REPURCHASE (Hansard, 21 June 1984)

§ Mr. John Fraser
I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 26, line 31, leave out '95 per cent.' and insert '100 per cent.'.
If the amendment is accepted, when a local authority repurchased a house, it would reimburse the private owner 586 100 per cent. of the value of the house rather than 95 per cent., as is presently proposed. I have mixed feelings about the amendment. Since the amendment was tabled, the Minister has also tabled amendments which remove some burden from private owners, because of a willingness to meet survey costs and professional fees, apart from legal fees. The potential loss to the private owner has thus been mitigated, and this lessens the case for 95 per cent. The 5 per cent. is a portion of the claim borne by the owner, rather like the excess on an insurance policy. The Minister knows that a large number of people will have written to him stating that logically there should be 100 per cent. reimbursement. The view incorporated in the amendment has been put forward by Shelter and many other organisations of private owners. It would be advisable for the Minister to place on record the reason why he remains wedded to the principle of 95 per cent. rather than 100 per cent.

§ Mr. Gow
The Government believe, and I think that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) believes, that the scheme of assistance in the Bill through which on repurchase the owner will receive 95 per cent. of the defect value of a house is generous. The hon. Gentleman knows that, to calculate the value of a house, however excellent the district valuer is, is an imprecise science. The difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. allows for a proper margin of error which may go one way or another. We think that the scheme is generous and that 95 per cent. of the defect value is reasonable. I understand the argument for 100 per cent. One could make a case for 90 per cent., but we have concluded that 95 per cent. is correct.

§ Mr. Fraser
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 26, line 41, leave out 'following assumptions' and insert 'assumptions specified in paragraph (2) below and on the basis that no account is taken of any right to the grant of a tenancy under section 8 of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 89, in page 27, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 25.

§ Mr. Roberts
The purpose of the amendments is to make clear the assumptions that are to be made in valuing a dwelling under schedule 2 in the case of repurchase. The particular provision which these amendments seek to clarify is that in paragraph 2(2)(e) of schedule 2, which requires the valuation of an interest to be made on the assumption that, subject to paragraph 2(2)(a) to (d), the seller is selling subject to the rights and burdens which actually exist, but disregarding, first charges discharged under the schedule, and, secondly, any right that the applicant of a beneficiary may have to the grant of a tenancy under clause 8 and in consequence to remain in occupation of the dwelling.
The amendments will be welcomed by those responsible for implementing the scheme.