§ `The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for persons to appeal against decisions and determinations made under this Act namely—
- (a) any decision by a local authority and any exercise of a judgment or discretion under this Act;
- (b) any determination of a value by the district valuer.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. John FraserI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 9, 15, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32.
§ Mr. FraserWe discussed this matter in Committee. In a series of clauses, but especially in clause 3, local authorities must be satisfied that certain conditions are met. That means that a local authority, which might be hard up for cash, will have to make a judgment about the eligibility of the owner of the dwelling for repurchase or reinstatement grant and about its resources. That is bound to expose local authorities to criticism, even if they act in good faith—I am not suggesting that anybody would act spitefully or maliciously—if they make a decision that runs contrary to the properly held views of the private owner or his professional advisers on, for example, whether a dwelling qualifies. There is bound to be a nasty taste in the mouth if there is such a difference of opinion and if it is thought that the local authority's decision was motivated by, for example, shortage of cash. Much the best way of tackling these matters is to make the local authority's decision subject to some form of appeal or review by the court. It would be wrong to allow a local authority to be the provider of funds and the judge of whether an owner is eligible for assistance.
That is why I have tabled new clause 3, which introduces the right of appeal. However, I do not think that I need to say more, as I believe that the Government have taken the point on board in their amendments.
§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)I support new clause 3 and hope that the Government intend, through some of their amendments, to clarify this matter in another place. I hope that if the Government make the matter justiciable and allow for appeals on decisions made by local authorities, they will take the opportunity in the other place to look more widely at the injustices that might occur for private tenants.
I agree with all that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. It is entirely right to remind the House of the financial pressures on local authorities. It is estimated that the defects provision could cost west country councils £76 million. I refer to councils in Avon, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire. There is a strong concentration of such housing in the west country. Bristol has 5,500, Restormel has 1,496, Plymouth has 2,528, Thamesdown has 2,004 and Taunton Dene has 998. In the west country, wages are low and local authorities have generally kept within Government guidelines. Therefore, they do not have enough money to absorb such expenditure. With these financial pressures, good local authorities will find that they have to make difficult decisions or, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, people will feel that a decision has been prejudiced by financial stringency.
Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the Minister has not yet come up with any clear-cut assurances that local authorities will have the costs refunded to them. I understand that he has been able to offer some generalised commitments to take account of housing need, but he has not been able to quantify the extra resources that will be needed. In those circumstances, a method of appeal becomes extremely important.
I attach importance to paragraph (b), which relates to the district valuer. He is in a critical position in regard to determination of the price that should be paid. My constituents are worried that an unrealistic costing will come from local authorities, so they want to be assured that they will be able to appeal.
9.15 pm
My plea to the Minister, especially if he is prepared to look at the new clause and to table amendments in the other place, is to consider what happens to private tenants who are unable to get mortgages. Those people in particular should have a right of appeal if their local authority will not make special provision for them.
I thought that on Second Reading the Minister showed great understanding of the problems that people would face when trying to raise mortgages. I understand, too, that there have been lengthy discussions with building societies to try to reach agreement on the matter. I have not heard a statement from the Minister about that, unless I have missed it. I urge him to make it possible for householders to challenge local authority decisions and to take into account not just market valuation but the availability of mortgages. If mortgages are not available, it is still my belief that local authorities should provide them.
Some method of appeal should be available on a wider scale than that included in new clause 3. If the Minister intends to meet the intention behind new clause 3, I hope he will assure us that he will interpret it rather wider: not just on the valuation or on the local authority's judgment, but on that most serious area of all—mortgages.
§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. 557 Owen). The concentration of defective houses in the south-west is not surprising, because all the Cornish unit versions of these houses were built originally at St. Austell in my constituency. One of the authorities most affected is Restormel, which covers St. Austell.
Although we wish for and would support an amendment that would improve the appeal procedure, the real answer is to create a situation in which it is not necessary for the local authorities to buy back the houses.
Taking into account the houses in my constituency and bearing in mind the views of those who have already purchased them, there seems to be no desire to sell the houses. After all, the people bought them voluntarily only a few weeks ago. They do not wish to sell them back to the council, other than because of their fear that they will not be able to sell them again because of the difficulties that potential buyers would face in getting mortgages. The Minister could save a great deal of Government expenditure if he could persuade mortgage companies to make a more realistic appraisal of the Cornish unit houses or offer some kind of guarantee.
I welcome new clause 3. I believe that it will help in some marginal circumstances. However, I ask the Minister to apply his mind to the advantages of solving the real problem. People fear that in the long term they will not be able to sell the properties.
Because of these fears, it is worth seeking information from the Minister on how bad the Government believe the properties to be. People have lived in them for 20 years. There seems to be little damage to them. They are old-fashioned, and I cannot recommend their sound insulation standards, but there is not much wrong with them. One would be hard pressed to find such a house anywhere in the south-west that is in real danger of collapsing. I have not seen one, but pieces of concrete are flaking off some of them, where, say, a bar has gone rusty. That is not ideal, and I can understand why people want repairs to be carried out.
The hype and the feeling towards these properties suggest that one should walk down the streets very carefully, because, if one stamps too hard, two or three houses might fall down. That is manifestly not the position. People who have lived in the houses for years have in the past 12 to 18 months bought them from the local authority. They live in the houses, so they have some reason to back their own knowledge.
Therefore, although I welcome the new clause, I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to a different solution. By all means, let us have the buy-back provision, but most people do not want to sell, although they may eventually use the buy-back provision at great cost to the Government, merely because they fear that the resale value of the property later will be vastly less than they expected because of the mortgage problem.
§ Mr. GowI endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He will no doubt have seen the Building Research Establishment information paper published in October 1983 which stated that the great majority of the houses studied, including the Cornish units to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were found to be structurally in sound condition, that cracking in a proportion of houses of all types would not occur for some years and that a few houses might no display any evidence 558 of deterioriation for 30 years or more. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I commend those wise comments to the House. This affects another point that was made earlier in our debates in that the local authorities' responsibility to carry out repairs may fall to be discharged only over an extended period.
I should make it clear to the right hon. Member for Devonport that a reinstatement grant will be made as the suitable and proper form of assistance only if the property will be mortgageable in the private sector when the work has been carried out, because part of the problem is that people who bought their houses believing them to be without defects now find that prospective purchasers cannot obtain martgages. That is absolutely central to the scheme. If the local authority is not satisfied that the property will be mortgageable instead of a reinstatement grant it will give the private owner the opportunity to sell the house back to the authority.
As the right hon. Gentleman was especially concerned abut mortgageability I should also tell him that we have been having discussions with the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for approving methods of repairing PRC houses and providing a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built in the private sector. If such a scheme can be devised, as I hope that it can, that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) reminded the House that it was identical with one that he moved in Committee on 22 May, when I gave an undertaking to consider the thinking behind it. With the new clause, we are discussing amendments tabled by the Government in response to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. Our amendments do not go quite so far as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I believe that they meet the main part of his anxiety.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 would delete from clause 2(3) (b) the words
the appropriate authority are satisfied that".As a result, the test of eligibility under clause 2(3)(b will be objective and the county court or sheriff court will have jurisdiction to determine the matter under clause 2(3)(b), clause 12 or clause 13 as appropriate. The question of eligibility for assistance, which is dealt with in clause 2, is fundamental to a person's entitlement to assistance. Amendment No. 15 opens all questions of eligibility to determination by the county court.In these circumstances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. I commend the amendment to the House.
§ Mr. ChopeWill the Minister tell the House whether the same provision should apply to the subsection relating to special circumstances, in which a person in special circumstances wishes to sell his house back to the local authority because he has no time to wait to see whether he is entitled to a reinstatement grant? That is contained in clause 3(5). The same test is contained in that clause as the test which the Minister says he is reviewing in relation to the earlier clause. Will he consider amending this at the same time?
§ Mr. GowWe have considered that possibility, but after the most careful thought we concluded that the best way to proceed is as the Government have suggested, with 559 these amendments. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I promise to look at it again. If we think that a further change should be made we shall table an amendment to that effect in another place.
§ Mr. John FraserBefore I ask leave to withdraw the new clause, I shall make some comments. I accept that the Government have tried to meet the point that I made in Committee, and that local authority decisions are now justiciable. However, in technical matters regarding whether houses are defective, it is sometimes better for a body, such as the Lands Tribunal or the body that deals with leasehold enfranchisement valuations, to make the decisions, rather than a county court judge. A county court judge or sheriff will have to make a judgment on the competing evidence of two surveyors. It may be cheaper and quicker for the decision to be made by arbitration. Moreover, many people fear going to court. People who sought to take advantage of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 felt inhibited because they had to appeal at the county court and to a berobed judge and because of the costs of legal proceedings.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that on occasion people have serious reservations about the decisions of the district valuer. Under the 1980 legislation, the appeal from a decision of the local authority about the valuation of a dwelling lies with the district valuer. From time to time people genuinely believe that the district valuer is wrong. There should be a further review, perhaps by a senior district valuer from another district, or by a body such as the rent assessment committee, which at present deals with valuations in leaseholder format cases. In some cases it is not right that the district valuer is the final arbiter. Where there are serious grounds for disagreeing with his conclusions, the matter should be taken elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to think about those matters. They are not party political matters, and I ask about them in good faith. Perhaps he will consider taking them further in another place. I know that my colleagues in the other place may seek to raise them.
§ Mr. FraserI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.