HC Deb 22 May 1975 vol 892 cc1791-802

11.30 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

Section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 provides for home loss payments to be made for three sets of cases where people are displaced from home—where they are displaced for the compulsory acquisition of a dwelling, for the making of a housing order, or for redevelopment. Claims must be made within six months of the date of displacement. The minimum payment possible is £150 and the maximum payment is £1,500.

My constituents, Mr. Holdstock and his family, were moved by the Haringey Council to another property because of redevelopment in July 1973. Unfortunately, Mr. Holdstock was not aware of his entitlement to a home loss payment until more than six months after the date of his removal. When he heard about it he immediately put in an application. This was in April 1974.

The council refused to make a payment because the application was beyond the permitted time. Considerable correspondence ensued between Mr. Holdstock and the council. I took Mr. Holdstock's case up on his behalf and on 1st October 1974 I received a letter from the borough valuer and estates surveyor in which he repeated the facts about Mr. Holdstock's rehousing and said: During October and November 1973, the existence of and general categories of entitlement to Home Loss Payments were announced by this Council in the North London press. In addition, notices were placed in Post Offices and Public Libraries and the subject of Home Loss Payments received coverage on television and in the national press. However the Council has made representations to the Department of the Environment, with a view to obtaining authority to make a payment in this case. So the council was now satisfied that although Mr. Holdstock had made a late claim he should receive a payment.

I took the matter up. When I wrote to the Department, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied to the effect that ex gratia payments of this kind were sanctioned only in exceptional circumstances. I know that in this case it was not thought that there was sufficient justification.

Mr. Holdstock maintains—I think rightly—that people displaced in this way should be directly informed at the time of their right to claim. Comparatively few people read the local Press. Mr. Holdstock does not read the local Press. It is not always easy for ordinary members of the public to connect the terms of a national advertisement about an Act of Parliament with their own problem.

As for notices in post offices and libraries, Mr. Holdstock was able to prove that no such notices had been displayed in the libraries and post offices in his area. He is entitled to £471 for home loss. The council is willing to make a payment, but the Department will not sanction it. The Department says: I am afraid the question of whether or not a Council gave adequate local publicity to home loss payments would not necessarily be regarded as relevant to a decision on an application for sanction to make an ex grotto payment. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been made to him by local authorities to use his powers under Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1973 to sanction ex grotto payments where claims for home loss payments have been made later than six months after the date of displacement. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied: Some 300 applications, of which 190 have been sanctioned."—[Official Report, 15th January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 104.] If the councils concerned in these cases feel justified in paying, surely they should be permitted to do so. It would be very interesting to know what criteria were used to sanction the 190 payments to which my hon. Friend referred in his reply to me and to refuse the 110 which make up the balance of the 300.

Mr. Brook and his family had a similar experience to that of Mr. Holdstock. They, too, do not read the local paper. Indeed, Mr. Brook points out that some people cannot read or write. What do they do? Presumably they will not get a payment, or any chance of it. Mr. Brook heard about the home loss provision only when he met an old neighbour. It appears that most applicants obtain information in a similar haphazard way. Mr. Brook, too, is entitled to £471. I may say that both these families are very much in need of the money because they were involved in considerable expense in having to change from one home to another.

I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking about these two constituency cases tonight, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies to consider three things. First, will he reconsider his refusal to sanction an ex gratia payment in these and similar cases, and will he give the councils greater discretion to make these payments, having satisfied themselves that there is adequate ground for doing so?

I also ask my hon. Friend to urge local authorities to take greater care in making such benefits known directly to people entitled to receive them, because a great deal of correspondence takes place between councils and people in this position at the time when they have to move. There are personal visits and many opportunities when this information could be given to the people concerned.

Thirdly, I ask my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to try to devise a better system of informing those concerned of their rights when they are considering future legislation, because at present it is haphazard in the extreme. It seems to me important that if Parliament makes a decision about benefits for certain people, means should be found of ensuring that those people know of their rights to those benefits.

Therefore, although this may seem a small matter, it is very important to the people concerned and it is important for Parliament sometimes to hear the end result of the way in which the Acts which it puts through work out in practice. I shall be grateful to have my hon. Friend's comments.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Has the hon. Gentleman reached an agreement with the Minister and his hon. Friend?

Mr. Brown

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for offering me a few moments in which to raise two similar cases to her own. In one of them I have been in discussion with the Department concerning my constituent, Mr. Elliott, and his family who were removed from their home, a bungalow, at the behest of the local authority in October 1973. Mr. Elliott is still fighting it out with the various people involved to try to get his home loss payment, to which he feels that he is entitled and on which I support him.

The problem in this case is that all the authorities and the Department are playing silly beggars. First, the Greater London Council refers the matter to Hackney, Hackney then refers it to the Department and the Department then refers it back to the GLC. And so we go on from October 1973 until nearly June 1975, and we are still no nearer settlement.

I took up the case on behalf of Mr. Elliott and I had an answer from the GLC saying "It is not really us after all. We moved him, it is true, but we moved him only because the Department told us to do so." The council wrote to Mr. Elliott: The reason that you, and adjoining occupiers of these bungalows, were displaced from Trederwen Road was that the London Borough of Hackney had been instructed by the Department of the Environment to clear these bungalow sites". The Department wrote to me: I am afraid that the question of Mr. Elliott and his possible entitlement to a home loss payment is entirely a matter for the local authority. Then the local authority wrote to me saying that it was nothing to do with the authority at all because it could not do it.

Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to look again at this ridiculous situation. Apparently there is some collusion between both local authorities and the Department with a view to showing that none of them is responsible. They say that there appears to have been a lease on the land, that the lease came to an end and that therefore the authority was bound to rehouse the occupiers through the bungalows being demolished. That is apparently the collusion—to make sure they do not pay these elderly families the £519 to which they are entitled under the 1973 Act.

I come to another case, which is tragic. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has examined the case of Mr. Montgomery. He has lived in a very ancient GLC flat for about 12 years. As the years have advanced he has become seriously ill. He was housed on the third floor and was unable to leave his flat because his legs were becoming seriously affected and no lift was available. I, among others, petitioned on his behalf to get him brought down to the ground floor. It seemed the only humanitarian thing to do. The council very wisely and kindly agreed to this. After some delay in finding a suitable place in the same old ramshackle building, the council moved Mr. Montgomery to the ground floor, which allowed him to lead at least some form of civilised life.

In the meantime, I was pressing the GLC to pull down this block of flats because it was a disgrace. After 12 months I achieved this object. As a result, all the tenants of that block are receiving home loss payments—except Mr. Montgomery, because I petitioned so hard on his behalf in order that he could be moved. By being moved from the third floor to the ground floor he is excluded from any payment. This is heinous.

I have reminded my hon. Friend that during the passage of the Rent Act 1957 he and I marched in London opposing the principle that any tenant moved on humanitarian grounds to another flat was automatically decontrolled and could have his rent raised and could be put on the streets.

This case is on exactly the same principle. I cannot believe that my hon. Friends at the Department are prepared to put up with this. In Mr. Montgomery's case, I believe that it would be possible under Section 32(5) of the Act to interpret the word "building" as being the building in which Mr. Montgomery was living. He was living in a flat within the said building.

I ask my hon. Friend to review both these cases and give an answer in favour of my two constituents.

11.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I know that it is of concern to a number of hon. Members who have written to me on behalf of their constituents.

I entirely agree that this is certainly not a small matter. It is a very important matter, because not only have some people lost their homes; they feel deprived of the compensation that their neighbours have received for losing their homes, which they, for one reason or another, have not been able to obtain.

The Department looks at these cases with the greatest possible sympathy. I am glad to have this opportunity to explain the reasoning behind the Department's approach to the problems which have been referred to, particularly the question of late claims for home loss payments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green rightly spoke of the difficult and often distressing circumstances in which many ordinary people find themselves when they are forced to move from homes to which they have naturally grown attached over the years and have to adjust to living in new and strange surroundings. It matters little whether it is a clearance scheme or a new road which leads to their being displaced. The upset and distress are the same.

I know these problems well. I was a member of the Committee which considered the previous Government's Bill—now the Land Compensation Act 1973—which introduced home loss payments. I assure hon. Members that those provisions, which dealt with the new payments, although welcomed by both sides of the House, were nevertheless very closely examined and keenly debated. We were able to make a significant advance on the previous Government's original proposals by reducing the qualifying period from seven years' to five years' residence.

I am glad to say that as a Government we have been able to extend the provisions still further through the Housing Act 1974. As a result, home loss payments can now be made to council tenants who have to move home so that essential improvements can be carried out.

Section 32(1) of the 1973 Act provides categorically that no home loss payment shall be made except on a claim in that behalf made by the person entitled thereto before the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date of displacement. The only exception made was for people who were displaced between the commencement date for home loss payments—that is, 17th October 1972—and the date when the Act was passed, which was 23rd May 1973. By virtue of Section 32(8) they had six months from the date of Royal Assent in which to make their claims.

There are no provisions in the Act for any discretionary payments to be made in respect of late claims. Some limit needed to be set on the claim period, for practical reasons. As I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on 7th May, it would have been very difficult, and in some cases virtually impossible, to establish the validity of a claim made long after the facts of the original displacement had become obscure. Nor would it have been reasonable to impose a duty on authorities to inform claimants of their entitlements under the Act. Authorities do not, by any means, rehouse all potential claimants. Many move out of the area entirely and cannot be traced. Moreover, many potential claimants may be quite unknown to the authority—for example, private tenants.

With any new benefit like the home loss payment there is always the problem, at first, that people just do not know that they are entitled to claim. The Department therefore asked local authorities to make every effort to publicise the new provisions in their areas. The first circular which referred to this was Circular 73/73, issued soon after the Act received Royal Assent. Authorities were reminded again in October and November of that year of the specially extended time limit for claiming for people displaced before the Act came into force, and the Department itself put advertisements in the national Press drawing attention to the time limits. Advertisements were also put in the Press last December to publicise the new rights to home loss payments given by the Housing Act 1974, and again it was stressed that claims had to be made within six months of displacement. Moreover, the Department have issued a series of booklets in layman's language explaining for the public their rights to compensation, including the circumstances in which they may be entitled to a home loss payment, and these can be obtained free from the Department, local authorities and citizens advice bureaux. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will accept that the Department has made every effort to ensure that these provisions were well publicised.

The fact remains that as the Act stands authorities have no power to make home loss payments if claims are not made within six months. My right hon. Friend does, however, have power under Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972 to authorise expenditure by a local authority which might otherwise have been subject to challenge by the district auditor.

The district auditor's duty is to consider, in relation to items of account, whether a council's actions have been ultra vires. He has powers—by application to the court, or by certifying that money should be recovered from a person or persons—to seek redress wherever he finds that an item of account is contrary to law. All London councils are subject to the scrutiny of the district auditor. Any item of account which is sanctioned by the Secretary of State under Section 161 is thereby removed from the purview of the district auditor. In other words, he cannot apply to the court or certify items which the Secretary of State has sanctioned.

These powers, I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and only after the individual circumstances of each case have been thoroughly and carefully examined. This is a very important point. If Section 161 were widely invoked and extensively applied, the effect would be virtually a circumvention of statute—in short, legislation by administration. I am sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House would willingly sanction that. Accordingly, we are obliged to be very strict in invoking that section.

A number of authorities have applied to the Department for consent to make ex gratin home loss payments where claims made outside the statutory period would otherwise have been valid. These have all been considered on their individual merits, and to date—I shall revise the figures for my hon. Friends—sanction has been given for the making of 685 extra-statutory payments out of 1,039 for which approval has been sought. That is nearly 70 per cent. of the applications coming to the Department. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that these figures show that we have not been either unreasonable or ungenerous in our decisions.

We have, however, taken the view that simple ignorance of the home loss provisions is not in itself a sufficient justification for sanctioning an extra-statutory payment. The circumstances of the individual claimant must have been such that it would have been unreasonable to expect him to make a claim within the six months' period. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green asked how that criterion was applied. One obvious example would be a case in which the claimant had been seriously ill or otherwise incapacitated. But it is difficult to generalise; every case has to be looked at on its merits.

My hon. Friend referred to two cases in particular in which the London borough of Haringey applied for, but was not given, consent to make an ex gratia payment—the cases of Mr. Holdstock and Mrs. Brook.

Mr. Holdstock was the tenant of a privately-owned property and was displaced in June 1973 as a result of the compulsory purchase of the property for redevelopment by Haringey. He did not, however, make his claim for a home loss payment until the end of April 1974—some four months after the statutory claim period had expired. The reason given for his failure to submit his claim in time was that he had not seen the council's publicity about home loss payments. However, as I explained to my hon. Friend in the letter to which she referred, the question whether a council gave adequate local publicity to home loss payments would not necessarily be regarded as relevant on an application for sanction to make an ex gratia payment. As there did not seem to be anything in Mr. Holdstock's personal circumstances which might have prevented him from making a claim, we did not feel able to agree to a payment being made.

My hon. Friend asked about the people who could not read. That, indeed, might be a circumstance which would be taken into account by the Department if an application were made for an extra-statutory payment to be made.

Similar considerations applied in the case of Mrs. Brook, who was displaced from her home at 58 Clarendon Road in November 1972. She did not make her claim until April 1974, by which time it was some five months out of date. As in Mr. Holdstock's case, the reason given for the claim being made out of time was simply that Mrs. Brook was unaware of the existence of the home loss payment provisions, and again there did not seem to be sufficient justification for sanctioning an ex gratia payment. I can assure my hon. Friends that if any further evidence comes to light and the council decides to re-apply, the decision will be carefully reconsidered. However, I do not want to raise any false hopes. I must emphasise again that simple, straightforward ignorance of the right to claim a home loss payment would not be enough, in itself, to justify a payment being made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch raised two other matters, one of which I remember very well and which caused me a great deal of concern. I refer to the case of Mr. Montgomery, about which I have written to my hon. Friend. As I have said, we are bound by the provisions of the Act. I shall look again at what my hon. Friend says about removal from one place to another within one block of flats, but it is almost certain—I want to raise no false hopes—that the criterion is removal from one home to another home. If a person was to move even next door within a block of flats—namely, from one flat to another—that would constitute a change of home.

I remember that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) described the home loss provision provided under the Act as similar in law to what is called loss of consortium. It is the loss of something with which a person is familiar—something which he has grown to love. If a move takes place from one place to another within the five-year period, I fear that it is almost impossible in law to make a claim.

If any further evidence becomes available my right hon. Friend and I will be as sympathetic as possible to the cases which have been mentioned. I must point out that simple ignorance, by itself, under the terms of the 1973 Act and the policy of the Department, cannot be sufficient claim for an ex gratia payment being made.

Mr. Ronald Brown

My hon. Friend must understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green and I represent working-class constituencies. We represent people who cannot go to lawyers. They have no lawyers on tap. They have probably been council tenants for most of their lives, and were probably in slums before that. My hon. Friend must understand that we are dealing with a special category of person. We do not represent middle-class areas where everyone has the money to buy the advice that he requires. We are talking about working-class people who do not have that opportunity.

Mr. Oakes

I find that within the working-class community from which I come the grapevine is often more effective than any lawyer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.