§ Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 16, line 25, after "includes" insert "(a)".
189§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this amendment we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
§ Mr. BrownI hope that these amendments will have the support of the Opposition. They tidy up and give effect to the intention of an Opposition amendment that we accepted in Committee.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorAs far as I can see, the amendment makes it clear that a repairs notice can be issued to commercial premises in a tenement block as well as to householders. This matter is not entirely clear to me. Is this simply stating that a notice will be issued to the commercial premises—perhaps the small shop under the tenement flats—or does it give the Government or the local authority any power to assist the owner of commercial premises in the event of the repair being substantial? We know that there are repairs grants for householders. Has this matter been given consideration? Will the repairs grant be extended to cover the owner of a shop with a small turnover and facing hard times, particularly in areas from which people are moving away?
As far as I can see, the amendment ensures only that the notice will be served and that something must be done about the roof, or whatever it may be. Is there any provision, if hardship is proved, for the owners of small shops to get help with repairs, some of which can be substantial?
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownThere is not, in fact. I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is trying to have it both ways. He asked in Committee that there should not be provision and that it should be made clear that the owners of commercial premises or shops below tenements should be liable for their share of the repairs. That is what we are ensuring.
§ Mr. YoungerThe Minister's memory may not be absolutely accurate. We had lengthy discussions in Committee about the position of the small corner shop—perhaps essential in a housing scheme—the owner of which, particularly now, when small businesses are under tremendous pressure because of the failure of 190 the Government's economic policies, may find it difficult to keep his head above water without having to face a sudden request for repairs. A householder in that position has the protection of Acts, grants and so on, but the small shopkeeper does not.
Does the Minister recall the descriptions that we discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill? We referred to the fact that a law that applies to a small branch of a multiple concern which has plenty of resources behind it is one thing, and that we would all expect such a commercial concern to be able to afford to meet its obligations without public subsidy, but that the small individually owned local corner shop is another matter. The owner of such a business may find it every bit as hard as a householder with a small income who is suddenly faced with a bill for, perhaps, £1,000 for his share of the repair to the property.
Has the Minister thought about this matter since we discussed it in Committee? We particularly asked that he should.
Surely he is obliged to try to find a way of covering the small local shop which has no resources. There are hundreds of these small shops throughout our cities. If they are not given some assistance, many will have to close their doors. If they do, some housing schemes will be disadvantaged. Old people in the vicinity may find that the local corner shop, to which they are able to walk, perhaps with difficulty, no longer exists, and that may make a major difference to the life of the community.
10.30 p.m.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken that point. Hon. Members on all sides will agree that this is a genuine case. We must not pass legislation which suits the well-off chain of shops with resources but which does not cover the small shopkeeper.
I suppose that it is too late to ask the Minister to think further about the Bill, but could he at least consult the interested bodies? Perhaps he could consult the chamber of commerce in Glasgow and the Scottish Grocer's Federation, which might have views about this matter. He is obliged to undertake to make inquiries and, by letter through the usual channels, to 191 the House or the Scottish Grand Committee, to make a statement about what he will do if a small shopkeeper without resources receives a bill which he cannot afford. I do not think that we can leave the matter like this.
§ Mr. Neil Carmichael (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)I am anxious about this matter, which I have raised in correspondence on a number of occasions. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but I thought that the Lords amendment, which reads
line 25, after 'houses' insert; 'or (b) a house or houses and other premises.'".was a concession to meet the serious problem that exists not particularly in the housing estates, where the shops tend to be fairly new, but in the older areas, where isolated shops have served the area for generations.I agree that there are problems. I do not know how one would distinguish between the small shop which is part of a large chain and the genuine one-man business. One of the cases which I have mentioned to the Minister involved a man who had six shops whereas just round the corner a woman had nothing. The district valuers price was low and the woman was trapped. She could neither get out nor continue with the repairs.
I hope that my hon. Friend would give some aid. I thought that
a house or houses and other premisesgave us an opportunity to help the small shopkeeper in an old community.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI recognise that there is a genuine problem; I do not attempt to conceal that. There was a discussion in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Carmichael) will recollect, since he has raised this matter with me a number of times.
In the amendment we are making clear that there is a liability on the owner of premises—a liability about which there was a doubt. We are not dealing with the genuine problem to which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred. I assure him that I shall not be allowed to drop the issue, not just because of pressure from hon. Members but because it is a genuine problem, particularly in the East End project.
We are talking not about housing estates but about areas where, unfortunately, 192 there is a decline in the need for small shops as a result of changing trading patterns. Because of the operation of the competitive system some shops are becoming less competitive. I agree that any additional burden could put the small shopkeepers out of business.
I shall not get off the hook, but this is not the place to argue the issue. I assure the House that this is a matter of concern. We are looking at ways of trying to build in some type of discretion that will help in those genuine cases which hon. Members have mentioned.
This is a difficult matter, because inevitably we are back into a means-testing set of circumstances. I am not sure that we are all agreed that that is the right way to proceed. But I recognise that there is a problem.
I have had no representations from the chambers of commerce or from the Scottish Grocers' Federation or any other body. I have simply had representations from individual Members of Parliament who have had the matter drawn to their attention by constituents, quite properly. However, I agree that this is a matter that will need our attention in the future. All that I can promise is that I recognise the problem and that we shall be as helpful as we can in trying to overcome it.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 16, line 39, at end insert—
8A. In section 16(3) (rent allowances to private tenants)—
In this subsection "appropriate day" means—
(8B) In section 16(4), (5) and (5A) for the words "under a tenancy which would be a protected tenancy", "and his tenancy would be a protected tenancy" and "to which Part VII of the Act of 1971 would apply" where-ever they occur there shall be substituted the the words "where he would be a private tenant".
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a rather lengthy amendment. To summarise, we have discovered a slight anomaly in the application of the rent allowance scheme. It arises because of the recent revaluation. It affects only new property. It is nothing to do with security of tenure tinder the Rent Act. If we did not make this change, it would mainly have the effect of excluding housing association houses, which could debar people from attracting a rent allowance simply if the rateable value figure was left at £200.
This is quite constructive. It will certainly be helpful and it is needed particularly by tenants of housing associations.
§ Mr. YoungerI welcome this amendment very much. I was interested to see this matter arising in the debates in another place. This is a necessary amendment. It is a pity that we all overlooked it earlier. But once more it amazes and greatly pleases me to see the extent to which the Government now so much support the rent allowance scheme that they are prepared to bring it up to date in this way and make sure that it continues.
I cannot forget the bitter opposition that there was to the introduction of the rent allowance scheme in 1972 and how, over many weeks, Labour Members, including the Minister—but not, perhaps, as strongly as his colleagues—fought line by line against the whole concept of allowances. It was particularly amazing in view of the fact that they had themselves introduced the fair rent scheme for private tenants without any rent allowance scheme at all.
194 That was the situation that we found when we came to office, so we brought in the rent allowance scheme thinking that it was something that no one could oppose and something that would give help to tenants who found that the rent they had to pay was too much for them. That was bitterly opposed, as hon. Members must fully remember.
It is always nice to be able to say "Thank you" to someone, and to congratulate even the Labour Party when it sees the error of its ways. I am a very happy man tonight to find that after all that time, since 1972, the rent allowance scheme has been accepted by the present Government as a permanent feature. I give the Minister the fullest credit for his part in converting his colleagues to this.
The only other fact that I should like to mention on this fascinating subject is that we are having to increase the rateable value limit for these houses, which are newly constructed, from the previous figure of £200, which was quite sufficient to cover the houses of this standard and get them into the scheme under the old rateable values, to £600.
There are two points that I should like to make about that. The first is that it is astonishing that the rateable value increases should be of such a large order. Grants on these houses would have been within the £200 limit until this year, when the new rateable values have had to be raised on average by three times to reflect the drastic effects of the gross inflation which this Government have allowed to get quite out of control since 1974. We see in this amendment the literal effect of that situation.
It may seem a small point, but for the average householder this increase is not enough. The average rise in Scotland is between 3.1 and 3.2 times. Can the Minister assure us that no one who would have got a rent allowance before these changes will fail to get one now? I would not want even a few cases at the margin to lose their previous entitlement. We must be certain that the figure of £600 is adequate to cover all those who previously received an allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said earlier that it was excellent that we had the House of Lords to make changes like this. 195 I should have realised when I made my earlier remarks that it is not quite accurate to say that there is no chance for the Minister to think again about these matters. If the Minister thinks our arguments strong, because of the flexibility of the system we could reject the amendment and ask another place to think again. During that time, the Minister could consult his officials and his noble Friends to see whether there was not some better alternative.
I should like to be assured that this rise to £600 is enough to cover every possible case.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI do not think that Tory Members have quite recovered from their euphoria at Perth the other week. Having just been told that I am a Left winger, I am now told to accept the thanks of Tory Members for converting my colleagues to Tory policies. Some might agree with that, but they should be consistent.
I can give the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) almost a categorical assurance. The domestic increase in revaluations, as distinct from the total increase in revaluations—the hon. Member might be right on that—is 2.9 times. We are therefore erring on the safe side. I have no evidence to show that anyone eligible for a rent allowance under the previous limit will not be covered in future. We are talking about new houses and no one is building new houses for rent except housing associations. I can give an almost categorical assurance that no one will be disadvantaged.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorThe Minister said that this provision referred to new houses. We accept that, as we do his estimate that no one will be disadvantaged. But we were inquiring not about people covered by this but about existing tenants of older houses who, under the £200 limit, were eligible for a rent allowance. Can he assure us that nothing in the amendment will mean that anyone living in an ordinary tenement will fail to get a rent allowance in future? I do not think that will happen, but may we have that assurance?
For the avoidance of doubt in Hansard, may I emphasise that when I referred to the Minister as a Left winger, I was trying to be sarcastic?
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownUnfortunately, when people read the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), they do not know whether he is trying to be sarcastic or just silly. Sometimes I am not sure whether he knows himself which hat he has on.
Seriously, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The change to which he referred took place under another piece of legislation. We are dealing with a separate provision about new housing. Therefore, I can give that assurance.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 16, line 47, at end insert—
§ "The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56)
§
9A. In section 27 (right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(e) a requirement to remove from the building containing the dwelling in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings) or any other enactment which requires the demolition of the building on account of its condition,":
(ii) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following paragraph—
(v) where paragraph (e) above applies the authority requiring the removal.";
(b) in subsection (3A)—
(c) at the end of subsection (9), there shall be added the following words "except that, where the displacement is in consequence of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) (e) above, it applies if the date of displacement is on or after the coming into force of paragraph 9A of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.".
§
9B. In section 34 (disturbance payments for persons without compensatable interests)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(e) a requirement to remove from a building on the land in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings) or any other enactment which requires the
197
demolition of the building on account of its condition,";
(ii) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following paragraph—
(v) where paragraph (e) above applies, the authority requiring the removal.";
(b) in subsection (3)—
(c) in subsection (3A)—
(d) at the end of subsection (9) there shall be added the following words "except that, where the displacement is in consequence of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(e) above, it applies if the date of displacement is on or after the coming into force of paragraph 9B of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.".
§
9C. In section 36 (duty to re-house residential occupiers)—
(a) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) a requirement to remove from the building containing the residential accommodation in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings), or any other enactment which requires the demolition of the building on account of its condition,";
(b) in subsection (6)—
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I call attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in this amendment.
§ Mr. BrownThis is an important amendment. It arises from an assurance that I gave on Report to my hon. Friend Cook) who tabled a similar amendment at that stage.
I apologise to the House for the length and technicality of the amendment. It gives the right of home loss payments—disturbance payments—to people who have to be rehoused because the property has been declared dangerous. We in this place have been able to draw a distinction in these matters, but the average person who has had to leave his house—this applies mainly to tenements in Edinburgh and Glasgow—have had no rights and have felt that they have had to get out because of some action by a statutory authority.
This is a welcome provision, and I am sure that it will be acceptable to both sides of the House.
§ Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)Will my hon. Friend indicate whether there is a time limit on these amendments?
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI am not clear what my hon. Friend means by "time limit".
§ Mr. CraigenI mean a time limit in respect of the occupancy of a house.
§ Mr. BrownI think that I am right in saying that the same arrangements will apply in the event of a building coming down because it is dangerous as apply when it comes down for any other reason. I am not sure whether that is subject to a discretion that is exercised by the local authority. However, I shall clear that point up for my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorWe accept that this is a sensible move because it seems fair and reasonable. In Glasgow in particular there is often a suspicion by some residents in older tenemental property that the dangerous building procedures are used not only because of the compensation considerations but because they provide a speedier way in which the local authority can get action.
In the other place it was indicated that the amendment had been rather rushed. An apology was made for that. It was estimated there that the amendment would cost about £100,000 extra a year. 199 Was that figure just plucked out of the air on a rushed amendment? If not, how is the £100,000 arrived at? Will that sum fall on the ratepayer, the taxpayer, or both? If so, in what proportion? I have thrown the question at the Minister without notice, so if he would like to answer it through correspondence, I should be happy with that.
The complicated and helpful amendment shows clearly that the other place has played a major part in improving a Bill which left the House of Commons in a messy and inadequate state. Before we finish our proceedings on the amendment I hope that the Minister will be bold enough, even in the presence of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), to pay some tribute to the hard work done by the other place in improving this Bill.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI shall say nothing that will provoke my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The amendment was not rushed. It is rather technical, and therefore we had some problems with it. I do not conceal that.
The figure of £100,000 is to some extent a guess. One or two ingenious authorities have been using powers—quite legitimately—to rehouse people and enable them to make home loss and disturbance payments and then declare the buildings concerned dangerous. In other words, those authorities have found a way round the inadequacy of the existing procedures However, it is unfair to expect authorities to do this. This is what we are trying to clear up.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the break-down. I think that, as usual, it attracts grant or subsidy of over 50 per cent. Some of the burden will obviously fall on the ratepayers. I make no apology for that. It introduces an element of justice for people who have, through no fault of their own, had to leave their homes. I will check up on the details and supply them to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. YoungerThere was some talk about this at an earlier stage. It was referred to also in the context of historic buildings, or buildings of architectural merit that might be listed. Would those be covered? If a building were dangerous, it would be necessary for occupants 200 to move out because of the danger, not merely to them but possibly to people passing in the street, but if the building concerned was of architectural merit it would not be demolished; it would be rehabilitated and rebuilt. There was a celebrated case of this type some years ago in Glasgow.
Would the wording of the amendment exclude from compensation a person who happened to be living in a building which had become dangerous but which, because of its architectural merit, would not be demolished but would be very largely gutted and rebuilt? Possibly the amendment would not cover such a case. I think that everybody intends that it should. Has the Minister thought about this? If not, will he undertake to examine the problem?
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI do not know why I should be so lucky tonight as to be confronted with all these partly hypothetical questions. I do not know the answer to that question, and I shall need to find out. I suspect that the intention is that it should apply. It is a technical point, if somebody has to be removed from his home, whether he will qualify for compenstation even though the building will still be there because it is a historically listed building. As I say, I do not know the answer, but I shall make inquiries and give the hon. Gentleman the information.
§ Mr. CarmichaelThe hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) raised a very interesting point, but it was a fallacious one. The buildings in Glasgow High Street had been warehouses for about 60 years, so there were no people involved. The hon. Gentleman introduced a red herring.
§ Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 20, line 20, leave out "but".
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 13.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownOn these amendments, which are purely drafting, I defy even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to get a debate.
§ Mr. Teddy TaylorIt might be wise for us to return this amendment to the House of Lords. Their lordships have made a mistake. I think that the Minister will agree that a mistake has been made. It is proposed to delete "but" from line 36, on page 20, but the wrong word has been taken out; it should be "locality", in line 37. I challenge the Minister to say what relevance the locality of a house has to the question whether it is in a good state of repair.
Are we prepared to pass legislation saying that the Government expect different standards of repair to apply to different localities? We accept that there are dfferent standards of repair, bearing in mind the age and character of a house. If one lives in an old house, as I do, one does not expect it to have the same standard of repair as a spanking new house such as that in which I am sure the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will live.
On the other hand, surely one does not accept that there should be different standards of repair according to the locality of the house. Surely one should accept that standards of repair should be at the same level throughout Scotland, and that the Government should not consider specifying an area as a housing action area because of the locality.
I suggest to the Minister that it might be wise to send this amendment back to the House of Lords. I think that it is simple mistake in a drafting amendment. The proposal is to take out the word "but", instead of the word "locality".
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I rather suspect that the hon. Member is on the wrong amendment. I have had a quick and cursory look at the Bill, and I think that the amendment as printed is correct. The word "locality" is in the next line. We are debating the word "but".
§ Mr. TaylorI have been trying to explain that the amendment is to take out the word "but" in line 36, and that what was intended was to take out not that word, which does not add or subtract a great deal, but a different word in the next line. I am sorry to criticise what has happened. I think that, by and large, the Lords have done a good job in improving the Bill, but I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in this case the other place has proposed an 202 amendment which does not add a great deal to the sense of it. In those circumstances the Minister might accept that it would be wise to suggest to the Lords that they should have another look at the amendment to see whether they have not picked the wrong word in the wrong line.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI apologise most humbly to the House and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I should have known that he would be able to create a debate out of anything or nothing. The amendments are correct. They are clear in their intent, and they are purely drafting to delete the word "but" in two places.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 agreed to.