REPAIRS GRANT

HC Deb 28 February 1978 vol 945 cc327-34

Mr. Robin F. Cook

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 30, after 'to', insert 'the urgency of the repairs and'. The intention of the amendment is to be helpful to the Minister, and it might help the House if I were to read into the record what was said in Committee when we considered the issue of hardship tests on the application for a repairs grant. There was considerable debate on the issue in Committee. In his reply to the debate the Minister said: I urge that the incomes testing must be done sympathetically, because it is a question not just of needs but of the state of property. I envisage that it will not be someone in an office who will decide the question on the basis only of income, though that will be the broad test. It must be related to the repairs that need to be done, how urgent they are, and whether there is co-operation and support from all the other people connected with the individual who has an acute problem."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd February 1978; c. 250.] In considering the Bill as it stands, it is very difficult to see how a local authority could take into account, in making its judgment of an application, the state of the property as well as the needs of the applicant, because the present subsection appears to me to refer only to the financial means of the applicant, and it would appear to rest solely on whether the applicant was successful in applying for a repairs grant.

If it is the desire of the Government that the decision of the local authority should turn not simply on the financial capacity of the applicant but also on the state of the property in which the applicant is residing, it is surely sensible to write that specifically into the Bill, to avoid any doubt on the part of the local authority concerned.

It is difficult to find a brief phrase which indicates the particular state of repairs that we should wish to succeed in any application for a repairs grant and that which we should wish to fail. There is probably considerable difficulty in lawyers coming up with a suitable tight definition of "urgency". I chose the word "urgency" because it is the Minister's word, used in his reply, in which he said that It must be related to the repairs that need to be done, how urgent they are, and so on. It is from that source that I have taken the word "urgency", and I hope that my hon. Friend will find it a helpful addition to the Bill.

It is worth reminding the House that when we debated the matter in Committee there was considerable anxiety among hon. Members that the test of hardship which has been introduced into the application for repairs grant may well have the effect of severely restricting the number of successful applications for repairs grants and the extent to which the Government envisage the grants applying. I note that there is an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) which refers to the specific question of hardship.

There are very grave grounds for concern whether a sufficient number of people will succeed in passing the test as it stands in the Bill at present. When we discussed the matter in Committee, I informed the Committee of my own discussions with Edinburgh District Council, in which the council indicated that at present only 2 per cent. of those who apply for an improvement grant within a housing action area fulfil the additional test of hardship in order to qualify for a 90 per cent. grant. If that 2 per cent. is typical as a sample, we can expect a very restricted uptake of the repairs grant.

It is quite plain to those who heard the Minister discuss this in Committee and outside that he wishes to see the repairs grant applied rather more widely than to 2 per cent. of applicants. Indeed, it is quite clear that the Minister is genuine in his wish to see it applied widely, so that the sort of repair can be carried out to older tenements which is required to be done before they reach the stage of demolition, and before there is need for expensive new housing. That being so, it would be only prudent to make quite plain to the local authorities in the wording of the subsection that we do not want them simply to apply the same test of hardship as they applied in the case of improvement grants.

One way of doing it would have been to delete the reference to hardship. I had an amendment on the Order Paper for that purpose but it has not been selected. My present amendment would have the effect of giving local authorities the discretion, which the Minister himself indicated that he hoped they would use, of considering not simply the income of the applicant but also the state of repair required to the property.

It would be very unfortunate indeed if we were faced with a situation in which there was a tenant requiring what we should all accept as urgent repairs, and whose application for a repairs grant was turned down out of hand because the applicant failed to meet this fairly narrow test of hardship. I am sure that that would not be the Minister's intention, I am sure that it would not have been the wish of hon. Members in Committee, and that it would not be the intention of the House.

That being so, I hope that the House will find it possible to accept the amendment.

Mr. Younger

I should like to say a word briefly about the other amendment, Amendment No. 15, which it was suggested should be discussed with the amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The amendment, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, would ensure that the local authority would have to draw up a plan or scheme to cater for hardship—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. My recollection is that I called only Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

The confusion may have arisen because Amendment No. 15 could perhaps have been taken with Amendment No. 13, but that was, of course, a matter for the Chair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has highlighted the words that I used in Committee. I would not say that I committed an indiscretion, but perhaps it would be better if I explained what I meant by urgency.

I am assured that some people read the reports of our debates, and therefore some people still seem to think that what a Minister says is important. Perhaps it would have been better if I had used the word "serious". My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to make the urgency of a repair a major factor in the consideration of a repairs grant. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern to maintain the fabric of older private houses, but to write in "urgency" is not a satisfactory standard. Indeed, it would be a difficult one to apply.

A quite small repair might be urgently needed—for example, a broken window—while a serious repair need such as attention to dry rot or structural strength might be capable of being left for further study and might result in gradual deterioration. I know that we are all playing with words when making legislation, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that, from the point of view of definition and interpretation, it would be undesirable to write in the word "urgency".

The amendment might have—I put it no higher than that—the undesirable effect of encouraging people to wait until a repair became urgently needed in the hope of getting a grant more easily. My hon. Friend must take on board that aspect as well. It would obviously be wrong to encourage this kind of delay, because it would not be in keeping with the intention of the policy aimed at maintaining older private houses.

Amendment No. 15 is probably more important in the generality of how we apply the hardship test. The word "urgency" would not be capable of accurate interpretation.

Mr, Robin F. Cook

I would be the first to admit—I repeatedly said this in Committee—that I am not a legal draftsman. Perhaps I used the wrong word, but unfortunately I relied on the word which the Minister himself used off the cuff in Committee.

It may be that my hon. Friend has been got at and that the reasons why he should not have used that word have been thoroughly explained to him. I would not wish to go to the stake in defence of the word "urgency" but I believe there is merit in our widening the subsection so that local authorities have some regard to the state of the property, as was clearly in my hon. Friend's mind in Committee.

Mr. Brown

I do not think that we can widen the definition of a repair grant. It is pretty wide already and covers almost everything that is a repair. That is for the discretion of the local authority. I do not think we can get anything wider than a repair grant.

I accept that there has been a very liberal interpretation of improvement work, some of which strictly speaking is a repair. Therefore, I would acquit all local authorities—certainly those that I know of—of dealing with the situation in other than a sympathetic way.

I have already explained the difficulties about what is an urgent repair. It could encourage delay because it depends on the nature of the repair whether there might be some merit which would then force a local authority to delay the work. I hope it would not. We want to encourage the use of the repair grant as quickly as possible if a repair requires attention.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not poking fun at me. I have not been got at with regard to the use of the word "urgency". I was merely stressing how with a bit of common sense—some of which exists in local authority officials—serious repairs may be treated with an element of urgency. I hope that, with that difficult explanation, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 33 at end insert— To this end, each local authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a plan or scheme to cater for such hardship and the approval of the Secretary of State shall be required for any such scheme. I apologise for misinterpreting my notes and speaking to this amendment earlier. I hope that I can be reasonably brief on what is a fairly important point.

I start with the words which the Minister himself used in Committee. He said: I give an assurance on two points: first, that we shall consult COSLA about the application of the hardship test. Secondly, that we undertake to review the matter and commission a survey on how it is likely to work. We shall consult COSLA about that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd February 1978, c.250.] I hope the Minister will be able to tell us the result of his consultations with COSLA with regard to this important point. What concerned my hon. Friends in Committee, and what concerns us just as much now, is the case which is all too frequent—particularly in the cities—of a tenant living in a property requiring a great deal of repair who has a small amount of savings upon which he may well rely for a certain amount of income, but which is likely to be taken into consideration in assessing hardship for the purpose of a repair grant.

There was some discussion in Committee about this matter and some of my hon. Friends gave some examples. I do not need to repeat those examples now. Suffice it to say that our objective is to ensure that as much uniformity as possible exists throughout the whole of Scotland in the way that local authorities treat tenants who have small private resources of their own which it would be quite damaging for them to dig into for a major house repair.

In years gone by I suppose that we would have taken the view that if people had a small amount of money laid aside it would have been only fair to look at the condition of the home and use that money if necessary.

But circumstances are different today. We have had such vicious taxation over such a long period that many people, particularly widows, have found that their financial provision is now completely inadequate for maintaining them. It is, therefore, a major disincentive to get necessary repairs done to houses if tenants feel that their savings could be threatened, taken into account or result in a reduced grant.

What we have suggested in the amendment is that every local authority should draw up a plan for dealing with hardship with regard to repair grants. Such a plan would obviously include all the particular criteria which an authority would expect to operate with regard to the assessment of hardship, as well as the extent to which they would take into account small amounts of savings that the people concerned might possess.

But all these plans would have to be approved by the Secretary of State in the same way as are other plans, including the housing plan itself. This would be a safeguard which the Secretary of State could exercise in order to make sure that the standard was reasonably compatible over the country as a whole.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what the views of COSLA are on this important matter of hardship cases. I hope he will be able to accept the amendment. If it is not absolutely word perfect, perhaps he can arrange with his noble Friends in another place to put the matter right.

One thing we must have is a clear understanding among tenants of the extent to which hardship will be taken into account and on what criteria that hardship will be measured. If we can get some satisfaction on that point, then I believe that the amendment and this debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I should like to be helpful, but I am afraid that I have to ask the House to reject the amendment.

I have fulfilled the assurance which I gave in Committee. This amendment raises a new concept. It poses the question of a national scheme with each authority submitting to the Secretary of State a plan or scheme to cater for such hardship, and it provides that the approval of the Secretary of State shall be required for any such scheme.

To some extent, I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment. It is an attempt to get some consistency of treatment rather than any concern for the individual, although that is obviously in all our minds. It is a fair point. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to include a provision of this kind at this early stage of the proceedings.

As I said in Committee, local authorities have experience of operating the hardship test. I have had no information from any hon. Member or from any authority that they are exercising it other than with sympathy.

But I have fulfilled the undertaking which I gave in Committee to put the specific request to COSLA. I have consulted COSLA and suggested that it should consider drawing up guidelines. I want to seek its co-operation. Without spying on local authorities, I should like to be able to monitor the operation of this test to ensure that there is some broad similarity of treatment while allowing authorities to retain their independence. We can try to get them to work together, to compare notes and to be as helpful as possible. But I think that at the end of the day the right line to take is to exhort authorities to be sympathetic. They have the discretion and they can cater for the needs or fears of any individual such as those expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he responded to my argument. I hope that these guidelines will be helpful. I hope, too, that he and his officials will bear in mind that it is important not only to have these guidelines but to make sure that local authorities let it be known to potential recipients of grant that they need not be afraid of the criteria so that the case does not arise of one old lady stopping the repair of a whole tenement.

In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.