COSTS INCIDENTAL TO APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE (Hansard, 21 June 1984)

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 13, line 34, leave out from 'or to end of line 38 and insert—

(a) any expenses in respect of legal services provided in connection with the authority's acquisition, and

(b) any other expenses in connection with negotiating the terms of that acquisition,
being in each case expenses which are reasonably incurred by him after receipt of a notice under section 6(3) or an offer to purchase under section 7(1A) of this Act.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the applicant to be reimbursed costs other than legal costs incurred in negotiating the terms of acquisition by the authority in cases of repurchase—for example, the cost of employing a surveyor rather than a solicitor to set up negotiations about the price at which the dwelling should be repurchased.

§ Mr. John Fraser
I welcome the amendment, but what will it add to public expenditure?

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the relevant clause is very specific and refers only to legal costs. It is quite possible that it would behove the parties involved to engage a surveyor rather than a solicitor to carry out the negotiations. It might make much better sense for a surveyor to act on the vendor's behalf or to seek the advice of a valuer. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to be reimbursed the costs of such assistance as well as of purely legal costs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on public expenditure. I must confess that I have no precise knowledge of that.

§ Mr. John Fraser
That is all very well, but there are 16,500 homes involved. [f all the owners of those homes decided to use surveyors, even at modest rates of charge the cost could be about £3 million. If I asked the Government for £3 million to deal with asbestos in my 577 constituents' homes or if we asked for that sum to deal with another defect such as condensation or dampness which is commonplace in the public sector the request would be resisted. When 16,500 press the case for their surveyors' fees to be paid—quite properly, and I do not disagree with them—in a matter of a minute or so the Government can make a commitment in the House of Commons for between £1 million and £3 million in public expenditure. I do not oppose the amendment, but it highlights the Government's partiality and prejudice and their obsession with helping the private sector and denying the public sector.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I can only say that I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman does not oppose the amendment because, as he acknowledges and as I am sure that all hon. Members recognise, it is intended to assist the people whom we seek to help in the Bill.