HL Deb 03 November 2004 vol 666 cc368-72

(1) The Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 167(2)(d) after "medical" insert ", access"."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should say immediately that I have no intention of pressing the amendment and, in the same breath, warmly welcome government Amendments Nos. 54 and 64. I have left in the Marshalled List the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wilkins, because we felt, with respect, that it was better because it mentioned access alongside medical and welfare grounds. That would ensure that allocation policies better reflected the social model of disability and more effectively met the housing needs of disabled people.

There have been other helpful government moves. We welcome very much the Government's commitment on Report to strengthen the statutory guidance on allocations to ensure that disabled people arc housed appropriately and to make better use of specially designed and adapted properties. We welcome the assurances given about the importance of local councils providing accessible information and effective support to disabled people in choice-based lettings. The Disability Rights Commission officials look forward to working with the Government on good practice guidance.

On Report, I was greatly cheered by the firm recognition by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of the need to give disabled people a right to make reasonable adaptations to rented leasehold properties, including the communal areas, and his assertion that a solution had to be found. I appreciate that it is a complex area, but disabled people urgently need a resolution, and we want to press for a timetable for consultation and a firm commitment to legislate in the area. I hope that the Minister will be able to reiterate his commitment to resolving the issue, particularly that of the communal area.

The mention of "access" in Amendment No. 47 would focus on the social model of disability. The person is disabled by the architecture and by attitudes rather than by, for example, their physical or visual impairment. The wheelchair user in a home with steps and no downstairs loo needs to move because his or her home is inaccessible, not because of a medical condition. I hope that if my noble friend Lady Wilkins reaches her place in time—we have moved on swiftly—she will expand on the medical condition. I know that she wants to refer to a case in which a person with a medical condition was allotted an accessible flat which had had £40,000-worth of adaptations but wanted to get them ripped out. Luckily, the council stopped that as housing stock would have been lost, but access is important.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Bassam, and to Keith Hill, the Minister in the other place, for listening yet again and tabling Amendments Nos. 54 and 64. I understand that for some mysterious reason the word "access" caused immense problems and that they could not include it. However, "disability" is mentioned in the Bill, as well as medical or welfare grounds, which should enable a clearer focus on the specific barriers facing disabled people and finding suitable housing. Furthermore, if guidance or regulations change and those issues are forgotten, there will be a specific mention of disability to which we can point in the Act.

I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, speak to his amendment and perhaps demolish ours. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, we support the amendment and hope that the Minister can give a sensible reply. As has been suggested, there are potential economies in the good use of the material that has been provided.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, having supported the noble Baroness throughout the Bill, I am pleased that the Government have responded so well. I support the amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, by speaking now, I do not wish to exclude under our procedure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, who has just arrived. We are grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Darcy de Knayth, for the useful debate we had on Report. We took their points on board, and there have been useful discussions with Keith Hill from the other place as the day-to-day Minister. Government Amendments Nos. 54 and 64 are alternatives to Amendment No. 47. The reason they do not refer to "access" deserves a brief explanation. The term "access" is not defined in law, and we were concerned that it could be interpreted narrowly, compounding the problems which the noble Baronesses were trying to overcome.

In drafting the government amendments, we have sought as wide as possible a definition. We have tied "disability", a generally understood term, to both the medical and social models. Our discussions have centred around the use of the term "medical grounds" in Section 167(2)(d) of the Housing Act 1996. That section provides that people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds must be given a reasonable preference under a local authority's allocation scheme. The discussions concerned the way in which the term "medical grounds" was being interpreted by local housing authorities.

We have laid an amendment to Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 to meet the concerns raised in the debate. Amendment No. 54 will ensure that the term "medical or welfare grounds" includes those who need to move on grounds relating to a disability.

I know that there are issues around accessible accommodation, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in his interjection. We want to make the best use of the properties we have. It beggars belief that sometimes properties are modified and are not then used by people who could make good use of them. On Report, I gave a commitment that when our statutory code of guidance on allocations was updated next year, we would focus on disability housing registers. I will further commit that when the new clause is considered in the guidance, we will make sure to explain that people who need to move on "grounds relating to a disability" include those who have access needs as a result of their disability. This issue sometimes involves a pedantic jobsmith in the local housing department: he is doing what he thinks is his job, but sometimes it is not common sense.

Amendment No. 64 is a minor and technical amendment which allows the new clause to be commenced by order. I shall move the government amendments in due course, and I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses for raising and pursuing the matter. It makes life easier for Ministers when they are under pressure, if they can go back to the department and say, "You try standing at the Dispatch Box and saying 'No' to the Members who are raising the amendments. It is not easy, particularly when there ought to be an easier, commonsense answer". I hope that we have arrived at that.

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I apologise for being absent when the amendment was moved. Business had moved so quickly. I, too, thank the Minister for understanding the importance of access issues, for listening to the arguments and for tabling a government amendment. We are grateful to him for championing the explicit reference to "access" during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. As he pointed out at the Report stage of this Bill at col. 847, he takes seriously the matter of access.

I welcome the Government's amendments, and I support Amendment No. 47, which explicitly includes "access" alongside medical or welfare grounds. I, too, stress the right of disabled people to make reasonable adaptations to rented and leasehold properties. We were greatly encouraged that the Minister recognised that there was a serious gap in the legislation and that a solution had to be found. I hope that he will press the department to consult on the matter, to timetable that consultation and to find time for legislation.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I did not mention that because I was giving way. I will certainly continue to champion the issue, and we will do what we can to ensure that legislation is not unduly delayed.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a brief intervention on the subject of access. My daughter recently purchased a house which had no doorstep. A doorstep was no longer allowed because it would interfere with the easy access of wheelchairs—something with which I can sympathise. However, the result is that every time it rains, water pours underneath the door.

So sometimes there are two sides to the question of access and of what is practical and realistic. I hope that, in drafting regulations, Ministers and those who deal with building regulations will have in mind that the consequences that sometimes follow from trying to act in a kindly and generous way towards the disabled can create more problems for the householder than it solves.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. It is not common sense to make a modification which assists one person but causes major problems either for others who use the property or in respect of the property itself. Clearly, there must be compromise. Common sense must be employed either in building regulations or in the modifications required.

The noble Lord raises a very practical issue. We have something like 25 million or 26 million dwellings in the country, most of which, as I think the noble Earl said earlier, are not fit. We do not replace our stock. Much of it is very old and was built before planning applications or building regulations were in place. It is only as we replace and refurbish those buildings that we can address these issues. It will not be possible to modify many old properties and make them accessible, but it is ridiculous to provide access and then to ruin a property by allowing the situation described by the noble Lord to occur.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for his very practical support, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her continued firm support, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for his contribution. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that the communal part of a property is a complex area. I understand that it could be hedged around with many provisos for landlords. In many cases, the disabled person would have to pay for the work and it could be stated in the lease that, if necessary, he would pay for the property to be put back as it was. It would be hedged around.

I make profuse apologies to my noble friend because I misinformed her. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, could speak to his amendment, but I had forgotten that one cannot speak to an amendment on Report when it is grouped with another. I am afraid that bossiness completely overtook me and I apologise profusely.

Again, I thank all Ministers who have helped with this amendment. I thank the noble Lord for mentioning that he would encourage disabled housing registers. He absolutely understands access needs. He understands the importance of access and of keeping accessible housing in the stock. I also thank him for reiterating that he will pursue the question of leaseholds flats and communal areas in particular. The noble Lord may be grateful to know that I shall not speak when he finally moves his amendment. But I thank him and all noble Lords, and I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Whitaker moved Amendment No. 48:

After Clause 203, insert the following new clause—