Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 26 March 1996 vol 570 cc1650-94

House again in Committee on Clause 33.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 52: Page 20, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) make provision for the deduction of—

1. (i) the gross amount of any sums paid as interest (including interest on a mortgage) in respect of which relief is given under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("the Taxes Act") in respect of a loan to the person, his spouse or partner;
2. (ii) half of the gross amount of any premium payable under a policy of life insurance in respect of which relief is given under section 266 of the Taxes Act (life policy and certain other premiums) in the relevant year; and
3. (iii) the gross amount of any other premium or sum in respect of which relief is given under sections 266, 273, 619 or 639 of the Taxes Act in the relevant year;

from the gross income of the person or his spouse or partner for the purposes of determining income under this section.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 52, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 59 and 60.

The purpose of Amendment No. 52 is to ensure that the means test calculation, in which we are now engaged, takes into account mortgage interest payments and payments of other sums on which relief is given under the income tax Acts. The amendment requires the deduction of mortgage interest payments and other tax deductible expenses from the calculation of an applicant's income for means test purposes. We believe that this is a fair assessment of income that is realistically available to fund repairs to private housing, as it applies the means test only to that part of the applicant's income that is genuinely disposable, that is, surplus to the essential expenses of a householder.

Amendment No. 54 is a government amendment. Therefore, I will wait to hear what the Government say about it.

Amendment No. 55 is intended to ensure that the means test for the main grants is uprated by the same amount and at the same time as corresponding changes to the housing benefit regulations. The amendment will prevent any delay in uprating the means test for grant purposes to reflect changes in the housing benefit regulations and in particular increases in allowances and premiums to reflect inflation.

Amendment No. 59 is a government amendment. I will wait to hear what the noble Lord has to say about it.

Amendment No. 60 is designed to ensure that local authorities have the power to use the means test for renovation grant for landlords where that is considered appropriate. Clause 34 provides that the determination of the amount of grant to be paid in relation to a landlord's application will be determined by the local authority having regard to such matters as the Secretary of State may direct. It is unclear how the Secretary of State intends to use his powers under that clause. Although officials have stated that the intention is to allow local authorities complete discretion, the amendment seeks to put it beyond doubt in one important respect. I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Lucas

I hope that I may be able to enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to some extent at least on the government amendments. Amendment No. 52, moved by the noble Lord, would require an applicant's mortgage interest and other tax deductible payments to be disregarded in the means test regulations made under this clause. Our view is that the amount of mortgage an individual takes out, or the amount he pays towards life insurance and other premiums for which he can reclaim tax paid, is a matter of personal choice, and as such we see no case for those amounts to feature in the renovation grant means test.

To make such provision would, in our view, encourage individuals to take out larger commitments because, to do so would result in a higher level of grant. Similarly, I do not see why the amount of life insurance individuals pay, as opposed to their other outgoings, should have a bearing on the amount they receive.

We do not ignore housing costs in the means test, and we believe that the existing system under which allowances are made for the needs of the household, some of which take account of a person's disability or old age, is fairer as it treats all applicants in the same way. That ensures that they receive grant at a similar level.

The two government amendments (Amendments Nos. 54 and 59) provide for regulations under Clauses 33 and 34 to make provision enabling local authorities to obtain information from third parties in connection with determining grant applications by owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords under Chapter 1.

The current regulations for means testing owner-occupiers and tenants replicate to a large extent, the regulations for housing benefit. However, there is no power in Part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 enabling the Secretary of State to obtain or verify information supplied in support of applications for grant.

Those amendments would help to streamline the application process by enabling authorities quickly to obtain or check the details of applicants' circumstances rather than having to ask the applicant to get such details from a third party. These powers would also enable authorities to make checks in certain cases for the purposes of detecting fraud or other abuse of the system.

The noble Lord's Amendment No. 55, which would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual uprating order increasing the allowances and premiums covered in the test, is unnecessary and would be restrictive where flexibility is required. The Secretary of State makes provision each year to uprate those figures in line with increases made in the regulations governing housing benefit upon which the means test is based.

That uprating is normally carried out in April each year to coincide with changes to those regulations and is made through regulations to amend these amounts. However, it is normal practice for these regulations to include a wide range of other changes to the grants means test to maintain consistency with the provisions for housing benefit which is subject to constant change.

The power in Clause 33 provides a suitable method for the annual uprating of those amounts while providing the flexibility to include in the regulations other necessary changes, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary.

The noble Lord's last amendment in this group (Amendment No. 60) seeks to provide for landlords to be means tested in the same way as owner-occupiers and tenants. The present test of resources for landlords is widely regarded as deficient because it takes no account at all of the true wealth of a landlord, including the income he receives from other properties let. It therefore fails to meet the principal objective of the test, which is to distinguish between wealthy and less wealthy landlords.

There is, however, no simple way of distinguishing in the legislation between those landlords deserving of grant and those operating as a business for whom the cost of repairs and improvements to their properties should be part of the normal overheads of the business.

It is important also that any test designed to look at the wealth of a landlord, which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve, should offer the scope or protection needed to prevent a landlord from disguising his true assets. We believe that that cannot be prescribed so as to take account of all the various circumstances and arrangements entered into for the purpose of securing maximum grant.

We have therefore concluded that the current statutory provisions for determining grant to landlords should be removed and that local authorities should be given discretionary powers to determine the level of grant in each case as well as whether grant should be given at all. Local authorities are best placed to make such judgments based on local knowledge of landlords in their area. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. When the time comes, I shall move ours.

Lord Monkswell

I wonder whether I could query the Minister's response to the first amendment in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I must apologise to the Committee. I should declare an interest as someone who has submitted an application for a home improvement grant. I should have registered that interest on the Floor of the Chamber at the beginning of this Committee stage.

Perhaps I may return to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 52. He suggested that the reason for not including mortgage interest payments in the means assessment is that it would encourage people to over-extend themselves or take out a large mortgage on a property and then obtain benefit from a home improvement grant.

Perhaps we can consider two cases. The first is where a person may not have a large amount of capital and therefore has to take out a mortgage to buy a property. The second is where a person has sufficient capital not to require a mortgage. Those two people have the same income. Effectively what the Government are saying is that the home improvement grant will be granted to the person with the greatest capital and least mortgage and not to the person with the high mortgage and less capital. Is that what the Government wish to see?

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out certain discrepancies in the Government's position. The wording of the items to be deducted in Amendment No. 52 is taken from the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 regarding the assessment of parental contributions towards a student grant. The amendment would therefore align the means test for housing grants with that for education grants. The amendment would also align the housing grant means test with income support regulations which still recognise that on a long-term basis mortgage interest payments are part of a household's essential expenditure. If those are regarded as part of essential expenditure in education (student grants) and income support, why not in the Bill?

Lord Lucas

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, my understanding is that we take full account of capital in terms of the interest obtained upon it. However, I am conscious that the questions that he and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked take me beyond my brief in terms of the intricacies of this and other related means tests. If noble Lords will allow, I should prefer to reply to them in detail after this debate rather than further to take up the Committee's time by running backwards and forwards to try to find the right answer to satisfy a perspicacious and knowledgeable team opposite.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, as always. Perhaps he will look at the matter in the light of what I have said and the expert evidence which I have in front of me. I look forward to government amendments, perhaps on Report, or, if necessary, a letter. I always like receiving letters from the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 53: Page 20, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) In the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant regulations must, in particular—

1. (a) make provision for account to be taken only of the income and assets of the disabled occupant himself and his parents if he is living with them and he is under 18; and
2. (b) make provision for account to be taken of the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant himself and any person who is dependent on him, including the additional costs incurred because of having a disability.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities take into account only the income of the disabled occupant and his parents if he is under 18 and living with them when considering a disabled facilities grant. It is also intended to ensure that local authorities take into account the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant and any person who is dependent on him.

Disabled facilities grants are intended to benefit disabled people and to facilitate their use of their home, allowing them to live as independently as possible. In many cases, that reduces the need for personal assistance and reduces the cost of care. Works carried out on the home for the disabled occupant are not for the benefit of other members of the disabled person's household. The legislation states that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant. The requirement that the income of other non-disabled people living in the same home should be taken into account when assessing eligibility for the grant is unjust. It implies that the other non-disabled people living in the same home should contribute from their income to the cost of the works when those works are not for their benefit.

The original consultation document, issued in July last year by the Department of the Environment and entitled The Future of Private Housing Renewals Programmes, suggested a change to the means tests. It stated that as regards the mandatory disabled facilities grants only the means of the disabled applicant (and parents in the case of those under 18) will be taken into account and that the means of spouses and partners will be taken into account. That is clearly different from proposals in the Bill which allow for regulations to take account of the income of the disabled occupant's spouse, any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him.

The current proposals could lead to the income of anyone living in the household being taken into account, including lodgers, friends, relatives and parents of disabled adults or children who have an income. Clearly, that is against the intention of the consultation paper. I understand that recently RADAR was contacted by a family in which the adult son had become a wheelchair user following an accident. He had moved in with his parents as he could not live independently but their home required adapting. His father's income was taken into account for the means test and, because the contribution was high, the family could not afford the adaptations and they were unlikely to be undertaken.

To include a requirement of financial responsibility of partners, parents or others living in the home is unjust and discriminatory. It places an unequal financial responsibility by virtue of relationship to, or simply living under the same roof as, a disabled person. It is important that only the income of the disabled person is included in any grant calculations and that remit of the regulations is limited in the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has argued the case most cogently. The test is: who benefits from the adaptations which might be carried out? If the sole beneficiary is the disabled person, as is almost certainly the case in the instances mentioned, it is not right that the income of other persons in the household should be taken into account. The changes are being made only to help one person; that is the disabled person.

The amendment is also intended to ensure that all the needs and outgoings of the disabled occupant and of any person dependent on him are taken into account in making the assessment as regards the costs which must be incurred. The amendment is sensible and modest and I fully support it.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Lucas

I have sympathy with the intention of the first part of my noble friend's amendment. As I stated, we have announced proposals for relaxing the means test for mandatory grant and shall therefore give consideration to the detailed operation of the means test when we come to prepare the regulations later in the year.

As regards the second part of the amendment, I do not believe that we should restrict the regulations in the way proposed. The amendment provides that a disabled person's outgoings shall be taken into account in addition to his needs. However, the amount of the person's outgoings is to some extent a matter of personal choice. As such, we see no case for those amounts to feature in the means test. However, the means test does not ignore the fact that there are demands on a person's income. Therefore, we propose to continue to provide in the regulations for the award of various personal allowances and premiums. Those are made in recognition of the demands on household income and also take into account the fact that a person is disabled. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Swinfen

I am not entirely reassured by my noble friend's answer. However, I shall read carefully what he said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage of the Bill.

As regards outgoings, often disabled people have considerable expenses which are incurred purely because of their disability. My noble friend shrugs his shoulders. If he is to take part in the Bill dealing with disability he ought to learn a little about it. Considerable costs are often incurred as a result of disability; for instance, additional costs of transport, special clothing, heating and sometimes lighting. There are all kinds of items. I am sure that my noble friend did not mean to denigrate what I was saying in respect of additional costs for disabled people. He shakes his head and I take that as reassurance. However, those costs must be properly considered.

I do not intend to press the amendment tonight but I wish to consider what my noble friend said and his reaction to what I said. I may come back at a later stage—

Baroness Hamwee

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, will he consider relating the outgoings more explicitly to needs? As the second paragraph of his amendment is drawn, the outgoings could be wide and I suspect that that is not what is intended. I had not read the proposal in that light until the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, interpreted it more widely. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, may care to relate the terms more closely in a later amendment.

Lord Lucas

I echo what the noble Baroness says. I hope that that was the burden of what I said to my noble friend. I wish to reassure him that the twitch of my shoulders was merely a twitch and nothing to do with what he was saying.

Lord Swinfen

Of course, the outgoings are not intended to take account of a champagne and caviar lifestyle. They are intended to take account of the genuine needs caused by a person's disability. If my amendment needs redrafting I shall be happy to take that on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 54: Page 20, line 10, at end insert— ("( ) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Determination of amount of grant in case of landlord's application]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 56: Page 20, line 18, leave out ("an owner's") and insert ("a landlord's").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. These two government amendments are drafting amendments intended to clarify the provisions of Clause 34 relating to the determination of grants to landlords. The amendments distinguish landlords' applications for disabled facilities grants from an owner-occupier's application and correct an error made at the drafting stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 57: Page 20, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to a landlord's application for a disabled facilities grant is to an owner's application in respect of works to a dwelling which is or is intended to be let, or to the common parts of a building in which a flat is or is intended to be let.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59: Page 20, leave out lines 23 to 25. Page 20, line 35, at end insert— ("( ) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Power to specify maximum amount of grant]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 61: Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("except for a grant in respect of the purposes in section 24(1) (mandatory disabled facilities grant).").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. The purpose of these two amendments is to remove the ceiling on the maximum amount of a disabled facilities grant in order to allow grants for the full amount for disabled people who require considerable adaptations to allow them to continue living in their own homes.

Disabled facilities grants are the main source of funding for disabled people who require adaptations to enable them to continue in their own homes. The majority—that is, 60 per cent. or thereabouts—of disabled facilities grants are awarded to owner-occupiers but council and private tenants are also eligible for those grants. The grants are means-tested and there is a limit on the grant.

In 1993 I understand that over £70 million was spent through local authorities on provision of disabled facilities grants with the average grant being £3,700. It becomes apparent that the grants are enabling a very large number of disabled people to continue to live in their own homes. A very small number of those grants are for amounts of £20,000, which is the current upper limit. In 1993, that was about 2 per cent.

However, those grants are for people who require considerable adaptations to continue to live in their own homes. In some areas, social service authorities provide some help with meeting costs over £20,000 but that support is patchy and often authorities offer only a loan. The people who require those larger disabled facilities grants are a very small group for whom the assessment procedure has clearly indicated that they require those adaptations and that there are no other alternatives. Therefore, the disabled facilities grant system should support fully those people and meet all the costs.

The proposed provision of discretionary grants above a certain limit is not satisfactory as that again will lead to different decisions in different areas and a variable decision for disabled people. Very few authorities award discretionary grants and that would leave a small group of disabled people who cannot meet the additional costs and are therefore unable to live in their own homes. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

Earlier today the Minister chided me for not having enough confidence in the ability of local authorities to exercise their discretion in a sensible manner. I hope that he will therefore be very sympathetic to this particular amendment because we are saying in this amendment that there should be no constraint on local authorities' ability to assess what grant should be paid under the heading of a disabled facilities grant. If the amendment is passed, a local authority will be able to exercise fully its discretion.

As the Bill stands, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether he wishes to make an order specifying a maximum amount. We do not know what that is to be. Therefore, it seems to me that the choice is between allowing the Secretary of State to set a maximum or allowing a local authority to decide what is appropriate in terms of the needs of a disabled person. I hope that the Minister will think again and decide in favour of local authorities exercising their discretion in the interests of disabled people.

Lord Lucas

And so I will, by proposing that the Bill stays exactly as it is. My noble friend's amendment would remove the discretion from local authorities and make the grants mandatory whereas the current position is that grants over £20,000 are discretionary, and in those cases the decisions are for the local authorities.

Statistics gathered from local housing authorities have shown that the adaptations needed by most disabled applicants can be carried out well within the current limit, with the average grant around £4,000, well below the present limit on mandatory disabled facilities grant. For the comfort of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I can say that it is not intended that any lesser amount should be specified in an order under this clause.

I accept that most adaptations needed to the home of a disabled person are unlikely to add to the value of the property and the statistics show that it should be possible for those adaptations to be carried out within the grant limit.

However, I recognise that there will be cases where more extensive works are essential for the disabled person to remain living in his home or to enable him to move into the home of relatives, who will provide the care he needs. That is why subsection (3), which Amendment No. 62 seeks to remove, provides for the order to allow an amount additional to the grant limit to be paid, where the local authority considers that appropriate.

Grant resources, unfortunately, are finite. A great many adaptations at the average grant of £4,000 could be carried out for the cost of just a few grants in excess of the proposed limit. Therefore, it is necessary to think very carefully about the benefits of carrying out such works and whether there is any other way of meeting the disabled person's needs for a lesser amount.

Local housing authorities must have discretion to consider, together with social services departments, whether the works proposed in the grant application are necessarily the only or even the best option available to meet the needs of the disabled person. That means that the local authority must also have the power to exceed the limit where it is satisfied that that is necessary.

Our proposals give the applicant a full mandatory entitlement to assistance, yet retain some control on the level of grant with the local housing and social services authority. We believe that local authorities will be well able to exercise their discretion to make sure that those disabled people who really need grants in excess of £20,000 are able to access the necessary funds. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monkswell

Perhaps I may press the Minister further as regards his explanation. It seems to me that, given the small percentage of grant applications which would be over the £20,000 limit, the department should have some information about those grants. What is the general reason for grant applications of that order of magnitude? Is it because people living in stately homes require facilities to be able to get to the gun room or the east wing or the west wing and so on; or is it because the disability of the applicant is so severe and special that he needs special and expensive provision?

If the latter is the case, it may be that if the grant is not forthcoming, that disabled person will fall to be supported by public funds in some other way, perhaps as a chronic invalid in hospital needing some form of high-intensive care. That might cost the state quite a lot more than making the necessary adaptations to his home and may well cost more than £20,000.

I appreciate that the Minister may not have thought of that particular angle, but I am sure that the department and his officials will have some information regarding those very large sums of money which are being applied for. If he does not have the information this evening, perhaps he will provide those of us who have contributed to the debate with that information before Report stage.

9 p.m.

Lord Lucas

If I can, I shall certainly provide the noble Lord with that information. However, I am clear that it applies where individuals have particular needs which are expensive to meet but which need to be met. We are confident that local authorities can be trusted with the discretion that we believe they should have to deal with those particularly expensive cases in the best way. That is why we support the Bill as it is and not my noble friend's amendments.

Lord Monkswell

Perhaps I may suggest that, if there is a choice between the local authority exercising discretion and spending more money than the £20,000 and the local health authority providing the facilities to enable the disabled person to carry on his or her existence, then, bearing in mind the local authority's fiduciary duty to council tax payers, it might quite reasonably take the view that the health authority should pick up the tab rather than the local authority.

Lord Lucas

That is not our experience of local authorities.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. If it is found to be necessary to build on an extension to a home to provide either a room in which to sleep at the entrance level or a room with a bath or shower and washhand basin and a lavatory, the building cost could quite easily run over £20,000; indeed, there is no great difficulty in that respect. However, that will not happen in many cases.

I believe that my noble friend should look most carefully at the comparison regarding the expenditure of providing adaptations and the cost of keeping a disabled person in a residential home; or, indeed, in hospital. If a person has to be kept in a residential home rather than in his home, then someone else will probably have to be kept in hospital rather than in the residential home. That is even more expensive. However, I shall consider my noble friend's response and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Decision and notification]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 63: Page 21, line 41, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").

The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. The purpose of the amendments is to give a local housing authority up to three months rather than the proposed six months to notify an applicant for grant as to whether the application has been approved or refused. Adaptations are often vital to enable many disabled people to remain living in their own homes. The main route to them is through the disabled facilities grant system. Without accessible housing, neither community care nor independent living for disabled people is possible. The provision of suitable accommodation is of central importance.

The present system of DFGs has some serious drawbacks. One of the most frequently encountered problems is the long delay in obtaining agreement for the grant and then further delays while the work is undertaken. Local housing authorities currently have up to six months to decide whether to approve or refuse an application. In many cases it is normal practice routinely to take the full six months. The work itself then has to be arranged and can take some time to complete. Delays of a year from requesting an assessment to work starting are very common. That delay presents serious problems for disabled people who do not have accessible accommodation.

In particular, such delays have a most serious effect on people waiting to be discharged from hospital who require work to their accommodation before they can do so. Those individuals can be left for long periods of time in hospital when there is no need for it. It is not only frustrating for such people and their families but is also an inappropriate use of hospital beds and most expensive.

For people awaiting adaptations who are living in inaccessible accommodation, the delays also present problems. Many people will not be able to get in and out of their homes or will not have access to lavatories or bathrooms. In some cases they will he living in unsafe situations. That will often lead to increased care requirements, including support from social services.

The additional costs of someone waiting in hospital for a disabled facilities grant to be agreed and adaptations undertaken are immense. For example, Department of Health statistics for the cost of a geriatric bed—such beds are very often used by severely physically disabled people—show a cost of £791 and a few pence per week. That means that, if the person remains in hospital only because his or her accommodation requires adaptations and he or she is waiting for a disabled facilities grant application under the current system, it will cost £20,577 to keep that person in hospital while the application is processed. By reducing from six to three months the time that local authorities can take to process such applications, there would be a saving in excess of £10,000.

Although it is not possible to remove all the waiting time for disabled facilities grants, the period should at least be kept to a minimum. A time of three months should be more than adequate for any local housing authority to agree an application. Some local authorities which currently try to minimise delays decide on DFGs within weeks rather than months. Ensuring that the local housing authority decision is taken within a reasonable time cuts down considerably on the delays and has a tremendous effect on the speed with which the adaptations can be undertaken, thus greatly benefiting the disabled person requiring accessible accommodation. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

When legislation refers to a period "not later than six months", there is a danger that a local authority will consider the provision and that six months will become the norm rather than an exceptionally long period.

There seem to be two arguments as to why one should keep to a minimum the length of time that people have to wait. First, when a person has to face disability—the condition may become worse fairly rapidly—it is surely right that he should have the benefit of having any improvements or changes to his home carried out as quickly as possible. Otherwise the situation for a disabled person may become well nigh intolerable.

Secondly, money might be saved, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made clear, if such improvements were carried out quickly; otherwise the disabled person might have to stay longer in hospital or in some other form of care—a fairly costly business. In many instances, if the disabled person can resume living in his or her home as quickly as possible, the net benefit may well be significant.

Faced with those compelling arguments, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments sympathetically.

Lord Swinfen

Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may add this. Inadvertently I did not speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which are grouped with Amendment No. 63. The two amendments place a duty on local authorities to commence payment of a grant immediately upon completion of the works, and remove the delay of 12 months proposed for the payment of disabled facilities grants.

Adaptations can commonly take up to three years from the date of application to be completed. There may be delays in assessment and processing of grant applications followed by lengthy building works. Any further delay caused by allowing local authorities to delay payment for 12 months from the date of application will exacerbate an already intolerable situation for disabled people and their carers.

Lord Lucas

I am sad to say that we disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on Amendment No. 63. We believe that in the worst cases a local authority could quite reasonably require six months to decide on an application. The Bill places a duty on authorities to notify an applicant of their determination as soon as reasonably practicable. The period of six months is, therefore, the maximum amount of time allowed. It should not be the norm. As my noble friend pointed out, it is often by no means the norm.

Under the new system, with the pressures off the remainder of the monetary grant system, we believe that there is no reason why most applications should be delayed anything like as long as six months.

Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would require authorities to pay grant or, if instalments have been paid, the balance, immediately after the completion of the eligible works. As regards the payment of grant generally, we believe that authorities must have some flexibility over this, and Clause 38 as drafted gives them that flexibility. My noble friend's amendments would mean that authorities' ability to manage their financial resources would be greatly reduced, and I must make it clear that we do not wish to go down that road. There are also practical implications to the introduction of the term "immediately" which I am sure my noble friend will appreciate if he allows his imagination to run on for a while.

I appreciate that what I have said is not particularly encouraging to my noble friend. Nonetheless, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monkswell

I did not intervene when the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was speaking to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 because I had the nave presumption that the Government would accept them. I am absolutely amazed to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In effect, we are hearing the Heseltine syndrome from the Government. Noble Lords will remember an amazing recent public fuss when it transpired that in his youth the right honourable Mr. Heseltine had made his money by not paying his bills on time. What the Government are saying in effect is that it is all right for local authorities not to pay monies due to grant applicants when they are due. They can delay payment in order to gain some financial benefit to themselves. If we consider the implications, by definition—

Lord Elton

Will the noble Lord forgive my intervening? We do not want to spend too long on the matter. My noble friend Lord Lucas has already said that a local authority is under an obligation to pay the money as soon as it reasonably can. There is, therefore, no loophole for it to delay payment in order to gain interest.

Lord Monkswell

The Minister said that if the grant application is given approval, there is a duty to notify as soon as reasonably practicable, not that the local authorities should pay the grant due as soon as reasonably practicable. That was my understanding.

It is not only the grant applicants whom we have to consider, but those who will do the work. Most of the adaptations will be undertaken by small businessmen. Are the Government saying that payment to those small businessmen should be delayed by local authorities through late payment to grant applicants? I am not sure that the Government really mean that. I ask them to reconsider the implications of the amendment.

Lord Lucas

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is right in part of what he says. It is the determination of the application which must not be unreasonably delayed. When, and if, a grant is granted, the local authority then has the ability to say when it will pay that grant. It has the flexibility to decide on it within 12 months of the date of the application. It has the ability to manage its cash flow by saying when the grant will be available. We recognise that on occasions it may be an inconvenience to the disabled person. As regards inconvenience we have to strike a balance between the disabled person and the local authority, and we believe that we have struck the right balance. It will not inconvenience local traders because the disabled person will know when the grant is coming and can schedule his works accordingly. It is not an open invitation to the local authority to delay payment until it happens to feel like it. It must say when the payment will be made.

Lord Swinfen

The last part of what my noble friend said is encouraging in that the local authority will have to say when the grant will be made. To go back further, I understand the difficulty that my noble friend has with the word "immediately". The local authority must be satisfied that the work has been properly carried out in accordance with building regulations and everything else. It may need time to make an inspection. My noble friend will bear in mind that builders reserve the right to alter their estimates, the figures upon which the grant is assessed. If everything is delayed too long, the estimates will change and probably increase. They will almost certainly not go down. There is also the question of whether a disabled person can raise the funds to have the work carried out as soon as he needs it, rather than having to wait up to 12 months for the funds to arrive to enable him to have the work carried out. That may take another few weeks or months. I shall read what my noble friend said, but I have a feeling that I shall return to this later in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 64: Page 21, line 43, at end insert— ("( ) If, notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the local housing authority fails to give the required notice within the six months therein mentioned, the applicant may apply to any county court for an order requiring such notice to be given within 7 days of the order or such longer period as the court may find fit.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68. The amendments involve the provisions of the Bill concerning notification and decision making. Amendment No. 64 proposes to insert the new subsection into Clause 37 at page 21, line 43. It seeks to ensure that a grant applicant has an enforceable right to a decision upon the application. We have just debated the provision requiring local authorities to give a decision within a period, but there is no sanction if the period is exceeded. It would be possible for an applicant to apply to the High Court for a judicial review, but it requires knowledge and funds which, probably by definition, are not available. It would add to the burden on authorities and the courts in a way which would be, if not unacceptable, certainly not desirable. The amendment provides for a local county court to grant an order after the six months—if that is the period that is chosen for the local authority to make a decision—requiring the authority to determine the application promptly, if it has not been determined. It gives the power to award compensation to an applicant who has not been able to put in hand remedial works.

Amendment No. 65 refers to the provision in the Bill dealing with an "estimated expense". An applicant must submit at least two estimates from different contractors for the cost of carrying out works, but a local housing authority can choose to reject the estimates and fix the expenses at less than the contractor's estimates. If that is done, the applicant should know on what basis it was done. If applicants are not given the information, there is always the danger that the local housing authority's standards will slide and the authority will arrive at an "estimated expense", to use the term in the Bill, which does not reflect the true cost of carrying out the work. Fairness dictates that the applicant should see the reason for the decision. It is only the applicant who will have the information which might challenge the view taken by the local authority.

Amendment No. 66 would require the local housing authority to notify an applicant of the reasons for refusal of an application. It is to encourage fair administration, and so discourage arbitrary and ill-considered decisions. Natural justice requires that an applicant should be heard if that applicant disagrees with decisions. It would be difficult for an applicant to challenge a decision without knowing the reasons for the refusal.

Finally, Amendment No. 68 would provide a right of review to an applicant to give him the opportunity to resolve a misunderstanding in the way set out in the amendment. I suggest that a statutory right of review would help avoid recourse to the courts by way of judicial review. It is desirable that, where a decision is made against the interests of an applicant, he should have the fullest opportunity to address relevant matters. That would go towards the quality of the decision-making. I propose a 28-day time limit in order that the efficiency of the decision-making process is not interfered with overly. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

Turning first to Amendment No. 64, I do not believe it would be desirable to involve the county court in what should be a matter of good management within the local authority. The move to a discretionary grant regime should ensure that local authorities have greater control of the grant programme and allow them to ensure that decisions, either approvals or refusals, are made promptly.

While the current pressure for mandatory grant has concentrated attention on the six months' determination period, evidence of those authorities that are not currently subject to mandatory grant pressures suggests that authorities often determine grants in a matter of weeks.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 suggest that a duty be placed on the local authority to provide more information on either how the cost of the grant works is arrived at, or why a grant is refused. While I would hope that this kind of information was commonly made available to grant applicants by local authorities, I will take these points away and reflect further on whether specific mention of them should be made.

Amendment No. 68 seeks to introduce what can only be described as "a second bite of the cherry" for those refused a grant. I believe there is an obligation on the local authority to give due weight to all grant applications submitted. In deciding to refuse a grant, an authority will have had to give serious consideration as to how approval or refusal of the application would meet the local strategy. To leave authorities open to requests to reconsider such decisions would seem unnecessary and would add further to the burden on the local authority when, to our mind, judicial review would be the right next step rather than review by the local authority.

I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, particularly in the light of the fact that she has had some success.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the middle of that sandwich. Like him, I like to think that all local authorities will behave reasonably, efficiently and transparently. I proposed the amendments because, sadly, I fear not quite all of them will. Nevertheless, I shall reflect on the Minister's remarks on the bread around the outside of the sandwich, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 67: Page 22, line 29, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]

Clause 38 [Payment of grants: general]:

[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Delayed payment of mandatory grant]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 71: Page 23, line 2, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("specified by order of the Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: This amendment changes into an order-making power the power contained in Clause 39(2), under which the Secretary of State may specify the period by which an authority may delay the payment of disabled facilities grant. We recognise that the Committee is concerned about the use of delegated powers and our amendment brings this power under parliamentary control.

The amendment is grouped with Clause 39 stand part but I should let other Members of the Committee speak on that Motion first. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I assume that we are speaking on Clause 39 stand part as well as Amendment No. 71. As regards Amendment No. 71, I welcome the fact that there will be parliamentary control over the time period; but I find it difficult to understand the thinking behind this matter altogether. I am clear that as regards Clause 39(1) there may be a case for delaying the payment of a grant in order that it coincides with the time that the building work is being carried out and paid for. I assume that that is the reason for Clause 39(1).

As regards the maximum 12-month delay, I do not understand the thinking behind it at all, unless it has something to do with the building work being completed and the money being paid 12 months after the work has been finished. Frankly, I am not clear about its purpose. In any case, I should like some assurance that there is no intention to make the 12-month period longer—it may now be specified by order as longer or shorter—and that, if anything, one would shorten the period to below 12 months.

The whole clause has within it yet another possibility for delay in proceeding with matters. We have discussed it on more than one occasion recently. I hope that there will be no further reason for disabled people not to have the work done and paid for as quickly as possible.

Baroness Hamwee

I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in questioning Clause 39, particularly in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the set of amendments that I moved a moment ago. It seems a little inconsistent to show such trust in local authorities one minute and the next minute to have such a power with regard to delay.

I am also concerned in case there might be a link with funding the grants. One can see that it might be in the Government's interests to ensure that payment is spread, given the link between government grant to local authorities and local authorities meeting grant applications. I am sure that there is nothing so devious in the Government's mind, but perhaps they could say so.

Lord Lucas

Under Section 117 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, where an authority has approved a grant application it must pay the grant—in whole or by instalments—once the works have been completed to the satisfaction of the local authority and suitable invoices have been provided.

That means that authorities have little scope to manage their financial resources by prioritising cases where mandatory grant is an issue.

The proposal will not mean that an applicant will necessarily have to wail longer to receive adaptations. Under the grant arrangements an applicant may have to wait up to six months for his application to be approved, following which he has a further 12 months in which to carry out the works. That means that he may have to wait up to 18 months to receive adaptations. Our proposal envisages that an applicant will not be required to wait longer than 12 months after he makes his application.

We believe that our proposals will help authorities in their financial management by giving them the discretion to withhold payment of mandatory disabled facilities grants for up to 12 months after the date of the application. That would only apply if the authority, when giving the applicant notice of its decision on the application, informed the applicant of an earliest date for payment.

We brought forward the proposal to provide authorities with an additional administrative tool to enable them to schedule payments more efficiently—including between financial years where necessary—and thus to exert some control over mandatory grant expenditure.

In recognition of the Committee's concerns about inappropriate delegated powers, we introduced a government amendment which brings under parliamentary scrutiny the Secretary of State's power to vary the 12-month limit. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the reassurance for which he asks; that is, that we have no present plans to change the 12-month limit. We envisage that authorities should only need to use the measure sparingly and in exceptional cases. We will be making that clear in the guidance that we issue to them. We have no reason to believe, therefore, that applicants should in practice face unreasonable hardship.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs

Perhaps I can clarify one point. I was concerned lest the 12-month period be extended, but I was hopeful that it would be shortened.

As I understood the first part of the Minister's speech, he said that the powers were there to enable local authorities to delay payment if they did not have the money in any specific financial year. Therefore, it is a way of juggling their finances in order not to have to make too many mandatory grants at an inconvenient time for them in one financial year.

I understand that, in one sense, the financial control is therefore made easier for local authorities. On the other hand, what about the disabled person? It means that the disabled person may have to wait fully 18 months, if I take the periods mentioned. It seems hard that a disabled person who is entitled to a mandatory grant can have it delayed for the reasons given by the Minister. I am not happy that that is being done in the way the Minister described. However, I take some comfort from what the Minister said when he indicated that that would only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances. If it is made clear to local authorities that it is a highly exceptional procedure—a highly exceptional escape clause for them—then perhaps my alarm is less than it would otherwise have been.

Lord Swinfen

Perhaps my noble friend will be able to reword the clause to show that the pro vision will only be used in exceptional circumstances. I had not meant to speak on clause stand part at this point. Because of my suggested groupings some time ago, I thought it would be discussed with Amendment No. 63 and we have dealt with that. However, I am often mistaken.

I share very much the concerns on this point referred to by other Members of the Committee. Perhaps my noble friend will give thought to making clearer the fact that the clause can only be used in exceptional circumstances.

Lord Lucas

We believe the right place to make that clear is in guidance and we will do that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Payment of grants: conditions as to contractors employed]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 72: Page 23, line 30, at end insert ("and competition between contractors for grant work will disregard that part of the estimated cost of works attributable to value added tax").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that VAT is not taken into account when comparing estimates from contractors for grant work, thereby removing the competitive advantage enjoyed by companies which are not registered for VAT or are below the threshold for VAT. The Committee will be aware that many tradespeople operating in the sector of the building industry which deals with small-scale repair and maintenance work have a reputation for poor quality work. If the quality of work and the level of client satisfaction are to increase, it will be necessary to make it more difficult for cowboy builders, as they are called, to operate. Currently an application for renovation grant must have at least two estimates. That is repeated in the Bill. Grant is payable on the lower figure, subject to limits. VAT is not given special consideration so that two contractors can put in identical prices but it is the one not registered for VAT who will get the contract.

The current arrangements for awarding grant work effectively provide a competitive advantage to such firms. For instance, Bradford estimates that approximately 15 to 20 per cent. of all accepted tenders for renovation grant work are from VAT unregistered firms. There is a general feeling that firms that are not VAT registered are at the margins of being reputable, if I may put it in the most polite manner. The Building Employers' Confederation has therefore proposed that VAT be discounted from tenders for renovation grant work when considering the lowest tender for the work. If the amendment is accepted, that will protect reputable VAT registered building firms from undercutting. I hope very much that the Government will consider the proposal and give a considered response. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

I support the amendment as my name on the Marshalled List will show. I do so partly because I want to check on the position of local authorities in this matter. Local authorities are in a special position as regards VAT but, because this is a grant to an applicant and it is the applicant's payment of a bill, I assume that that special position for VAT purposes will not apply. If that is so, it is quite right that VAT should be taken out of the equation.

I realise that my point may be a little esoteric and that it may be one on which the noble Lord will wish to write to me unless he has some details in his brief relating to it. I believe that the proposal is a fair, practical and appropriate one, and I support it.

Lord Lucas

I wish immediately to dissociate myself from the aspersions which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, cast upon the VAT unregistered, many of whom I count among my closest friends. By and large I think they are as honourable as any other sector of the business community. That said, I share the noble Lord's concern that contractors who are required to submit estimates inclusive of VAT should not be disadvantaged in competition with smaller contractors who are not registered for VAT and who are able to provide lower estimates. However, as the noble Lord will realise, these matters are not simple because people who are not registered for VAT pay it and cannot reclaim it and therefore incur higher costs than people who are registered for VAT in some elements of their costs. It is not a simple equation. One cannot just take the 17.5 per cent. However, I shall give further thought to the matters raised and how best they may be achieved and will return to the noble Lord in one fashion or another before Report. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful for the fact that the noble Lord has grasped the problem. I am sure that his friends are very reputable but there are other people who are not so reputable. However, in the light of the assurance that the noble Lord and the department will look at the matter and that he will return to it in some fashion before the Report stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 [Change of circumstances affecting disabled occupant]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 73: Page 26, line 5, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Repayment where applicant not entitled to grant]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74: Page 26, line 37, at end insert ("(or, in the case of a joint application, any of the applicants)").

The noble Earl said: King Lear appears again! In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 76. Amendments Nos. 75 and 77, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are also grouped with these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 allow the authorities to recover grant from joint applicants where any of the applicants are shown not to be entitled to grant at the time of application. Clause 46, as at present drafted, provides that in the case of a joint application the clause applies only where none of the applicants was entitled to grant; in other words, the authority can stop and recover grant.

The reason for bringing forward these amendments is that where one of the joint applicants is later discovered not to have been eligible for grant—for example, because he has too much money which he did not declare—the relevant means test assessment would have been wrong, with the likely result that too much grant would have been approved or paid. We believe that if that happens it ought to be possible to recover the grant, or any instalment of it which might have already been paid, in accordance with Clause 46(2). The application can then be re-determined. These amendments remove a potential loophole which would have prevented authorities from recovering grant where an applicant was shown not to have been entitled to grant. I hope that the Committee will agree that these amendments are an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl, King Lear, for explaining the government amendments. I would like to concentrate on Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 which are in this group. Amendment No. 75 is designed to ensure the recovery of grant aid where an applicant has withheld information or has given false information for the purposes of the means test. That is followed consequentially by Amendment No. 77 and the two together have the purpose which I have described.

Under the proposals in the Bill, owner-occupiers and tenants applying for renovation grant or disabled facilities grant, will be means tested by the local housing authority to determine what contribution, if any, they must make to the cost of the works. The amount of grant to be approved will be reduced, if necessary, following means testing in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.

As I understand it, the same arrangements apply under the present grant régime. Where an owner occupier or tenant has been assessed by the Benefits Agency and is in receipt of income support, under the present régime he is passported through the means test by the local housing authority and will not make any contribution to the works eligible for grant.

Assuming that the same arrangements will apply under the proposed grant regime, provision needs to be made for situations where a person was wrongly in receipt of income support and should instead have been subjected to a means test. The proposed grant regime is intended to target limited resources at those most in need. We believe that enhancing the ability of local housing authorities to recover grant paid in excess of the amount to which the applicant was entitled will assist in maximising the use of limited resources.

I have no particular comment to make on the government amendments, but I would welcome a general response from the Minister on the problem that I have outlined when speaking to Amendments Nos. 75 and 77.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I wonder whether either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will share with me and the Committee the roles in which they cast other Members of the Committee. I would not care to play some characters in King Lear.

Earl Ferrers

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say only that I was so enormously gratified to be elevated to the rank of King that I did not consider into what roles other noble Lords might be slotted. However, the noble Baroness need not worry her head about that; let her just think of me as a king and she will be all right.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he had no comment to make on my amendments. I thought that that was something of a brush-off because I thought that they were good amendments and I had hoped that the noble Lord would say that they were excellent amendments with which he could concur. The noble Lord did not say that, but I have said it for him. Perhaps, therefore, I may now turn to his amendments, Amendments Nos. 75 and 77, which he was good enough to describe.

Amendment No. 75 seeks to enable Clause 46 to be applied to the situation where an applicant was not entitled to a grant of the amount which he was awarded but may have been entitled to a grant of a different amount. Clause 46 as it stands applies only to the situation where an applicant was not entitled to any grant. On the face of it, therefore, the amendment seems to cover a situation which is not covered in the Bill and which could be desirable. I should like to consider that point and to deliberate on precisely what the Bill should say on that matter.

Amendment No. 77 enables the authority to stop and to recover payment of the excess grant where the applicant deliberately has given false information or withheld information in order to gain the excess grant. In our view, if Clause 46 were to be amended as the noble Lord suggests, an authority would be empowered to stop and recover the excess grant by virtue of the provisions in the remainder of the clause. So far as concerns the specific situations which this amendment covers—deliberately giving false information or withholding information—common law remedies ought no doubt to be able to be relied on. Also, the amendment appears to cover much of the ground already covered by subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 46. Therefore, on the face of it, Amendment No. 77 may be unnecessary.

I should like to give further thought to both of those amendments and, if appropriate, I shall return to the matter on Report. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. I know that he is easily satisfied and I know of no reason why he should not be satisfied with that reply.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am easily satisfied by ministerial announcements that the Government will consider my amendments and return on Report with, we hope, their own appropriate amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking on board those important points and, in the light of what he said, I do not intend to move my amendment.

Earl Ferrers

I commend Amendment No. 74 to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76: Page 26, leave out lines 40 and 41.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 [Grant conditions: introductory]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 78: Page 28, line 11, leave out from ("consent") to end of line 12.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 261, 262 and 269. The amendments have various purposes. Amendments Nos. 78 and 86 give Clause 55 a condition period of its own rather than it having to depend on Clause 47 for one. Amendment No. 80 ensures that, where someone inherit; a property, he is not required to repay a grant that has been given on it but if he disposes of the property within the repayment condition period he will have to repay it.

So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, Clause 53 describes the occupancy conditions attached to an HMO grant. Subsection (1)(b) requires that the house is not occupied so as to cause a breach of any direction relating to the number of occupants. Amendment No. 83 adds to that subsection a duty to keep the premises fit for the number of occupants. The amendment is consequential on a new duty introduced in the Housing Bill, which is presently in another place. Amendment No. 84 is a drafting amendment to take account of Amendment No. 83. Amendment No. 87 adds to the descriptions of disposals that are exempt from the repayment condition a disposal by way of enfranchisement, or lease extension, under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The 1993 Act is already included. Amendments Nos. 261, 262 and 269 share the intention of making it clear that the savings of the 1989 Act can be made under other orders as well as the commencement orders for this legislation. This proposal is intended to ensure that the transitional provisions for those who have applied for a grant under the 1989 Act can work fully, thus protecting grant applicants' interests. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

On the whole, we are happy to agree the amendment and hope that the Committee will accept it. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the Committee exactly what provision in the Housing Bill in another place requires an amendment to this particular Bill.

Lord Lucas

I am afraid that off the cuff I cannot give an answer, but I will happily write to the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 [Condition for repayment on disposal: renovation grants]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 79: Page 29, line 4, leave out ("with the consent of the Secretary of State") and insert ("where the local housing authority see fit").

The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 79 and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 115. The purpose of these amendments is to give the local authority discretion as to when to waive repayment or demand lesser repayment in the case of a renovation grant, HMO grant and a common parts grant. Clauses 48 to 50 provide that, when the owner of a dwelling has received assistance in the form of a renovation grant or an HMO grant or, in the case of a common parts grant, the applicant on a landlord's application makes a relevant disposal other than an exempt disposal, grant conditions apply from the date of approval until five years from the date of grant completion, requiring repayment to the local housing authority on demand of the amount of grant that has been paid. Apart from exempt disposals, as defined by Clause 57, the only general exception will arise where an elderly or infirm owner makes a disposal with the intention of moving into sheltered accommodation or care, or where an owner is moving in in order to care for an elderly or infirm member of the family.

The requirement to repay grant if the property is disposed of within five years in our view is somewhat onerous and may deter applications and, ultimately, impede improvement. That will be of particular consequence in housing renewal areas. The grant condition period needs also to be seen in conjunction with other conditions imposed in order to qualify for grant assistance; namely, the three-year residency pre-qualifying period. I understand that the Government will introduce amendments to the three-year residency pre-qualifying period, so I shall not insist on that. Nevertheless, the proposal will make the workforce less mobile, and, in general, we believe that there should be a greater discretion for local authorities to waive repayment or to judge what lesser repayment is necessary, as they wish.

Amendment No. 115 has as its purpose to remove the Secretary of State's power to determine what action it is reasonable for local authorities to take in recovering repayments of grant. I do not want to go through all the arguments because they are those I advanced on the previous amendments. But a local authority at the moment has a duty to recover grant payments made on property when that property is sold within a specified period. Authorities also have a discretion to waive grant clawback provisions under certain circumstances. There are problems with that, and I do not want to go on about negative equity and all the rest of it.

The reasonable steps to be taken by a local authority to retrieve grant clawback should be established at the discretion of the local authority, not by the Secretary of State. So the amendments to which I am speaking, and the amendment which I am moving, increase the power of a local authority to determine its own future and its own ability to act in this sphere. I believe that it is within the thrust of the Bill to allow local authorities to determine what they should do and what they should not do, rather than have the Secretary of State sitting on top of them. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

Of the four amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82. We believe it to be a matter of principle that, where a householder or a landlord receives public money for a specific purpose—in this case, to enable the householder to continue living in his home, or the landlord to improve a property for letting—he should repay that money if the purpose for which he received the grant no longer applies. It should not be possible, therefore, to use the grant merely to increase the grant applicant's profit on the sale of the improved property. It would not be reasonable to require repayment for an indefinite period, as the benefits from the grant-aided repairs and improvements will diminish as time goes by. We believe five years to be a reasonable period for a condition requiring repayment on disposal to apply.

There are, of course, circumstances beyond the control of the grant applicant which may cause him to dispose of the property within the condition period. The most common of these are allowed for in the exempt disposals in Clause 57 and the local authority's discretion under Clause 48(5) not to demand repayment in certain circumstances. In most other cases where there is a disposal of the property within the condition period, a decision not to demand repayment will need very careful consideration.

We accept that there are cases where it would not be appropriate to demand repayment of grant from the applicant. For this reason, each of the clauses setting out the conditions for repayment of grant on disposal of the grant-aided property contains a provision allowing the local authority to decide whether a case should be made for the waiver of a demand for repayment or for demanding a lesser amount with the consent of the Secretary of State.

The need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent gives an opportunity to decide under which circumstances the demand for repayment should be waived and to ensure that the same criteria are applied in each case. It also gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State to consider whether, in the light of the cases referred to him, he should use his powers under Clause 57 to add to the descriptions of exempt disposals under that clause. These amendments would remove the necessity for the Secretary of State's consent. For the reasons that I have given that would be undesirable.

I turn to Amendment No. 115. Local housing authorities may claim an Exchequer subsidy of 60 per cent. of what they spend on grants under Part I. Therefore, for each of the grant payments reclaimed, the local authority will have received Exchequer subsidy. The Secretary of State is accountable for all subsidy payments made to local authorities in respect of this legislation. He is required to apply conditions which are fair to all authorities concerned and to safeguard public money.

Where an authority receives a repayment of some or all of the grant in respect of which Exchequer subsidy was paid it is fair and proper that the subsidy element of the amount recovered should be repaid to the Exchequer, together with an appropriate percentage of any interest received by the authority. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that this happens.

Amendment No. 115 would have the effect of preventing the Secretary of State from requiring payment in respect of any part of the interest that would have been received had the local authority taken reasonable steps to recover the grant. It would also remove the Secretary of State's power to determine what steps would be reasonable.

Where recovery is not made because of the negligence of the local authority, it is fair and proper that that authority should have to meet the same repayment requirement as other authorities which have carried out their duties more diligently.

In the interests of parity of treatment between local authorities nationally, we also believe it to be right that the Secretary of State should have the power to determine what steps would be reasonable.

I believe that the clause as drafted ensures fair treatment for all local authorities. I hope that on consideration the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will realise that the Bill is better than it would be were his amendments applied to it.

Lord Monkswell

Although I support my noble friend Lord Williams, I believe that we must respond to the Government's reply. The Minister said that the Government will not allow local authorities a discretion as to whether to waive the right to reclaim grant that has been paid. We must explore the Government's thinking as regards the consents which are likely to be forthcoming from the Secretary of State. Have the Government appreciated the change in the housing market and the employment scene during the past five or 10 years?

Perhaps I may give an example in order to ascertain the Minister's response. I take the case of a person on low income who made an application for a grant, improved his property and then lost his job in city A. He found another job in city B 100 miles away and also found a house at almost exactly the same price as his own and to the same standard. Will that person be permitted to retain the full value of the house that he is leaving in order to enable him to purchase the house into which he is moving or will the Secretary of State require repayment of the grant, which will force the person to move into a house of a lower standard?

We should bear in mind that the house has been improved and will stay as part of the local authority's housing stock. Therefore, the local authority and the local community will have the benefit of any improvement but the person leaving the house will not have that benefit. Because of the repayment of grant which might be demanded, he will effectively be required to purchase a property of a standard lower than that which he was used to living in.

Earl Ferrers

It is always difficult to set down specific standards and to have a general discretion to disapply the recovery of grant because there are so many variables.

The point which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, makes is quite straightforward. The value of the house of the person who has obtained the grant will have increased. If he then moves to another area, the noble Lord says that it is unfair if he must pay back his grant. But the fact is that the house will be worth more than it would have been worth had he not had the grant. Therefore, theoretically, he will be left with the same amount of money with which he started in order to purchase a house somewhere else.

Lord Williams of Elvel

What if it is worth less?

Earl Ferrers

The simple answer is that it will be very difficult for him. But the purpose of obtaining a grant is to enable the house to be improved. Whether the house is worth more or less depends on the state of the market and nothing else. However, I believe that it is reasonable to say that that part of the money which has formed part of the grant should be repaid because theoretically the person is left with the same amount of money that he had in the first place in order to purchase a house elsewhere.

I do not deny for one moment that in various places the shoe may pinch. However, if every conceivable eventuality is allowed for, one finds that a great deal of abuse takes place.

Lord Monkswell

But I suggest that that is rather unfair. This will be a low income household. I assure the Committee that it is quite a palaver to obtain a grant. You have to make the application, engage builders to provide estimates and so on. It can consume an enormous part of one's life. Is the Minister saying that such a person should then have to go through the whole process again if he moves house?

Perhaps I may suggest a mechanism to solve the problem. One may set limits in terms of the market movements which one may expect which are acceptable or not acceptable as regards repayment of grant. The applicant's current financial circumstances should be compared with what they were before. Criteria should be set which could be applied. Everybody would then see those to be reasonable. But I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in the case which I mentioned, it would be unreasonable for an applicant to be required to repay the grant.

Earl Ferrers

I do not deny at all that one must comply with rules and regulations and that it involves a certain amount of palaver to obtain a grant. That is so. The situation which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, postulates may raise sympathies because one thinks of an unfortunate person who has bought a house, obtained a grant, finds he is without a job and then has to find a job elsewhere and pay back the grant.

On the other hand, what if the unfortunate fellow bought a house, obtained a grant and then got fed up with his wife and decided to go and live with "Fifi" in the county next door? In that situation he would sell the house, claim the money that he had got from the grant and go to live in more luxurious conditions with "Fifi" which would be quite inappropriate. One can always find curious examples, but one really has to rely on the basic principle that, if a person receives a grant for a certain house and then sells it, it is only fair that he should pay back the grant.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Earl has given us a most interesting run around the circumstances in which people may wish to move house. I still believe that it is really up to the local authority to decide such matters rather than the Secretary of State. Of course when we say the "Secretary of State" we are actually referring to the wording in the Bill, whereas what we mean is the Department of the Environment and its bureaucracy which may or may not be efficient and which may or may not take into account particular circumstances such as those described by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. Nevertheless, we have had a reasonable debate on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 80: Page 29, line 22, leave out from ("intestacy)") to end of line 24.

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49 [Condition for repayment on disposal: common parts grants]:

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Condition for repayment on disposal: HMO grants]:

[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Conditions as to occupation: HMO grants]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84: Page 31, line 42, after ("cause") insert ("—

1. (i) a breach of the duty under section 353A of the Housing Act 1985 (duty to keep premises fit for number of occupants), or
2. (ii)")

Page 31, line 44, leave out ("the Housing Act 1985") and insert ("that Act").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Power to impose other conditions with consent of Secretary of State]:

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 86: Page 33, line 10, leave out from ("date") to ("and") in line 11.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Meaning of exempt disposal]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 87: Page 34, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) a disposal by way of enfranchisement or lease extension under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 61 agreed to.

Clause 62 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter I]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 88: Page 37, line 49, column 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling) and").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 and 118 to 120. The group consists of an amendment adding after Clause 97 a revised definition of "owner" and various consequential amendments to include references to that definition. The definition of owner in the Bill was reproduced from the current legislation and refers to the "net annual value" of a property. That reference has its roots in the old rating system but has acquired an established meaning outside that system. To ensure clarity, we seek to add the established definition of "net annual value" to the grants legislation. The amendment makes no change to the substance of the measures. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63 agreed to.

Clause 64 [Qualifying buildings]:

10.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 89: Page 39, line 14, leave out from ("prepared") to end of line 21 and insert—

1. ("(a) it comprises a minimum of two houses,
2. (b) the houses in the building are adjacent to each other,
3. (c) the exterior of at least 75 per cent. of the houses in the building is not in reasonable repair.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 89 stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 90.

The purpose of Amendment No. 89 is to permit group repair schemes in a wider range of circumstances than is currently allowed, covering a single pair of semi-detached houses to a whole street of terraced housing, provided that at least three-quarters are in disrepair externally.

Group repair schemes were first introduced in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to enable groups of mainly privately owned houses to be renovated externally in order to put them in good repair. The concept is based on that of envelope schemes, which were successfully used by local housing authorities in the 1980s.

Many authorities appear to have been reluctant fully to pursue group repair schemes due to the restrictive criteria specified in the 1989 Act and associated Department of Environment guidance notes and circulars. We believe that the provision is an important element—it is not vital—in improving the group repair schemes.

Amendment No. 90 also extends the scope of group repair schemes, in this case to include structural instability in the range of external defects which can be repaired. The amendment is intended to create greater flexibility in delivering strategic renovation programmes through group repair schemes. I hope that the Government will be aware of the problems faced by group repair schemes and by local authorities trying to operate them and will be sympathetic to the amendments. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

I think that I can assure the noble Lord that we are aware of the problems of group repair schemes and sympathetic towards the aim underlying the amendment: to simplify the eligibility rules and definitions of a group repair scheme. That is our intention, too, and we have framed the current clauses on group repair in such a way as to leave the detailed rules and conditions to be prescribed in regulations. We think that that is a better approach, as it gives more flexibility and enables the rules to be changed if, in the light of experience, they turn out not to achieve the objective required. It also gives us the opportunity to consult local authority practitioners on the regulations.

While I disagree with the proposal in Amendment No. 89 to place some simplified conditions on the face of the Bill, I would go along with some of the simplifications which the amendment makes. For example, we propose to remove the need for all the buildings in a scheme to be "contiguous or adjacent" to the primary qualifying building, and we propose to review the number of dwellings in a scheme. But we also intend to make some changes which are not mentioned by the amendment. For example, we would like to include certain types of purpose-built flats.

Under Amendment No. 90 it would become a requirement that group repair schemes ensure that buildings were made substantially free from instability. I do not believe that there is any difference between the noble Lord and myself on the principle that it would be stupid to put public funds into any building which is liable to collapse. However, the amendment itself is unnecessary. The Bill provides various ways of ensuring that a building is stable. Clause 65(1)(a) enables an authority to include the necessary works in a group repair scheme, and that may well be the usual way of proceeding when such schemes are being undertaken. But a quite common alternative approach is for group repair schemes to be undertaken at the same time as other works, to make a building fit. In those kinds of cases, it may well be more appropriate to pay for stabilisation works through a renovation grant. The Bill as it stands provides flexibility for authorities which the amendment might reduce.

Our intentions are similar to those of the noble Lord and I hope he will perceive that what we are trying to do is what he is trying to achieve and it is accomplished by what is already in the Bill.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Did I understand the noble Earl to say that what I am trying to achieve in Amendment No. 89 would be achieved by regulation? I thought he said that he was sympathetic and it would all be achieved by regulation. Did I hear him right?

Earl Ferrers

I said in regard to Amendment No. 89 that I went along with the idea of placing simplified conditions on the face of the Bill. We propose to remove the need for all buildings in the scheme to be contiguous or adjacent. I do not believe that I said that that would be done by regulations, but we have framed the current clauses on group repair in such a way as to leave the detailed rules and detailed conditions to be prescribed in regulations. That is the point about which the noble Lord is concerned.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Is it right that the Government are not prepared to accept anything on the face of the Bill or am I again mishearing the noble Earl?

Earl Ferrers

It would be hard if the noble Lord were to say that the Government were not prepared to accept anything on the face of the Bill. We believe it is wrong to put the proposals on the face of the Bill because then it becomes too constrained. It is better that that is done by regulations because if the proposals are not correct, it is possible to amend and alter them by regulations in a way which would not be possible if it had to be done by primary legislation.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I understand it, the thrust of my amendment, Amendment No. 89, is accepted by the Government but it will be implemented by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill. I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monkswell

I was hoping for clarification of the reference to instability in Amendment No. 90. The Minister suggested that it was covered by works to the exterior of the building. Will he give me clarification that the "exterior of the building" will include the foundations of the building? It is a technical point, but in some interpretations of the phrase the foundations beneath the building might not be considered to be part of the exterior. I hope that the Minister can clarify that because it would provide a degree of security in the implementation of programmes to correct any instability that might be apparent.

Earl Ferrers

Clause 65(1)(b) states that: The works specified in a group repair scheme must be … so far only as may be necessary to give satisfactory effect to such works, additional works to other parts of the buildings". The foundations will be covered by that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 [Scheme works]:

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 [Approval of scheme by Secretary of State]:

[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clauses 67 to 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 [Condition as to payment of balance of cost on disposal]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 92: Page 43, leave out line 21 and insert— ("(b) in such other cases as they may specify,").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to seek to remove or modify the period following completion of a group repair during which participants who move home will be required to pay back the balance of the cost paid by the local authority. That is rather a complicated purpose; nevertheless the amendment seeks to allow local authorities to waive the requirement to repay costs. Again, it is a question of giving local authorities discretion in such cases as they may specify to waive the costs. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

The amendment would give local authorities discretion to specify cases in which the requirement is waived that an assisted participant in a group repair scheme must pay on demand the difference between the cost of the works to his property and the amount he has already paid towards that cost if he disposes of the property before the end of the five-year protected period.

The noble Lord's amendment would replace a provision enabling authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent for such waivers. The Bill already provides for certain disposals not to trigger this requirement and gives local housing authorities discretion not to demand payment or to demand a lesser amount in certain cases when the condition is breached. These include the case where the person is elderly or infirm and is moving back in order to be cared for by somebody else, or where he is himself moving to look after an elderly or infirm relative.

We recognise the concern among local authorities that the requirement to pay the balance of the cost might deter some people from joining a group repair scheme if they were uncertain as to whether they could meet the conditions. It might mean that some schemes would no longer be viable. We want to encourage authorities to take a strategic approach to renewal. Group repair is a useful instrument for strategic action, so we need to take seriously the concern that Clause 72, as it stands, might undermine the effectiveness of that instrument.

The noble Lord's amendment would give local authorities a great deal of discretion not to insist on the repayment condition. But the discretion would be limited to cases which are specified by authorities. Each authority would therefore need to draw up and approve a list of cases to which it might then have to keep adding new hardship cases as they arose. That seems rather cumbersome.

An alternative approach would be to give an open discretion which allowed authorities to treat each case on its merits. That would seem more flexible. If the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be good enough, I should like to consider the matter further and see how we can best resolve the problem. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I give an undertaking that I will look at it further between now and the next stage.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter II].

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 93: Page 45, line 12, column 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling) and").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 [Home repair assistance]:

10.30 p.m.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 94: Page 45, line 29, after ("works") insert—

1. ("(a) to an elderly or disabled owner or tenant of a dwelling, of repair, improvement or adaptation;
2. (b) to adapt a dwelling to enable an elderly or disabled person who is not an owner or a tenant of the dwelling but who is or proposes to be resident in the dwelling to be cared for; or
3. (c) for other works").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall at the same time speak to Amendment No. 100. Grouped with the two amendments are Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, 99, 101 and 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; Amendment No. 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel; and Amendment No. 103 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.

The purpose of Amendment No. 94 is to ensure that the grant for home repair assistance is available for staying put, as is the: minor works assistance which it replaces. The home repair assistance grant replaces the minor works assistance, which was introduced in Part VIII of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, which is repealed by the Bill.

The purposes for which the grant was available was specified in the legislation. They included works to enable people over 60 years of age to stay put in their homes and to adapt a property to enable a person over that age to move into it to receive care. The grant was of particular use to older people in enabling them to remain living in the community, either in their own homes or with carers. In 1994, I understand that the Department of the Environment estimated that nearly nine out of 10 recipients of the grant were over 60.

The purposes for which minor works assistance was available are not specifically stated in the new provisions for home repair assistance. That may lead to works enabling older people to stay put or receive care being given less priority by local authorities. The amendment is intended to ensure that those purposes are specifically included in the Bill.

Older people consistently state their preference to remain in their own homes as they get older and government policy recognises that. The intention of care in the community legislation is to ensure that those people who require care or support should be able to receive it in their own home. Minor works assistance has been an important contribution to that policy and it is important that it should continue.

The amendment extends the provisions for older people so that they would also apply to disabled people. For many disabled people minor works will be of assistance in enabling them to remain in their own home or will enable them to receive care or support in another home. Where only minor works are required for this purpose, the home repair assistance grant may be more appropriate than the disabled facilities grant, which often requires an occupational therapist's assessment for which there can, as already mentioned this evening, be very lengthy delays.

Amendment No. 100 seeks to ensure that local authorities can give home repair assistance grants to older and disabled people who require them in order to stay put in their homes but who have not lived in their property for three years. It is very similar to the previous amendment but enables those who have only just moved into a house to stay put. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

I should mention to the Committee that as Amendment No. 95 is also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 95 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 inclusive.

Lord Dubs

I should like to refer briefly to a number of the amendments which are grouped together. Amendment No. 95 is similar to Amendment No. 94 but it contains two additional provisions. It covers thermal insulation and the possibility of grants for buildings located in a clearance area.

Amendment No. 96 seeks to enable local authorities to continue to fund patch and mend grants for dwellings subject to clearance action. The difficulty is that when a house is in a clearance area it tends to become dilapidated and the conditions for the persons living in such a house can be intolerable. The idea is that local authorities should be able to provide small sums of money, for example, to ensure that a property is wind and weather proof, so that tiles may be replaced on a leaking roof or other such items, enabling the persons living in such a house to live in reasonably tolerable conditions until the clearance date comes along.

Amendment No. 98 is rather different. It seeks to ensure that the limit on home repair assistance is uprated annually in line with inflation. That would seem to be a fair proposition. I accept that the RPI may not be the best index for these purposes, as it may not specifically reflect prices in the building industry. It may therefore be appropriate to use another index which is more closely linked to building and construction work. The important thing is that there should be some form of index linking to ensure that the value of the grant is maintained whatever the level of inflation.

Amendment No. 99 is concerned with the residence requirement in subsection (4) of the clause. The principle should be that home repair assistance should be available to those who have lived in their home for less than three years. It may well be that people who are declining in health may move to a smaller and more manageable property and it would be difficult for them to have to wait three years before they could qualify for the grant. It seems to me that it would not be right that somebody should have to wait three years simply because that seems to be a reasonable length of time in which to establish that they are living in their new property. When people's health is in decline, they may be prompted to move to a smaller or more manageable house or flat. The intention behind the amendment is that the three-year limit should not apply in such cases.

Amendment No. 100 concerns lead piping. I have the privilege of serving on Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee. We recently produced a report on lead in drinking water which I hope will be debated in this Chamber before too long. It is a report on drinking water quality as a whole. One of the conclusions in the report is that it is important significantly to reduce the amount of lead contained in drinking water. Some of the lead comes through pipes owned by the water companies. That is believed to affect around 8.2 million households. In other instances, households themselves have lead in their internal piping, and that is believed to affect around 8.9 million households. The amendment is specifically concerned with people who have lead in their own homes. In hard water areas that situation may not be so serious, but in soft water areas it is clearly a danger to health if there should be any significant quantity of lead in the water supply.

I hope that, when this Chamber debates the report of the Select Committee together with the Government's response, more attention will be focused on the quality of our drinking water and in particular on the lead within it. It therefore seems appropriate, in anticipation of such a debate, that this Bill should contain somewhat better provision to enable people who are not in receipt of state benefits but are on low incomes, to secure grants to enable them to deal with lead piping contained with their homes.

Finally, Amendment No. 102 deals with grants to people who live in houseboats. As the Bill stands, there is a constraint on grants to houseboat owners. It seems to me that as the grant we are discussing is in any case subject to local authority discretion, there is no need to add further constraints. The local authority can make its own judgment as to the risks of abuse in the case of any specific grant. The amendment therefore seeks to make such a grant available provided that, the applicant occupies the boat as his only or main residence [and] … the boat is moored on an inland waterway or in marine waters within the boundary of the authority". That seems to be a sensible move to give houseboat owners the chance of obtaining a grant. I suggest that there are adequate safeguards in the discretion that local authorities can bring to bear in giving such grants.

Lord Lucas

Amendments Nos. 94 and 100 seek to identify elderly and disabled people as specifically eligible for home repair assistance and to provide for their needs separately. However, it was our intention that their needs should be covered in Clause 77(2) and (5). It was our intention to refer to "infirm" rather than "disabled" people to ensure that assistance is available to a wider group. However, given the concern raised by my noble friend, we will give this matter some further thought and revert to him before Report.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, home repair assistance builds on the success of minor works assistance and enhances it by increasing its potential availability. It provides for the payment of grants or the provision of materials necessary to carry out works of repair, adaptation or improvement to enable an applicant to remain living in his own home.

This broader description incorporates all the works for which minor works assistance is currently payable, which includes such small scale repairs as suggested by "patch and mend". I believe it is unnecessary as proposed in Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 to have these purposes and works listed separately, as in the current legislation. I can confirm that buildings in clearance areas can get assistance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree with me on that.

Amendment No. 98 seeks to establish an annual increase in the total amount of value of home repair assistance that may be given by linking such an amount or value to the retail prices index. There is already provision in Clause 76 for the rates to be uprated where that is appropriate and I do not believe it would be helpful to have an annual increase.

Amendment No. 99 seeks to remove the prior residency requirement in all cases where the applicant does not have an owner's interest but occupies the property under a right of exclusive occupation for life or more than five years. We believe that the prior residence criteria should apply across the board for this category as they are a protection against potential abuse in the area of non-standard tenancy arrangements. It is relatively easy to establish a grant eligible person in a non-standard tenancy with the aim of securing grant assistance.

Amendment No. 101 would disapply the income related benefit provision for all applications in respect of works to replace lead pipes and apply the test of resources as defined for renovation grants to any applicant. We do not believe this amendment is necessary. Assistance for work to replace lead pipes can already be given to any qualifying applicant in receipt of income related benefits under the present minor works assistance provisions. This is carried forward into the wider purposes of home repair assistance.

I do not believe it would be helpful to introduce help for a wider group of people and use of the main grant means test. This undermines the intended simplicity of the operation of home repair assistance. There will be nothing to prevent those who fall outside the current scope of Chapter III to apply for a discretionary renovation grant.

Amendment No. 102 seeks to remove the three-year qualifying period from an applicant living in a houseboat as his only or main residence and the requirement that his dwelling has been moored during that period at the same mooring and therefore within the same local authority area. Because of the more unusual nature of this type of dwelling, we believe that our proposed conditions of grant should remain, as they represent a safeguard against potential abuse. However, the noble Lord has identified that it is not easy to tie down a houseboat, as they are by their nature mobile. Therefore, our Amendment No. 103 seeks to overcome the issue of a houseboat's mobility through the use of the wording, had as its only or main mooring for that period". This should deal with the situation where houseboats travel from their mooring for short periods of time, such as weekend trips on the river or holiday boating. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to move his amendment and that he will support others. With those assurances, I hope that the various amendments will, when the time comes, be either withdrawn or not moved.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs

Perhaps I may comment briefly on a couple of points that the Minister made. I am disappointed that he cannot be more flexible about Amendment No. 97 concerning the three-year qualifying period. It seems to me that that can be pretty harsh on people who have moved house, as I have said. I hope that he will be able to think again on this matter.

As regards linking the level of home repair assistance grant to the retail prices index, the Minister said that it would not be appropriate to make such a link. By not making such a link, one is effectively reducing the maximum level of such a grant because of inflation. I would have thought that the words "not appropriate" are themselves not appropriate, as applied to this concept.

Lord Lucas

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is disappointed concerning Amendment No. 98. I believe that he will have to stay that way. As regards the higher residence criterion, we live in an imperfect world and have to provide for that. If we were to let our guard down on that we believe that we would face a lot of fraud, and that is something up with which we should not put.

Lord Swinfen

I thank my noble friend for his remarks on my two Amendments Nos. 94 and 100. I shall be very happy to discuss them further, if he finds that convenient, between now and the next stage. I shall read what he has said about the other amendment with interest between now and Report stage.

Lord Clark of Kempston

Amendment withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen

Is the noble Lord trying to make a decision for me?

Lord Lucas

Certainly, we shall be discussing this with the noble Lord one way or another.

Lord Swinfen

I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Clark, was trying to intervene, only he addressed the Committee from a sedentary position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 95 to 98 not moved.]

Clause 76 agreed to.

Clause 77 [Entitlement to home repair assistance]:

[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]

Clause 77 agreed to.

Clause 78 [Assistance in respect of house-boats and mobile homes]:

[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 103: Page 47, line 13, leave out ("been moored for that period at") and insert ("had as its only or main mooring for that period").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 94. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.

Clause 81 [Deferred action notices]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 104: Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("is") to (", they") in line 24 and insert ("in the best interests of the occupants").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 105 and 107. With these are grouped Amendments Nos. 106 and 108. Amendment No. 104 refers to Clause 81, the deferred action notices provision. It seeks to ensure that any decision by a local authority to defer taking action on houses unfit for human habitation will only be made if that is in the best interests of the occupants. Concern has been expressed quite widely as to the "do nothing option" as it has been termed. I do not believe that it can be generally appropriate for authorities to delay action on houses which are unfit for human habitation except in circumstances, which are likely to be quite rare, where that would be in the best interests of the occupants. It cannot be right to expect tenants to live in unfit conditions for longer periods.

Amendment No. 105 seeks to ensure that a council takes remedial action to deal with an unfit house in which children are living. The deferred action notice can be renewed indefinitely. The amendment seeks to ensure that remedial action is not deferred or delayed in respect of an unfit property which is occupied by a family including children. I appreciate that this is perhaps not the normal approach to such matters and is perhaps a little out of kilter with the Bill, but it is intended to be a practical approach to the matter.

Finally, Amendment No. 107 seeks to ensure that an occupier of an unfit house has the right of appeal against a deferred action notice. If an unfit property is occupied, the amendment provides for the occupier to be able to challenge the decision in the county court. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

I share the concern of the noble Baroness, which is apparent from these amendments, that in deciding whether to serve a deferred action notice a local authority should have regard to relevant circumstances, including the interests of the occupants of the premises.

The term, most satisfactory course of action", used in subsection (1) of Clause 81 follows the standard terminology used for the exercise of notices under the other fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance as defined in the Housing Act 1985. I believe that it is important that we retain that consistency, but I would be concerned if local authorities were restricted in the way sought by these amendments.

Under Clause 85, provision is made for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the most satisfactory course of action in connection with the service of deferred action notices. The Government fully intend to issue such guidance and, by virtue of the terms of Clause 85, it will be guidance to which local authorities will be required to have regard and guidance which will be subject to the usual consultations with the local authority associations and others before it is issued.

That will have the advantage of consistency with the other fitness enforcement options. It also provides for a degree of flexibility that is needed in all areas of fitness enforcement, but a flexibility which will have to be sensibly exercised by local authorities having regard to clear guidance from the Secretary of State. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to be cautious because I do not think that Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 would be successful additions to the Bill.

Amendment No. 107 would broaden the right of appeal against a deferred action notice, conferred under Clause 83, to include any occupier of the premises. The potential effect would be significantly to increase the number of appeals coming before the county courts. That would inevitably increase the burden on already hard pressed courts and on local authorities in dealing with those appeals. I think it entirely right that there should be a right of appeal against any fitness enforcement action. This is why we have included a right of appeal against deferred action notices. But a balance needs to be struck between a right of appeal and broadening it to an extent that could very well impose significant burdens on both the county courts and local authorities.

The right of appeal in the case of a deferred action notice is consistent with that conferred on the other fitness enforcement options. There is, of course, nothing to stop any other occupier of the premises from seeking a judicial review of the service of a deferred action notice. I think that that right, combined with a right of appeal which is conferred by Clause 83, strikes the correct balance, having regard to the burdens which I have mentioned.

Turning to Amendment No. 108, I can understand the desire to have information on the extent to which deferred action notices will be used. On could say the same thing about the other repair, closure and clearance fitness enforcement options. But it is not thought right or consistent to have one requirement on the face of the Bill for deferred action notices when the other options are not covered in the same way. On the other hand, to require local authorities to produce and publish a report in the depth sought by the amendment of the noble Baroness for all the fitness enforcement activities would he an unreasonable and unnecessary burden.

Statistics on local authorities' fitness enforcement activities are already collected by the Department of the Environment and are produced as part of the Government's statistical service. That comes within a publication called Housing and Construction Statistics which is published annually. Future editions of that publication will cover deferred action notices as part of the statistics which the department gathers from local authorities on action that is taken against unfit dwellings. Although they may not cover everything in the amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that as a minimum the statistics will indicate the number of unfit dwellings against which deferred action notices have been issued.

With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the Bill is best left as it is without the amendment that she proposes.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful to the Minister. I take seriously the point that legislation needs to be consistent with earlier parallel provisions, or provisions that might be looked to. I will wish to consider that further. One does not want to add to the burden on the courts, but I am not sure that judicial review as a remedy in place of action that adds to the burden on the hard-pressed county courts wholly advances the argument. However, I do not seek to press the point at his hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]

Clause 81 agreed to.

Clause 82 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]

Clause 83 [Appeals against deferred action notices]:

[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Clause 83 agreed to.

Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

Clause 86 [Unfitness for human habitation &c: power to improve enforcement procedures]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 109: Page 50, line 20, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 86 is headed "Power to improve enforcement procedures". It provides that the Secretary of State has power to make an order that a local housing authority shall act as specified in the order. I emphasise "shall" since the amendment seeks to replace that word with "may". The amendment seeks to give local authorities a discretion as to whether or not they make an informal approach before taking action in regard to houses that are declared unfit for human habitation.

There is a danger that this clause, rather than improving the procedures, will make enforcement more difficult by adding another step in the process before the formal issue of an enforcement notice. I am also aware of the flexibility available to local authorities to which the Government have referred on a number of occasions tonight. The Audit Commission, in its report on healthy housing, found that an informal approach is often ineffective in any event. The amendment gives local authorities the choice as to whether or not to make use of the scheme introduced by the Secretary of State under the clause in the light of their own practical experience. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is grouped with Amendment No. 109. Perhaps I could speak to them both.

Formal enforcement action—I believe that this is something with which we all agree—should always be looked upon as a last step resort. Modifying the procedures of the fitness enforcement options in the way provided for by an order under Clause 86 will help local authorities to reach sensible decisions in consultation with owners and thereby help to ensure formal enforcement action is taken only when necessary.

I therefore see it as important for local authorities to be under a requirement to follow the actions specified in Clause 86. That apart, I cannot see the wisdom in the Secretary of State making an order with local authorities being left to decide whether they follow its provisions.

The concern of the noble Baroness which is apparent in her Amendment No. 109 may not be dissimilar from that apparent in Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams; that is, that there will be circumstances where a local authority will need to take immediate enforcement action and where it would not be appropriate to follow the sort of actions specified in Clause 86(1) to (5). Clearly a local authority should not be precluded from taking immediate action. That is precisely what Clause 86(6) makes provision for. It is cast deliberately in wide terms so that a local authority is not precluded from taking immediate enforcement action in any case where it appears to it to be necessary. We think it only right that local authorities—as the on-the-ground enforcement agents—should have flexibility in this particular instance.

I can see, to quote an example from Amendment No. 110, that imminent risk to the health and safety of occupants might well be a case where a local authority might consider it necessary to take immediate enforcement action. An order under Clause 86 would not preclude a local authority from taking such action if it appeared to it to be necessary; nor, indeed, the other example cited in Amendment No. 110. But there are likely to he other equally important exclusions arising in particular cases which, if the logic of the amendment were followed, would deserve to be included, but whose codification in legislation would prove very difficult as well as inflexible and inappropriate.

I believe that the better approach lies in giving local authorities flexibility in this particular area, as provided for in Clause 86(6). In that way we provide the flexibility needed without removing the value of requiring local authorities to follow the actions specified in the rest of Clause 86. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee

Not entirely, but I shall read what the Minister said, and possibly return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leavé, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]

Clause 86 agreed to.

Clauses 87 to 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:

[Amendments Nos. 111 to 114 not moved.]

Clause 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 [Recovery of contributions]:

[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clause 93 [Consent of the Secretary of State]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 116: Page 54, line 40, at end insert ("or in relation to particular cases or descriptions of case.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.

Clause 96 [Fitness for human habitation]:

[Amendment No.117 not moved.]

Clause 96 agreed to.

Clause 97 agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 118: After Clause 97, insert the following clause— MEANING OF "OWNER" OF DWELLING (".—(1) In this Part "owner", in relation to a dwelling, means the person who—

1. (a) is for the time being entitled to receive from a lessee of the dwelling (or would be so entitled if the dwelling were let) a rent at an annual rate of not less than two-thirds of the net annual value of the dwelling; and
2. (b) is not himself liable as lessee of the dwelling, or of property which includes the dwelling, to pay such a rent to a superior landlord.

(2) For this purpose the net annual value of a dwelling means the rent at which the dwelling might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repair and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the dwelling in a state to command that rent. (3) Any dispute arising as to the net annual value of a dwelling shall be referred in writing for decision by the district valuer. In this subsection "district valuer" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 98 [Minor definitions: Part I]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120: Page 56, line 27, leave out from ("dwelling,") to end of line 34 and insert ("has the meaning given by section (Meaning of "owner" of dwelling),"). Page 56, line 35, leave out (""owner"").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Private sector renewal: consequential amendments]:

[Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 not moved.]

Schedule 1 agreed to.

House resumed.