HOUSING DEFECTS COMMISSION

HC Deb 21 June 1984 vol 62 cc542-55

'(1) There shall be established an advisory committee to be called the Housing Defects Commission (in this Act called "the Commission") for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act (other than section 20).

(2) The Commission shall consist of not less than 10 members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and one of those members shall be appointed to the Chair and another to the deputy chair. The members shall include persons representing appropriate authorities and persons representing organisations of occupants of defective dwellings whether designated under section 1 of this Act or otherwise.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Commission may advise the Secretary of State about the financial consequences of the exercise of power under this Act for local authorities and any other matters which appear to the Commission to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—ANNUAL REPORT 'The Secretary of State shall in each year publish and lay before Parliament a report giving details of the number of dwellings for which reinstatement grants have been given or repurchase has taken place and showing the number of such dwellings and the amount spent in respect of such dwellings as a percentage respectively of the total number of dwellings held by local authorities which are defective and of the total expenditure required to demolish, replace, repair or reinstate the total number of defective dwellings held by local authorities.'

Mr. Fraser

New clause 1 seeks to establish a housing defects commission, which would advise the Government on the operation of the measure. Secondly, it would include as members of the commission not only people appointed by the Minister but representatives of local authorities and, not least of all, occupants, including tenants, of defective dwellings. I suspect that the attitude of architects, civil servants and Ministers would be different if they spent about five to 10 years living in somewhere such as Ronan Point, or living in premises that were damp, full of condensation or falling apart, as they are in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is a good idea to have a housing defects commission that has on it people with experience of non-traditional dwellings that have proved to be defective. Thirdly, and with a little ingenuity, the commission would advise the Minister on the consequences of the measure, not just for privately owned dwellings that have been bought from local authorities but from publicly owned defective homes.

New clause 2 would oblige the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the Bill, and effectively it would demand of him that he report to Parliament on the state of all defective houses and flats. The new clause epitomises the Opposition's view—a view that is not shared by the Government—that those who bought houses that have proved to be defective from local authorities should be treated on a par with those who have chosen not to buy their homes from local authorities because they were either too poor or too wise to buy defective premises that were built mainly, in the case of houses that we are discussing, of prefabricated reinforced concrete.

Mercifully, Britain is free from natural disasters. We sometimes read how, elsewhere, earthquakes have decimated homes in a region or how a flood can tear the heart out of a city. It happened in Bilbao only a year ago. Happily, in Britain, nature does not make many mistakes—it can quite safely leave that to the native genius of the British themselves. In Britain, when we have disasters, they are normally man-made or, in case I am accused of sexism, or neglecting the Prime Minister, they may be woman-made as well.

By 1981 there were approximately 5 million publicly owned homes and recent Association of Metropolitan Authorities reports tell us that within that total there are 500,000 non-traditional dwellings built before 1960, for which the final cost of repair, refurbishment or even demolition will be about £5,000 million. In the words of the AMA, the defects are very serious and relate to the main structural components as such. They will be very costly to repair but the problem is very much of continuing deterioration. The figure for post-1960s, industrialised and system-built dwellings is contained in a second AMA report. It thinks that a realistic figure for industrialised dwellings is 1 million in local authority stock, and says that the defects problem is widespread and has affected low, medium and high-rise forms of construction. It estimates that the average cost of repair per unit will be £5,000, making a repair cost for post-1960s defective dwellings of around another £5,000 million, bearing in mind that 10,000 of such dwellings have already been demolished at a cost of about £300 million. That is for buildings built in the past 20 or so years.

We complain about the partiality of the assistance to those who have bought their homes because about 30 per cent. of all publicly owned homes are now likely to be within a class of dwelling that is a probable candidate for demolition or at very least costly repairs. It is not lighthearted use of language to describe that as a man-made disaster. That is in the context of 80,000 families a year being accepted as homeless, of twice that number of families applying to be treated as homeless and of over 1 million dwellings in England alone classified as unfit.

The Government have a heavy responsibility for the development of housing. Local authorities were bulldozed into new industrialised systems, and warned off being cautious or careful. Subsidy arrangements were twisted to fit the new industrial housing revolution. Governments of both parties set the quotas, and gave priority to the processing of industrialised schemes. Most of all, Government, through the National Building Agency, classified this new breed of dwellings as safe, sound, reliable and good for a mortgage or loan for 60 years. That is the context in which we are discussing the limited assistance contained in the Bill.

If the Government established a housing defects commission and were obliged to give an annual report to Parliament it would do a number of things. First, it would underline the massive nature of Britain's housing problem, particularly in non-traditional homes built mainly after the last world war, some of which are literally falling apart and many of which have already had to be demolished.

Secondly, the new clause will provide evidence for the Opposition's indictment of Government policy on publicly owned housing stock. There are several counts to that indictment. The first is that the only area where there is a strategy or policy is where defective homes have been sold by local or other public authorities to private owners. There is no credible strategy or policy for those that were not sold into the private sector.

As I have tried to emphasise time and time again throughout the passage of the Bill, there are about 15,000 or 16,000 private owners who have purchased defective non-traditional homes from local authorities for whom help is provided in the Bill. About 1.5 million homes are occupied by local or public authority tenants whose homes are equally well classifiable as defective, which are of much the same construction as the homes dealt with in the Bill, but for which no help is provided at all. For every one home for which assistance is provided in the Bill. there are about 99 homes for which there is no credible strategy or policy whatever.

The Minister has some biblical support for what he is doing, in the words of St. Luke: Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine, just persons, which need no repentance. Apparently, the Minister takes the view that the private purchaser who repents over the exercise of the right to buy will inspire joy in the Department of the Environment. But for every one of those who bought there will be another 99 who are living in rotten conditions, and whose homes may be literally falling apart, for whom no assistance is provided. A report will show up the lack of any policy towards those who remain in the public sector.

In many local authorities—for example, Epping and Rochester—the capital cost of meeting the obligations under the Bill will be two or three times the entire public housing investment programme of those authorities. There are other authorities, such as Leeds, where the most recent HIP allocation was £28 million to deal with new construction, assistance in the private sector by way of improvement and repair grants, and to provide new build as well. That £28 million has to cover all those areas of expenditure, when the estimated bill for dealing with industrialised and non-traditional homes alone is £104 million. Yet no provision is made in the Bill for such an authority and there is no statement of Government policy.

Mr. Gow

The truth is that no additional powers need to be given to local authorities in order that they may deal with the houses which remain in their ownership.

Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged during a previous debate on this subject, the cost of repairs can in many cases be spread over a large number of years. It is a grave mistake to believe that these houses are in every case in need of urgent repair. On the contrary, in many cases repairs will not be required for many years to come.

8.15 pm

Mr. Fraser

I accept what the Minister says about local authorities having the power to carry out repairs. But that power is pointless without the resources. Over the past five years the HIP has been cut by about 60 per cent. The total amount planned to be spent in public housing in the public expenditure White Paper for 1985–86 is in real terms 35 per cent. of the figure that was dedicated to public expenditure on housing in 1979–80. It is true that that includes both revenue and capital. To talk about the power or the ability of a local authority to deal with the backlog of repairs, and sometimes the demolition, of defective industrialised non-traditional stock is nonsense. The Government have cut back savagely on public expenditure on local authority housing. It is meaningless to say that the local authority has the power to do these things. It is rather like saying that a father has the power to provide for his family while he is unemployed at a higher standard than the rate of benefit he is getting.

A commission report will also provide evidence that money coming from public sources is inadequate. In the current year the HIP for England and Wales is £2.5 billion. A large part of that will go into the private sector by way of repair and improvement grants. Some of it will go on new build and about £1 billion will be allocated to the major repair and renovation of local authority stock.

If—this probably answers the Minister's question—for the next 10 years the HIP is not cut further—there is no guarantee of that—and if it remains exactly the same, if the apportionment of resources in that programme remains the same, and if all the money that is available in the current year for the renovation and repair of local authority dwellings is spent on nothing but post-war nontraditional industrialised and system-built housing, one will be able to deal with the backlog. That would mean that over the next 10 years nothing at all would be spent on the rest of the local authority stock.

If the Minister is obliged, after receiving the advice of the housing commission, to report such matters regularly to the House of Commons and to the nation, the massive nature of the problem that we have with local authority housing would be underlined.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, Itchen)

Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted include the capital receipts that local authorities can receive from the sale of surplus land and housing?

Mr. Fraser

Yes. The figure that I quoted of £2.5 billion is the gross expenditure after taking into account the 60 per cent. recovery of capital receipts for local authorities. The net figure shows the cutting of public investment on housing. The net HIP for England and Wales is about £1.8 billion compared with the gross figure of £2.5 billion, which I quoted in order to be fair to the Government by giving some credit for capital receipts.

With more regular reporting and a greater public focus on the problems which I have described, the spotlight would be turned on the misjudgment of Whitehall in dealing with housing. The Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction should be engines of compassion for those who are badly housed in Britain. No one disputes that hundreds of thousands of families live in inadequate, overcrowded and shared accommodation.

The Department should provide work. The repair and improvement of our housing stock would provide employment. Lord knows, Britain needs more employment. It ought to be underlining the need for housing investment. Instead, it acts as a Department of liquidators for the Treasury, providing the sacrifices for each annual review and cut in expenditure.

Mr. Derek Spencer (Leicester, South)

The Bill is based on the fact that the houses have suffered from a latent defect which only became known in the past two or three years as a result of the work of the Building Research Establishment. Is it not a fact that there has been substantial expenditure on some of those houses by local authorities in recent times? Therefore, it is nonsense to categorise them as being a collection of houses that have been uniformly neglected over the years.

Mr. Fraser

The allegation is not that they have been neglected over the years, but that, under pressure by Ministers of both parties, to meet high expectations by the public for a big building programme, a large number of dwellings were built which at the time, according to the judgment of the National Building Agency, ought to have stood the test of time but have not done so. It is not a matter of neglect, and it is of no use now to try to apportion blame.

I ask the Department of the Environment to recognise that there is a major problem. That no one disputes. The Government do not fail to recognise this, but they acknowledge the nature of the problem, and the ability to demand a solution, only where a house has been sold by a public or local authority to a person in the private sector. The Government continually talk about cuts in public expenditure, and have savaged the public housing budget of the last five years, yet, to retain credibility in relation to their right-to-buy policy they provide in the Bill for a capital expenditure of approximately £250 million, because they recognise the serious nature of the problem in the private sector. If the Government can recognise the serious nature of the problem for those in private accommodation who have bought houses from the public authority, they should give parity of treatment to those who remain in the public sector. Acceptance of the clause would put into perspective the problems of those in both sectors.

I illustrate the problem from something that occurred in my constituency. There is a number of Wates PRC-built houses in the constituency. People who have come to my advice bureau are deeply concerned that they find it impossible to sell their houses because of deterioration, and the reputation that those houses have attracted. I have been able to tell those private owners that, when the Bill is enacted, they will be able to go to the local authority and, irrespective of the other housing priorities of the local authority and of the funds available to Lambeth borough council, they will be able to demand a reinstatement grant, or to sell to the local authority. They will have an immediate solution to their problems, and their rights against the local authority will be mandatory. I have been able to give them those reassurances, and I have advised them that I will help the Bill on its way.

Last Friday, someone from that group of houses came to see me who has not bought her house. I have been told in a letter that recently the masonry on the PRC house has been disintegrating. One corner of the house is coming apart. The gutters are broken and water is running down the prefabricated walls, penetrating the inside of the house and causing mould in the bedrooms. The stairs are coming apart. The movement of the house is causing the windows to rust and buckle so that five window panes have cracked under pressure. The differential movement in the house has caused the front door to drop. Some defects are recent, and in some cases the defects go back to 1978. This complaint comes from a lady aged 75 who is finding it intolerable to live in the house. It cannot be right to allow a person who is a tenant to depend upon the availablility of resources from a local authority that is already penalised, that will be rate-capped next year and that has suffered a savage cut as between the amount for which it asked in the housing investment programme and the amount that was allocated.

The intention of the new clauses is to underline the lack of parity of treatment between those in the private sector and the number of tenants—we are not sure how many; it may be 1.5 million families—living in defective homes for which there is no coherent policy, and for which insufficient resources are provided. The establishment of a commission that reports to Parliament will underline that inequity, and in time may allow it to be removed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)

The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who was open in describing the purpose of the two new clauses, rehearsed arguments that he has adduced in earlier proceedings on the Bill. If we have not yet persuaded the hon. Gentleman that there is a distinction between what the Bill tries to achieve and the problems that exist in the housing stock in general, I fear that I am unlikely to persuade him of that tonight.

Since the beginning of the legislation, we have insisted that the Bill has a specific purpose to help those whose assets, having been purchased from public authorities, are suddenly devalued through no fault of their own. The discovery of a defect, which in many cases is a latent one and may cause no physical damage for a considerable period of time, may, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said, cause the value of the asset that somebody has purchased in good faith to drop considerably. It is to remedy that position that the Bill was originally brought before the House.

I shall deal with the new clauses specifically in terms of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood will realise that my reaction, and that of my hon. Friends, on reading new clause 1 was that it was an attempt to create a quango with the rather grand title of housing defects commission. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the purpose of such a commission would be to advise the Secretary of State on the operation of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of the Government he may decide that such advice is not necessary. The Government have been aware of the problem from the start and they have taken the initiative and consulted throughout. It was not even a question of designation by the Secretary of State coming as a bolt from the blue. There will usually be ample time for interested parties to put their points of view to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend said in Committee, it is unlikely that a designation will he made by the Secretary of State without full and proper consultation. I repeat that undertaking.

In the detailed operation of the provisions, the Secretary of State can be expected to monitor carefully the working of the Bill. For that purpose, we have inevitably to be closely in touch with many of the categories of person whom the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned as possible members of such a commission—for instance, owners of defective houses, local authorities, building societies, the professions and the construction industry. I see no point in institutionalising that consultative process in the way envisaged in new clause 1. New clause 1 is unnecessary in my view. It would add nothing to the advice that my right hon. Friend has already sought, and intends to seek, in the operation of the Bill and the making of designations. To accept the clause would be to accept the creation of yet another unnecessary quango. I recommend the House not to accept the new clause.

The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 2 is intended as a hook on which to hang the views that he has put before the House on the problems in the public sector.

8.30 pm

The new clause would establish a system of monitoring the scheme of assistance embodied in the Bill. When such a new measure is introduced, we need information on whether the policy objectives are being met and so that we can control public expenditure. The Government will arrange for the relevant information to be collected. We have not yet finalised the details, so I cannot give an exact undertaking about the way in which the information will be gathered.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State each year to prepare and publish a formal report to lay before Parliament. Opposition Members, especially those who have had departmental responsibility, will know that we are talking not simply about running off a few tables and stapling them together. The preparation and publication of a formal report requires considerable preparatory work in a Department and adds considerably to the cost of providing information. I do not know why that requirement is considered necessary in one respect but not in relation to other housing measures, unless that requirement is sought for the reasons that the hon. Member for Norwood has explained.

New clause 2 is also unnecessary, partly because of the reasons that I have given, but also because it is too rigid. We intend to monitor the operation of the scheme, and hon. Members will be able to question the Government on the results of the monitoring. We do not need a formal report. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood, when he has considered what I have said and since he has again rehearsed his arguments on the general problems in the public sector, will not press the new clauses.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I support the two new clauses, especially now that I have heard the Minister. He said that there was a distinction between what the Bill sets out to do to deal with the specific problems of former local authority tenants who have purchased their properties and the problems of the housing stock generally. The Minister went right to the heart of the new clauses and to what the Opposition have argued throughout the Bill's passage.

There is no quarrel between the Government and the Opposition about the need to sort out and help those who have problems with purchased properties which turn out to be defective. The argument is about the overall context in which action is to be taken. The setting up of a commission and the publication of an annual report are crucial.

It would be foolish for the Government simply to tell the House that they have a good record for dealing with the specific problem of purchased properties when so many as yet unpurchased properties cause so many tenants to suffer perhaps more severely than the occupiers of properties with which the Government are dealing.

The proposed commission and report would do a simple job. The new clauses seek to set the Government's record in implementing the specifics of this legislation in the overall context of the general housing stock. The Government are not tackling the problems of tenants who have not sought to purchase their properties and who live in defective housing.

The commission would specifically, in its composition and breadth of remit, deal with the overall local authority housing stock. The report would cover not just properties that have been purchased, but those that have not.

Parliament has to consider such problems, provide the money and scrutinise Government action. If Parliament is to make a proper judgment of the Government's actions and intentions, it should be presented with the opportunity to examine the overall picture and to consider the problems of those who are not being assisted by the Government as well as narrowly considering the Government's record of assisting those people covered by the Bill.

My hon. Friend eloquently described the principle of panty between those who have purchased and those who have not. I am proud to support that principle. I should have thought that the Government would have made more of an effort to embrace that principle, but they have not. The Bill deals solely with the interests of people who have purchased their homes. The Government have singularly failed to take account of the interests and needs of those who remain tenants in defective housing.

I recall when the Minister came to the House to introduce the Bill. I pressed him to explain what would happen to those who had not purchased their properties and to local authorities faced with the enormous problems and cost of trying to assist them. He said that local authorities' problems would be taken into account by the Government when setting the housing investment programme allocations. What nonsense. If taking into account local authorities' problems means halving the housing investment programme allocations over three years—as my local authority and others have experienced—I fail to see how the Government can claim to be attempting to deal with tenants' difficulties.

In my constituency there is a tower block called Gambier house, built by the Bison wall-frame method of construction. Following the publicity that that method has attracted in the last year or two, the tenants of that block are deeply worried about the safety of their homes. In response, the local authority rightly undertook a thorough survey of the block to establish whether it is safe. The results are not yet known.

Unidentified sums may have to be spent by the local authority to ensure that the tenants are secure, safe and content. The local authority does not have sufficient resources to deal with the problems. Severe constraints have already been placed on its capital programme of work. When, two or three weeks ago, I raised the related issue of asbestos, which is dealt with in later amendments, I was told that no additional money would be available for local authorities to deal with that problem.

We can only assume that the Government, in the same way, will say that there is no additional money for local authorities to deal with the problems of defective housing as and when they become evident to local authorities. If so, other aspects of local authority housing programmes will have to suffer. It means that other tenants, to accommodate the problems of tenants in defective housing, will have their hopes and aspirations set back because local authorities will not have sufficient funds to help both those categories.

If the Government are really serious in saying that local authorities have the power to deal with the problem, they must surely appreciate that they do not have the resources to so so. If the Government are really serious about wishing to deal equally and fairly between those who have and those who have not purchased, they should at least have the decency to look at the overall cost to local authorities, to consider the picture around the country as a whole and to consider how the necessary programme of work can be phased. They must agree with local authorities how they can help with the necessary resources, without digging into the money already needed by other housing programmes.

In asking for a commission to be established and for a report to be made to Parliament, the Opposition are simply seeking to assist the Government in that process. We are simply telling the Government that it is crucial, not only for those who have purchased but for those who remain as tenants, that there should be a properly funded programme of work over a number of years, and that that must be planned by the Government in concert with local authorities and tenants' representatives.

The proper way to go about that is through a commission. If the Government reject that idea, they are rejecting the interests, needs and hopes of all those tenants—desperate and anxious—who are living in housing that has defects and needs work to put it right.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for missing the first few moments of his speech. No doubt he put forward the valid arguments that he, I and others put forward on Second Reading and in Committee. They should be supported in their entirety.

The Government will probably not move on this issue. We understand their approach—they intend to deal only with the smaller, specific category of those who have bought their properties and not with those living as tenants in the defective system-built houses. We do not expect a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus—although there should be, in the interests of long-term, domestic, satisfactory housing for a large number of our fellow citizens. They will need help sooner or later. The truth is that investment in housing sooner is cheaper than investment in housing later. If we do not spend money now on putting right the increasing number of houses that are deteriorating because they were built so long ago, when the problems increase the money will be even less readily available.

Of the two new clauses that we are discussing, we believe that the second, new clause 2, is the more important and desirable. It proposes an annual report. I ask the Minister to think again about the Government's attitude towards that proposal. If he cannot do so tonight, I hope that he will do so before the Bill has passed through its final stages. There are two reasons why an annual report would be useful and of great advantage to all sides. First, it would allow both us and the country to see exactly what proportion of this housing has been dealt with in a way that guarantees it a long-term future and its occupiers a decent life style. Secondly, it would provide the Minister with an opportunity to tell us what he proposes to do about all the other types of system-built housing which have not yet been included in the groups that he has mentioned as eligible for assistance.

8.45 pm

There are many examples of that. One, of which I know the Minister is aware, is the problem with the 14,000 houses built under the British Iron and Steel Federation scheme after the war. The main intentions were to use surplus steel and to contribute quickly to demand for housing after the war. That housing is now in a bad state. Many of those properties are in London, including some in the borough of Ealing which is represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. That category of housing needs special help, support and money.

The Minister will have seen the recent article in the Building Trades Journal. It makes a fair, technical appraisal of the problems and suggests ways to deal with them. It makes it clear that one problem that becomes worse in that form of housing is the risk of fire. The passage of time as well as the corroding structure makes those houses more problematical.

An annual report would be an ideal opportunity not just to deal with the drop that the private sector—which will be eligible for money—represents in the ocean, but to allow the Minister to tell us how categories that have not been dealt with will be handled—both for those who have bought and for those who are still tenants.

If we are to have some concessions, but not many, from the Government, I hope that one will be an agreement to come to the House with an annual report so that, in time, we can put money into our housing stock that will provide investment for us and will increasingly prevent those living in those properties from what is already a most unpleasant experience that becomes worse by the week and substantially worse by the year. We must ensure that the job is done, and an annual report is the only way to do so.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I can well understand that the Government do not like quangos, but the Opposition do not like the exclusion of tenants, and the local authorities responsible for those tenants, from the beneficial provisions of the Bill. The tenants far outnumber the owners who will benefit from the Bill.

The Government are abandoning the local authorities in respect of the statutory responsibilities which they, as landlords, must fulfil to their tenants, because the costs of remedial work will be horrendous in the years ahead. The Government say that there is no immediate problem for certain types of structure, but the fact remains that there will be an almighty rush by those who have bought and now find that they can either claim the reinstatement grant or part of the repurchase price through the provisions of this legislation. I do not think they will take the view that time is on their side, and to that extent they will have a more immediate remedy than the tenants who remain.

On Second Reading I pointed out that, in an ironic sense, the Government, who are such firm advocates of council house sales, were denying thousands of tenants in those houses that have already been identified as having structural faults the possibility of home ownership, because building societies will not give mortgages or provide facilities to those who are in houses which have been so identified and have not thus far been purchased.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), with his Edinburgh education, recalled the phrase, "Ministers will take into account". That phrase is not unknown north of the border. It usually means that they will do nothing, although they do not want to make it too well known that they will do nothing. They simply say that they will take whatever it is into account. I think I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), nodding in assent; he has the honesty to admit his rhetorical tricks. I have spent so much time dealing with the Scottish housing Minister, including a session of the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, that I know him only too well.

The AMA has put a figure of £5 million on remedying the faults that it believes have been identified, and that excludes the Scottish figure That argues that there is a case for a body which can address its attention to the difficulties that will have to be resolved in a way that Departments of State do not necessarily gear themselves to because of the many other responsibilities which they must fulfil.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) made a significant contribution about the Government's adoption of a moral stance in dealing with the plight of owners. As I said then, and I repeat, we look for that same moral stance in dealing with the difficulties facing tenants.

I too am sceptical about annual reports. However, the purpose of the new clause is to have more than a document which will provide information. It is designed to have a document the preparation of which will oblige those responsible for doing things to state their case, to assess the nature of the problem and outline the action which will be taken.

The sort of problems that we discussed more fully in Committee have shown that there will be considerable on-costs for local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. The sooner the Government admit that they have a responsibility to tenants, as well as to owners, the better. For those reasons, we shall press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Ancram

I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I took it that he understood that the commission being proposed should be for the protection of the interests of the tenants of defective housing. If that was his intention, it is not reflected in the new clause, which says in subsection (1) that the advisory committee shall have the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act". Therefore, I took it that it referred to this Bill and the application of it to those who have purchased their houses.

Mr. Chris Smith

The hon. Gentleman has failed, however, to read further on in the new clause because under subsection (3) there is included within the remit of the committee any other matters which appear to the Commission"— not to the Secretary of State— to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act. The Minister could not have been listening when I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that the context within which the measure has come before Parliament, and within which it will operate, is crucial to Parliament in assessing the performance of the Government under the Bill.

Mr. Ancram

However the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (3), it relates to the operation and the effects of this measure and, as I said, the Bill is designed to help those who have purchased their houses. To that extent, the intentions that he portrayed are not reflected in what he has proposed. That reinforces the view that I put at the outset when I said that it would be a quango which would be there to advise and help the Secretary of State consult on matters about which he is already fully advised and on which he already fully consults. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The information that he seeks is, and will be, available and can be pursued through the normal process of parliamentary questioning. To set up a formal report and all that that would entail, in terms of cost and time, to produce the same information in a more formalised and rigid form would not serve the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. Simon Hughes

How, then, are we to have progress reports on the Government's consideration, for example, of British Iron and Steel Federation houses, which should be the subject of reports to the House on a regular basis?

Mr. Ancram

The Minister for Housing and Construction visited BISF houses yesterday and he is fully aware of the situation. As I said earlier, once this legislation is operative, it will be in everyone's interest to see that its purposes are being fulfilled, and for that reason the information will be gathered and progress monitored. That information would obviously be subject to questions from hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will feel able to withdraw the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 122.

Division No. 379]	[8.58 pm
AYES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	McWilliam, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Madden, Max
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Craigen, J. M.	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Dewar, Donald	Pavitt, Laurie
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Penhaligon, David
Flannery, Martin	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Rooker, J. W.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Skinner, Dennis
Home Robertson, John	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Hoyle, Douglas	Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Stott, Roger
Janner, Hon Grevilie
Kirkwood, Archy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Litherland, Robert	Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.
McCartney, Hugh

NOES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Henderson, Barry
Ancram, Michael	Hind, Kenneth
Beggs, Roy	Hirst, Michael
Bellingham, Henry	Holt, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Howard, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Chapman, Sydney	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Chope, Christopher	Hunter, Andrew
Clegg, Sir Walter	Jackson, Robert
Conway, Derek	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Cope, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Cormack, Patrick	King, Rt Hon Tom
Couchman, James	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Knowles, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Knox, David
Durant, Tony	Lamont, Norman
Eggar, Tim	Lawler, Geoffrey
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lee, John (Pendle)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)	Lilley, Peter
Forth, Eric	Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lyell, Nicholas
Fox, Marcus	McCrea, Rev William
Gale, Roger	Macfarlane, Neil
Galley, Roy	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Maclean, David John
Gow, Ian	Malins, Humfrey
Gregory, Conal	Malone, Gerald
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Marland, Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn	Mather, Carol
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Maude, Hon Francis
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy	Mellor, David
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Merchant, Piers
Harris, David	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Harvey, Robert	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Hayes, J.	Moore, John
Hayward, Robert	Moynihan, Hon C.
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Murphy, Christopher

Neubert, Michael	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Newton, Tony	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Nicholls, Patrick	Thome, Neil (Ilford S)
Onslow, Cranley	Thurnham, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Twinn, Dr lan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)	Viggers, Peter
Powley, John	Waddington, David
Proctor, K. Harvey	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Rowe, Andrew	Waller, Gary
Sackville, Hon Thomas	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Sayeed, Jonathan	Watson, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Watts, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Whitfield, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Spencer, Derek	Winterton, Nicholas
Stanbrook, lvor	Wolfson, Mark
Stern, Michael	Wood, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)	Yeo, Tim
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Tellers for the Noes:
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)	Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. John Major.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.