, which have been provided for elderly people as part of the general housing stock.

The present rule—in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act—is that if the right to buy is to be denied in an individual case the landlord must apply to my right honourable friend, who must make a determination excluding the dwelling from the right to buy if it satisfies a "design" and a "letting" test. This provision was inserted after much discussion, both here and in another place, during the passage of the 1980 Bill.

I should like to give some brief details of how that provision has operated. At the end of November 1983, 2,470 applications had been made in England and Wales under paragraph 5. Of these, some 763 were either out of time or were subsequently withdrawn, and 103 were still under consideration. Of the remainder, 1,448 were rejected as not fulfilling the necessary criteria. The result is that in only 156 cases in some three-and-a-half years has the Secretary of State been satisfied that the paragraph 5 test is met, and the dwelling should be excluded from the right to buy. I might add that it has cost my department some £150,000 a year to administer this provision.

Those figures show that something is clearly wrong. Some of your Lordships may be inclined to suggest that the reason for the very low level of successful applications is a determination on the part of my right honourable friend to interpret (or some might say, perhaps, to misinterpret) paragraph 5 in such a way as to minimise exclusions from the right to buy. There is no evidence to support such a view. Local authorities have access to the best legal advice in matters of this kind. If, in any of the 1,448 cases rejected, they had felt there were good grounds for challenging the Secretary of State's decision, I am sure they would have done so. Yet there has not been a single challenge of a paragraph 5 decision in the courts since 1980.

I believe that the real difficulty is of a different kind. It is that paragraph 5 requires us to make distinctions where none or virtually none really exists. It requires us to identify dwellings "designed or specially adapted" for the elderly. The assumption is that such dwellings can be distinguished from others by the presence of special, and clearly identifiable, physical features. But in fact that is simply not the case. Many bungalows and ground-floor flats are perfectly suitable for the elderly and equally suitable for other categories of tenant, such as childless couples and single people of working age. What one is really talking about is a wide range of small dwelling units which have few distinctive features other than their size.

To go further than that and to try to identify features of special design or adaptation has led us into the most unrewarding inquiries about such details as the locks on bathroom doors, the height of windowsills and working surfaces, the presence of grab-rails in the toilets, and so on. It is absurd that the decision whether or not an elderly tenant has the right to buy should turn on the presence or absence of such features. Yet there is no more objective basis for the decision and, I would argue, no way of refining the present rule in order to produce a more satisfactory test of what constitutes an elderly person's dwelling.

This in itself would be formidable case for change. But there are other reasons, too. We have good evidence that paragraph 5 is misunderstood by many elderly tenants, who are consequently discouraged from exercising their right to buy under the Act even when they do have the right to buy. Even worse, we believe that some local authorities are quite deliberately using paragraph 5 as a basis for unlawfully denying tenants the right to buy, without reference to the Secretary of State. That is a serious allegation. But the statistics show that the vast bulk of applications received under paragraph 5 have been submitted by about one-third of the authorities administering the right to buy. Roughly one-third of authorities have submitted four or less applications, and the remaining third have submitted no applications at all. This dearth or absence of applications from some two-thirds of authorities cannot reasonably be explained away on the grounds that they are all willing sellers of elderly persons' accommodation, or that they have no elderly tenants, or that none of their elderly tenants wants to buy. The only plausible explanation is that there is a widespread practice of denying the right to buy to elderly tenants without following the procedures laid down by Parliament.

We propose, therefore, to repeal paragraph 5. Elderly tenants will in future have the same rights to buy their home as other eligible tenants. However, we are not insensitive to the concerns on this matter, especially as expressed in the past by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others in your Lordships' House. Consequently, we are proposing that, provided the dwelling meets a simplified design and letting test, landlords will be given the right to impose a pre-emption covenant that will enable them to buy back the dwelling if it is resold within 21 years.

Your Lordships will recall that the Government made a similar proposal when the 1980 Bill was before this House, following a suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. It was overtaken by the discussions which produced what is now paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, but I believe experience since 1980 clearly shows that our first thoughts would have provided a better solution than what finally emerged. There is one important difference in our present proposals. Whereas in 1980 we envisaged that the pre-emption right would run for only 10 years, I say again that we now propose that it should run for 21 years.

We believe that this new provision will have great practical benefits. First, it will end the quite extraordinary detailed consideration which has had to be given to individual cases under paragraph 5. That will be a relief both to my department and, I am sure, to the landlord local authorities. Secondly, it will end considerable uncertainty as to whether elderly tenants have the right to buy. In future, it will be quite clear that tenants of non-sheltered housing do have that right if they qualify under the normal rules. I apologise for dealing with this provision at some length. I do so because I know that it is of special interest in your Lordships' House. It is, indeed, an important change which will be welcomed by many elderly people, who have felt they were unfairly denied the right to buy.

This Bill does not contain a clause that would give the tenants of charitable housing associations the right to buy the home they live in, much as I myself, frankly, would have liked to have included it. Your Lordships will, however, be aware of the proposals for a new home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations announced on 21st December. This scheme, in outline, would offer the chance of home ownership to tenants of charitable dwellings provided with housing association grant through a purchase on the open market with a discount similar to what they would have had under the right to buy. For every tenant who was able to take advantage of the scheme, a charitable dwelling would be vacated and become available for re-letting to a person or a family with acute housing needs in line with the objects of the charitable landlord. The scheme would require amendments to the existing powers to pay housing association grant and we propose to bring forward such amendments when the Bill reaches Committee stage in this House. I hope your Lordships will feel able to give them your full support. I can also assure your Lordships that we will not be seeking to reintroduce the old Clause 2 in any form.

I now turn to the proposals strengthening the tenants charter. As your Lordships will recall, this Government have been much concerned about tenants' rights. This Bill adds significantly to the rights now enjoyed by tenants as a direct result of the provisions of the 1980 Housing Act. The principal new provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, are known as the right to repair and the right to information about heating charges. However, before saying more about them, I should like to refer to a further proposed right which is not yet in the Bill. Your Lordships may already be aware that the Department of the Environment issued a consultation letter late last year, with proposals for a tenants' right to exchange their homes. Following consideration of the comments received, the Government intend coming forward with an amendment during Commitee for your Lordships' consideration.

Let me now deal with the right to repair. Clause 25 will empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce a scheme by regulations. Last autumn the department consulted a wide range of bodies representing tenants' and landlords' interests on the Government's preliminary proposals on what the regulations might contain. The responses to that consultation are now being considered. There have been many helpful comments and views expressed not simply by those consulted, but by those in another place. I cannot say when decisions arising from the consultation will be ready; indeed, your Lordships may welcome the opportunity to make your own views known and for them to be taken on board before final decisions are made. In any case, the Government have already expressed their readiness to provide a suitable opportunity for comment on draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament.

I turn now to the other new right contained in the Bill which will be of benefit to more than 200,000 secure tenants. Clause 26 will give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment an enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations who supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods of determining heating charges as will ensure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each tenant is now much more reasonable. The regulations may also provide that tenants could require their supplying authorities to furnish information about costs and charges relating to the provision of heat, and to provide access to the accounts and other supporting documentation. My right honourable friend proposes to issue a consultation paper on the form of the regulations and the timing of their introduction. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these new rights, including the right to exchange, will be widely welcomed by tenants who will thereby have the opportunity to exercise greater control over their homes.

I turn briefly now to Parts II and III of the Bill, which deal with building control. The provisions in the Bill are based on the proposals contained in Command Paper 8179, The Future of Building Control in England and Wales, issued in February 1981, on which there has already been extensive consultation. We are not suggesting that the present system of building control fails to produce safe buildings; indeed, its record is good. But there have been persistent criticisms that the system is unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic, while the building regulations themselves are difficult to understand, constricting and inflexible.

The provisions in the Bill therefore have two main objectives. The first is to enable the construction industry and building professions to achieve greater self-regulation through a system of independent private certification of compliance with the building regulations. This will be a new option available to builders and developers, as an alternative to the existing system of local authority control which, I would stress, will remain available for those who wish to use it.

The Bill sets out a legal framework enabling approved inspectors to supervise building work and to give to the local authority and to the developer a certificate that he has carried out his statutory duties and that he is satisfied that the work meets the requirements of the building regulations. An inspector will have to show, except in the case of certain minor works, that he has no other professional or financial interest in the work; he will also have to produce evidence of satisfactory insurance cover in relation to any work which he supervises. Inspectors will be approved by the Secretary of State or by bodies designated by him, and it will be possible to restrict approval to particular types of building, depending on professional qualification and experience.

The second objective of this part of the Bill is to make it possible to rewrite the building regulations in a quite different form. A major criticism of the present regulations has been that they attempt to convey a mass of technical detail within the constraints of a legal instrument. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State, or a body designated by him with parliamentary approval, to approve documents from any source which provide practical guidance on how to comply with the building regulations. As these documents will be outside the statutory instrument, it will be possible to write them in clear technical style, using diagrams and so on, so that they will be of most practical value to the user of the regulations. Updating them will be simple, and a much greater use of British standard codes of practice and Agrément certificates will be possible. The regulations themselves will be expressed as clear, short, functional requirements. We have consulted extensively on these proposals and they have been widely welcomed. Initially, all the approved documents will be produced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who is seeking, through consultation, to involve a wide spectrum of users in their preparation.

Our proposals for private certification have also been the subject of extensive and detailed consultation. The leading professional institutions are actively co-operating with the department in considering criteria and procedures for approving inspectors; we are continuing our discussions with the insurance industry—which includes the National House-Building Council—on the kind of schemes which the Secretary of State might approve. There will be a further round of informal consultation on the draft regulations relating to the certification system and on the main building regulations, and there will be formal consultation before these new regulations are made.

It is worth emphasising again that these regulations, when they are made, will not compel anyone to adopt private certification. No architect or engineer will be obliged to offer the service if he does not want to do so; no building owner will be obliged to seek out a private inspector to supervise his site if he does not want to do so. The local authority system will continue in operation, and those who find it satisfactory will be free to continue to use it. We are merely widening the choice, and encouraging efficiency by introducing the possibility of competition. In short, we believe that our proposals for private certification will give developers and building owners flexibility, efficiency and convenience.

Most of the contents of this Bill have been endorsed by your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. The changes in the Bill are on issues on which we have received many representations, including those raised in your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will give it a smooth and speedy passage. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bellwin.)

3.29 p.m.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear exposition of the Bill. The noble Lord has saved me the trouble and time of having to go through it clause by clause. After all, we have been here before because the Bill was going through this House when the General Election was called. I am also very conscious of the number of speakers who have their names down to speak today and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who will be speaking very soon.

As regards building control, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton will deal with Part II of the Bill when he winds up for the Opposition. My main concern today is with the alterations imposed on this Bill compared with the first version, which was so rudely interrupted last summer. The trouble with the Government is that if a Bill falls due to some extraneous circumstance, one can be sure that when it comes back it will be even worse. The main changes, and the most contentious, are in the right to buy provisions for the elderly, adapted houses for the disabled in Clause 2 and then the plan for tenants of charitable housing associations, which has yet to be discussed anywhere. In fact, what the Minister has said today are the first words that we have heard on this subject in either House of Parliament.

Let me begin with the elderly. I must confess I was very surprised—because it is not really like the Minister—that he trivialised this issue to such a degree and dealt with it, I thought, extremely lightly and, as I shall show, quite incorrectly. During the passage of the Housing Act 1980, from this Bench I moved an amendment to exempt accommodation which was specially designed for and used by elderly people from being automatically sold under the right to buy legislation. At that point only sheltered housing was exempt. The House accepted the amendment by a considerable majority, which was supported by many noble Lords opposite led by the late Lord Amory, who had great local government and Treasury experience and even greater compassion. He and other noble Lords opposite were quite clear about the importance of reserving the stock of houses for old people; they did not think it was the same as any old house anywhere. They were aware of the importance of having to plan the development of houses for old people, so that they would be near the shops and the buses, and be properly designed. That was accepted.

Three years later, when the first Housing and Building Control Bill reached this House, no attempt had been made to overturn our previous decision, which incidentally was acclaimed by people of all and no political allegiance—local authorities of all parties and voluntary bodies throughout the country. So far, so good. However, on 21st December, 1983, in another place the Government introduced a new clause into the current Housing and Building Control Bill to remove this power of exemption, except for sheltered housing. As it appeared only two days before the Report stage and Third Reading, although opposed by the Opposition and Alliance and although disquiet was expressed by some prominent Tory Back-Benchers, who abstained, there was no effective opportunity for consultation or public debate, as there was in 1980.

The purpose of the successful 1980 amendment was to ensure that property designed for and in the habit of being used by old people did not leave the pool of available accommodation, which was—and still is—in short supply, particularly in rural areas. According to Age Concern, in many places the waiting time for such dwellings is over two years or even longer, and the demand is so great that many elderly never have the opportunity to move in.

The new clause will allow local authorities to reacquire the dwelling on first disposal within 21 years of the right to buy sale. Indeed, this idea was tossed around in 1980, but after careful consideration many of us, including Age Concern and many other organisations, concluded that financial constraints would make it unlikely that local authorities would be able to buy back these properties at market value. Today pressures on local authority finance are even more acute than they were in 1980, and the thought of losing anything up to 200,000 specially designed homes is even more disturbing.

The way in which the Minister disposed of the grab rails and the other toilet facilities, and the importance of ground floor accommodation, quite frankly, shocked me—I was quite amazed. The market value of these homes will also be lost by inheritance where younger relatives, who will often help with the purchase, will live in them or use them for renting as an investment. This change is engendering formidable opposition. Age Concern is firmly opposed and deeply worried. In its submission to the Government, the Association of District Councils says that: the loss of these dwellings from the Local Authorities' stock will inevitably result, in many cases, in their future occupation by younger people to the disadvantage of the elderly as a group". I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would be speaking in this debate, and that he would be supporting his association; but I see that he is not. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities point out that old people's accommodation is used by many people over the years since tenants usually move in only at a late stage in their lives, and that ownership would not necessarily be an advantage for them.

The National Housing and Town Planning Council says that repairing obligations would fall on an elderly purchaser even though he or she may be unable to maintain the property adequately. The right to buy back is a nominal safeguard and the houses will be "effectively lost for ever for those in need". If money were made available for repurchase, other capital schemes could not be undertaken; but, as the Institute of Housing point out, there is no indication in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the Government will make extra resources available. During the passage of the 1980 Act and after our amendment, which was perfectly clear, had gone to the other place the Secretary of State in another place ensured that all appeals against exemption would be referred to him; and 93 per cent. of the submissions for exemption by local authorities were turned down. It is no good the Minister saying that that is not what the Secretary of State intended. He told me himself that that was exactly what he intended. He said so and I am quite sure that he would not deny it now.

However, as the number of submissions was low, that is an even stronger reason, and not a weaker reason, for not scrapping the existing arrangements, but to bring decisions more in line with the spirit of what was agreed in this House during the passage of the 1980 Act. I think it shows that the majority of old people in these houses have not exercised any wish to buy them; they are quite satisfied with their present situation.

The increase in the number of elderly and very old due to advances in medical science provides additional reasons why this proposal should be strongly resisted. This is not a party political issue, but a question of reality. In 1980 this House recognised that the pre-eminent right of the elderly was the right to decent housing and the opportunity to lead an independent life. The difference between living in a house that has been specially designed for use by the elderly and living somewhere else can make all the difference between being housebound and being able to be an independent person standing on one's own feet or having one's own car. We have a duty to reassert that position during the passage of this Bill, for what has happened shows a staggering disregard and contempt for this House as a serious and hardworking revising Chamber—a Chamber which has a very high proportion of men and women of great expertise, experience and independence of mind.

As The Times leader said on 23rd December: There remains doubt over whether the Government has thought through the consequences of declaring that accommodation for the elderly belongs to the general stock. One consequence must surely be a reluctance on the part of councils to continue what in many areas has been good work in building imaginative units useful for elderly occupants, but not to be classified as 'sheltered' (that is, where a warden is resident) and so exempt from purchase. Another would be the loss of dwellings containing specialised equipment if, as Mr. Gow said he intended, elderly tenants buy and are succeeded by able-bodied inheritors. For councils then to purchase these dwellings would involve a substantial loss of public money and an unwarranted capital gift to undeserving beneficiaries of the tenant's estate. The Housing and Building Control Bill has not had a happy provenance. Before the election the House of Lords threw out a key clause on the right of tenants of charitable housing associations. Since then the Government has slipped in important changes at obscure stages. Now it goes to the Lords again, and again it deserves a thorough examination. The duties and responsibilities of local authorities to provide housing for the elderly are of long standing. It is a role in which Mr. Gow himself has encouraged them. There are strong reasons for public finance and social need for the Lords to consider very carefully this week's amendment extending an otherwise sound principle to a special and vulnerable group". I think that that says it all.

Now may I turn to the disabled. The proposals for extending the right to buy properties especially adapted for the disabled are different from the proposals for the elderly persons' accommodation, because they cover houses adapted for the disabled but not purpose-built. Clearly there are those who feel that the present procedure discriminates against disabled tenants, or tenants with disabled relatives. It does, and I understand how they feel. But the acid test is whether this proposal is in the interests of disabled people both now and in the future rather than of those currently in specially adapted houses.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the wider interests of the disabled require us to oppose this extension of the right to buy. Let me explain why. The Government argue that adaptations are often of a minor nature. That is true. But I am not talking about the exclusion of tenants from the right to buy because of a ramp or a couple of handrails which have been added costing perhaps a comparatively small amount of money. Our concern is where thousands of pounds have been spent to make properties fit for the disabled which would then be bought and eventually sold to those who have no disablement problem.

The National Housing and Town Planning Council have collected a number of random samples of such large-scale expenditure. May I quote just one which comes from Aylesbury Vale District Council in Buckinghamshire. A downstairs bedroom and bathroom with toilet facilities were provided, together with central heating, a carport and widened doors for wheelchair access. The accommodation was for a 19 year-old man who had suffered a spinal injury in a motor accident. Permanently paralysed from the waist down, he is restricted to a wheelchair. He and his mother are the sole occupants of the two-bedroomed house built around the late 1950s. Too small to afford any extra accommodation with the existing structure, an extension was obviously necessary. The cost was in the region of £15,000. Although specifically adapted for this disabled man, it is now suitable for another person in a wheelchair or a family with one member chairbound. There are other similar examples I could quote.

The housing and construction statistics show that in England, for the financial years 1980 to 1982, total adaptations were 19,100, while purpose-built houses—that is, what is known as wheelchair accommodation—were 790. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation estimate that 10 per cent. of adaptations are major; that is to say, there would be a ratio of three major adaptations to one purpose-built dwelling. The ratio of adaptations is on the increase, and in 1982–83 adaptations were 13,700 compared with 290 purpose-built, which would bring a ratio of nearly 5 to 1.

I would also point out that there is a long waiting list for purpose-built houses. Remove these houses from the pool and the chances are that they will eventually be sold to the able-bodied, and they cannot easily be replaced since it takes three houses or more sold to build one new house. I am not now talking about extra adaptations. If there were not a desperate housing shortage then, once the right to buy has been given to other tenants, the elderly and disabled should naturally have the same right but unfortunately that is not the housing situation now, nor will it be in the foreseeable future. Properties substantially adapted will sell easily because most of the adaptations involve extensions, heating and installing extra lavatories and bathrooms. Anyone not disabled could live comfortably with these adaptations because they have generous standards of space and a high level of facilities. For example, if you take out a dialysis machine you have an extra room. Such a house would sell easily on the open market.

What I believe is required is not necessarily the deletion of this paragraph but an amendment which will exclude major, expensive adaptations from the right to buy so that these dwellings continue to be used by disabled people and by future generations of the disabled when they become empty. In this House we have to take a rather wider and longer-term view, and think of what is happening now and will happen in the future, and understand it in the context of the present housing situation.

Now I turn to the charity housing situation. Less than a year ago Members of this House rejected by a majority of two to one a Government proposal to extend the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. It was an amendment which was all-party. This proposal had been vehemently opposed by the National Federation of Housing Associations and all those bodies which represent housing organisations.

While the Government accepted their defeat and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was the Minister at the time, agreed not to reintroduce it here or in another place, I am afraid they never give up. The idea now is to compensate tenants for the loss of the right to buy. It appears that in this House we shall be presented with an amendment to the Bill that will give some housing association tenants cash equivalent to the discount they would have received under the right to buy. The proposal was not considered in another place but was set out in a Written Answer and in a press release just before Christmas. No precise proposals were provided, and I am sorry that the Minister has done little to rectify those today except to say that an amendment is going to come before us.

The grant for housing association tenants is to come out of housing association grant, and at least 100,000 tenants are eligible. Virtually everyone in London would get a minimum of £10,000 as a discount, and many will have the maximum £25,000; so many people will naturally apply for this. Why not? One cannot blame them. It will probably not only eat up the monies for shared ownership (which already exists and is fairer and cheaper for the housing associations) but could even extend to the fair rent apportionment.

The advantages of housing association tenants over council tenants will be enormous in terms of mobility, and even greater over normal open-market, first-time buyers. The effect will be to put up prices at the bottom end of the market. Someone who qualifies for the full £25,000 handout will be able to purchase outside London and actually pay less in mortgage repayments than the fair rent he was paying as a tenant. This will have the further effect of creating an enormous demand for housing association tenancies, and we may see trading taking place for these tenancies. Families, perhaps overcrowded in their present house, could be moved from council accommodation and use their resident qualification as council tenants to claim immediately the cash discount. In theory the same house could be used by council tenants to claim these handouts every day of the year. You would certainly have there a very mobile population.

This extra money will not be channelled into new house building but will simply be sloshing around the property market, artificially inflating prices. Yet Government funding for housing associations is to be cut next year by 8 per cent. as a result of public expenditure reductions, when after the Chancellor's statement last autumn £500 million was taken out of housing. The National Federation is anxious that the sums available for producing new homes—both through rehabilitating old property and through construction of sheltered housing, hostels, et cetera—should not be diminished in order to make grants to the more affluent tenants. "We are optimistic that Ministers will give assurances on this score", they say. Well, are they going to? Would the Minister, when he replies, like to answer that? Is more money becoming available? If so, is it then coming off, as it seems to me it will have to, the general housing budget? This would be disgraceful, the number of houses in the public sector being at the moment lamentably low anyhow. But we still do not know about this.

There are many other matters which need to be taken up and which I am sure will be by other speakers and in Committee. For example, the tenant's right to repairs. While there is much to be said for the principle, the details are the real guts of the scheme, and it is those details which will be made by regulation. Although there has been a consultation paper issued and the responses have come in, we have not yet seen the draft regulations. I would remind the House that the housing benefit scheme was enshrined in regulations—and what a disaster that has proved! It is not good enough to do this without giving Parliament a chance to consider it before legislation goes through. I hope that the Minister will enable us to discuss this at Committee stage.

Finally, nothing in this Bill will reduce unemployment in the construction industry. Nothing will add more houses to our lamentably low stock. In fact, the stocks will be further depleted if the Bill goes through unamended. Nothing will help to improve housing in this essential part of our infrastructure, as was so eloquently spelled out by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in the debate on infrastructure on 18th January, at columns 155–6. The only area where the Government have unfortunately achieved a record is in homelessness. Local authorities had to house over 70,000 homeless households last year—the highest ever level recorded in England.

In the past this House has shown compassion and a realistic approach to the problems of age, disability and poverty. The House of Lords now has the responsibility, once again—and it all rests now with us because of the huge majority in the Commons and the way legislation is whisked through there—to show that it is alive, vigorous and in fighting mood, and will not be treated by the Government as though it is legislatively defunct.