§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean]
10.26 pm§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House, in my first Adjournment debate, a matter which is not only of great concern to many of my constituents and in particular to many of my local authority representatives, but which I believe has implications for disabled people in the Motherwell district and throughout Scotland.
The sale of housing for the disabled was brought to my attention initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and, more importantly in this case, by Motherwell district council. The district council's concern arose out of a recent Lands Tribunal of Scotland decision which, following an appeal, ruled that a council tenant had the right in certain circumstances and in law to acquire, in terms of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, a house specifically built and let for the use of disabled people
The basis of the Lands Tribunal's decision was that, although there are certain types of purpose-built houses which can be retained in the housing stock, houses specifically built for the disabled which do not have a call system or the services of a warden are not protected by the legislation and are required to be sold if the tenants apply to acquire such houses.
I now want to outline to the House the background of the decision and the serious implications for Scotland's disabled and for councils which inevitably flow from the decision. Over the course of time, Motherwell district council has built about 30 homes for the disabled—a term which includes a considerable number of elderly people who have suffered disability in old age. Those houses were built in various locations in the district, usually as two semi-detached houses within an overall development of traditional houses. The houses have such features as ramps with a handrail at front and rear, handrails in the entrance hall, lifting hooks in the bedroom with bathroom en suite with fitted grab rails, connecting sliding doors between living room and bedroom, specialist kitchen fittings and electric sockets fitted at a level to suit wheelchair users. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate from that brief description the cost involved and the architectural and manufacturing adaptability required to ensure that the disabled section of our society — which is particularly vulnerable and faces special difficulties—might have some comfort provided through the services and auspices of local authorities.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, those specialised homes for the disabled in my constituency have all the features of housing stock which, under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, would preclude them from being bought by those who may not require such extensive features. The one factor that takes the 30 or so homes out of the purview of the 1980 Act is that they have been scattered through the ordinary stock without a call system or the services of a warden. As a result, they are not protected by the Act. If I may elaborate on that, I am sure that the House will appreciate that amendments were incorporated in the Housing Act 1980 which preclude the 115 sale of houses for the disabled or elderly if they have an intercom system, a common call system, or a common warden.
Much of the recent medical and sociological evidence given to councils is that they should attempt to avoid creating ghettos for the disabled or the elderly. Following that advice, and keeping in mind the best services that could be provided for disabled and elderly people, Motherwell district council, like other district councils in Scotland, took the view that they would place housing adapted for disabled people throughout the district.
I note the Lands Tribunal decision with concern and envisage that a number of consequences will result. First, I am concerned about the depletion of the stock of homes for disabled people. Motherwell district council's view is that as there are so few houses of this type, because of the high cost of construction, it is imperative that such houses are retained for a succession of disabled people — the very people for whom the houses were constructed. Unfortunately, once sold, there is no guarantee that a particular house will be available for a disabled person in future.
The tenants of houses for disabled people accept the council's conditions of tenancy which contain the provisions that the council may terminate the tenancy by means of a court action as provided in condition 15, which states that
the dwelling house has been designed or adapted for occupation by a person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling house and if there is no longer a person with such special needs occupying the dwelling house and the council requires it for occupation by a person who such special needs, it will be given to him or to her.If special needs no longer prevail, the person in question must return the house to the council. Under current legislation a tenant is entitled to buy a house, so the council is deprived of that power contained in the missive of let. That deprives future generations of disabled people of access to a house that has been specifically constructed for their special needs.People who are not disabled may be attracted to a house because of its convenience features. It might be surprising that a house that has been specially constructed for disabled people is attractive to a person who is not disabled, but many features, such as an en suite toilet and bathroom, might be attractive to someone who wishes to purchase a house for conversion. Some features to assist the disabled might be attractive to a non-disabled person.
The 1980 Act provides the right of pre-emption for such houses and the council takes the view that re-purchase is likely to be costly, since the Act provides that the repurchase should be at market value.
Motherwell district council, and many others which follow its progressive policy of dispersing housing for disabled people throughout the community, are being penalised for building special homes throughout the community instead of grouping them together. For the sake of expediency councils are being encouraged to disregard the medical and sociological evidence that such houses should be placed in the heart of the community where disabled people can live alongside people who do not have disabilities. Councils will be reluctant to build 116 houses for disabled people in the community because those houses might be bought and never replaced due to prohibitive costs.
To sum up, the present position may lead to, first, a lack of provision of houses for the disabled; secondly, a lack of resources to build and replace such homes; and, thirdly, unfair and insensitive treatment of disabled people. The crux of the debate is that concessions from the Government in the 1980 legislation were narrowly drawn and, ultimately, harmful to those who were supposed to be helped by it by the specific provision that houses for the disabled or the elderly within the call system with a warden would be exempt.
Disabled people who want special homes in the community should not be segregated into ghettos. I do not raise this matter under the illusion that there will be an instant remedy. I might even go so far as to say that I could be convinced that the Government did not intend to allow these sales, since the 1980 legislation specifically excludes many of the houses for the elderly and disabled which I mentioned. I do not question the Government's intentions or motives; I merely point to the fact that, because the 1980 legislation was so narrowly drawn, there is a problem with many of these houses.
I have raised this matter in the hope that, by highlighting this anomaly, an effective remedy will be found soon. The people who will benefit are not hon. Members, the Opposition or the Government or even district councils such as Motherwell, but those for whom I am sure the whole House wishes provision to be made—the disabled. Surely they deserve all the facilities that can be provided by local authorities or the House.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on bringing to the attention of the House the subject of housing for the disabled. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this subject, and I share the hon. Gentleman's view of its great importance. Indeed, I visited Motherwell district council this summer and saw some of these houses.
The Government's aim is to ensure that disabled people are accommodated in ways best suited to their individual needs. Wherever possible, we believe that the disabled should be integrated fully into the wider community, but we also encourage the provision of housing specially for the physically disabled, where this is required.
During the parliamentary stages of what is now the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, consideration was given to whether all amenity housing for the disabled should be automatically exempted from the right to buy. The Government's view at that time was, and remains, that it would not be appropriate for the right to buy to apply to sheltered houses for the disabled — that is houses with a call system and the services of a warden. But where a house is not a fully sheltered dwelling, even if it has features substantially different from an ordinary house, the Government take the view that the right to buy should apply. We believe that disabled persons should be treated wherever possible no differently from other members of the community. They should not, therefore, be discriminated against through being denied the same opportunity of home ownership as other tenants. To exclude from the right to buy all houses for disabled people would, we feel, discriminate unfairly against a group of 117 people who, because of their disability, are already at a disadvantage. Many disabled persons are young and in employment. Clearly, they will be well able to take on the responsibility of home ownership. We believe that they are entitled to the same right to purchase their homes as other tenants. Similarly, we believe that those tenants whose children are disabled, and who occupy houses suitable for the disabled, should also have a right to buy.
While the legislation acknowledges the rights of disabled persons, it also allows the landlord to impose a pre-emption condition on the sale. Where a house has facilities that are substantially different from those of an ordinary house, and has been designed or adapted for occupation by a disabled person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the house, a landlord can have the first option to buy the house back in the event that it is subsequently resold by the disabled purchaser. This provides the necessary safeguard to prevent houses which have been adapted for disabled people being sold subsequently to people with no disability.
It has been argued that such pre-emption conditions can mean the landlord incurring unreasonable additional expense, because the original sale would have been at a discount and the repurchase will be at market value. However, I repeat our view that the disabled should have the same opportunity to purchase under the right to buy as all other tenants. A right-to-buy sale of a house suitable for a disabled person generates at the time of sale a receipt for the landlord in the same way as the sale of any other council house. This receipt can then be used by the authority, for example, to modernise or improve other houses in its stock, to the benefit of the remaining tenants. We believe that the benefits from the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales generally far outweigh the costs incurred by a landlord exercising the right of pre-emption.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received a number of representations recently from hon. Members, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and from housing authorities and other organisations on the question of the sale of houses for the disabled. While the Secretary of State has no discretion in such cases, and I am unable to comment on individual applications, our view remains, for the reasons that I have already given, that disabled people should not be discriminated against. Although we have studied these representations thoroughly, and I have listened carefully to the hon. Member's comments tonight, we have no plans to amend the legislation.
It has been suggested that scales of houses adapted or constructed for disabled people hit at the disabled by reducing the stock of houses specially provided to meet their needs. I do not share that view. Our research into the uptake of the right to buy suggests that most tenants, had they not bought their houses, would have continued as tenants in the same houses for substantial periods. This is almost certainly even more true in the case of disabled people. Their houses would not, therefore, have become available for re-letting on a time scale that is relevant to the current or foreseeable needs of those on authorities' waiting lists.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I remember debating this part of the legislation back in 1980, when the Labour party warned the Government that exactly this 118 kind of situation might arise. I am sure that we all understand the Minister's anxiety to ensure that disabled people should be able to take advantage of the scheme, but is it really fair that local authorities, such as Motherwell district council should have to foot the bill for that? If the Minister wants to operate the scheme, why does he not compensate district councils, such as Motherwell, to enable them to replace the specialist housing stock that they are losing?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI think that I answered that question earlier. We believe that disabled people should have the right to buy, in the same way as all other tenants, and a right-to-buy sale of a house suitable for a disabled person generates at the time of sale a receipt for the landlord in the same way as does the sale of other council houses. We do not believe that disabled people should be disadvantaged in relation to the rights of others. One must balance the rights of the disabled person as against the convenience of the local authority. In this instance, we came down firmly in favour of the rights of the disabled person.
§ Dr. ReidI thank the Minister for giving way, but I think that perhaps he has missed the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Surely the point is that under this system there will be a continuous vicious circle whereby the accumulated debts and deficits occuring from the sale of council houses at a discount, and their repurchase, which must be at market value, will mean that accumulated deficits and financial disadvantages will be laid at the door of Motherwell district council, the very council which, in the first instance, went out of its way to try to provide a service to disabled persons.
If the Minister accepts that the council has to sell at a discount and repurchase at full market value—a process that could happen more than once in relation to the same property — and if he is so concerned to ensure that disabled people have that opportunity, would it not be fairer for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and make up the deficit incurred by the district council as a result of the scheme?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonHousing support grant is available to compensate an authority when the loan charge costs of the repurchase of houses, and all other capital costs, would require over-high rents to balance the account.
I accept that it is extremely necessary to ensure sufficient provision of housing for the physically disabled. Between 1979 and 1987 the number of dwellings available for the disabled through public agencies—that is, local authorities, new towns, the SSHA and housing associations — increased from around 3,000 to some 15,500. Of the current stock, some 2,300 are designed or adapted for wheelchair users, around 3,200 for the ambulant disabled, and the remainder are adapted for those with other disabilities. The current total of 2,300 wheelchair dwellings has increased from 600 in 1979 and now represents 0.2 per cent, of the total stock owned by public agencies.
Housing associations play a significant part in the provision of rented housing for both the physically and the mentally handicapped. The Housing Corporation's approved development programme includes a specific funding category for such provision. In the four years to 119 March 1987, expenditure on schemes specifically for the disabled totalled £30 million, with 345 physically disabled and 403 mentally handicapped units being provided. This year the corporation plans to spend some £7 million, and already 91 physically disabled and 36 mentally handicapped units have been completed.
Provision for the disabled by the housing association movement in Scotland is concentrated mainly on three specialist associations — the Margaret Blackwood, Ark and Key housing associations. These associations are highly regarded for the level of commitment, experience and expertise that they bring to their chosen area of work. They provide a very varied range of accommodation. This includes group homes and hostels which can offer a high degree of care for the severely disabled, sheltered complexes providing warden support, and individual mainstream houses linked with neighbourhood support schemes. The funding arrangements for these projects demonstrate the effective partnership between central and local government. The capital costs are met by central Government through the Housing Corporation, and the regional social work departments meet the cost of the necessary care.
Housing association provision for the disabled does not stop with those three Associations. The concept of care in the community can be seen in the increasing number of mainstream housing associations incorporating units for the disabled within their general needs housing schemes. This is a positive step towards de-institutionalising the disabled and ensuring that disabled people are properly integrated into the general community.
§ Dr. ReidI am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. If he cannot answer this question straight away, perhaps he will write to me. Am I correct in understanding that the same situation does not prevail in England under English legislation? If so, does that not make nonsense of the rationale and justification that the Minister is tendering today?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI acknowledge that the position is different in Scotland, and has been so for some time. However, I see no reason why Parliament should not have agreed a difference of approach. To put it another way, tenants who are disabled, or who have a disabled family member, generally have the right in Scotland at present to purchase their homes under the right to buy, with the pre-emption condition. I believe that we should weigh the position very carefully indeed before we dilute those rights.
I return to my basic point: why should the disabled be further disadvantaged by not being able, as are other members of society, to exercise the right to buy the council houses in which they live? I believe that the balance between the interests of landlords and tenants is about right at present. I have no plans, therefore, to bring forward amending legislation on this particular aspect. It is only fair to say so quite frankly.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about groups of houses. He is obviously interested in that point, and I shall explain the position. Section 61(4)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 exempts from the right-to-buy provisions any house 120
?"that is one of a group provided with facilities (including a call system and the services of a warden) specially designed or adapted for the needs of persons of pensionable age or disabled persons.The Act is not specific as to whether the warden requires to be resident within the group of houses. It is not for the Government to interpret a statute—that is a matter for the courts. However, the absense of any specific reference to a warden may be significant. As the Court of Session has been asked to consider the issues raised in a case of this nature, it would be inappropriate for me to say more tonight.Whether disabled persons own their homes, or are tenants of a private or public sector landlord, special help is available by means of improvement grants. These can meet up to 75 per cent, of the cost of making the house suitable for the welfare, accommodation or employment of a disabled person. To enable these grants to be made widely available to disabled occupants, the statutory requirements on rateable value limits — in the case of owner-occupiers — and the age of the house have been disapplied.
A standard amenity grant of 50 per cent, is available, as of right for the provision of alternative standard amenities where existing ones are inaccessible to, or unsuitable for, a disabled person. In most cases, adaptations to make public sector houses suitable for a particular disabled person will be undertaken by the housing authority. However, following the introduction of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, tenants of public sector houses may apply for grants on the same conditions as private owners or tenants.
The Scottish housing White Paper published on 11 November made it clear that under proposals for the reform of the improvement and repairs grants system in Scotland grants will continue to be available to adapt houses for the benefit of disabled people. Detailed proposals for the reform of the Scottish grants system are being developed, and it is not possible at this stage to go beyond the outline of the proposals in the White Paper.
Finally, I should perhaps say a little about the size of the physically disabled population in Scotland. The exact proportion of the total population who are physically disabled is difficult to determine accurately. A survey published in 1971 suggested that about 6 per cent, of the total population of Scotland suffer from some form of physical or sensory impairment. That number can be divided into four main categories: 61 per cent, have negligible or minor impairments, and can live normal independent lives. Many of those will have no special housing need; 21 per cent, have appreciable impairments, but are able to get out and around on their own; and 12 per cent, are severely impaired, and may occasionally use a wheelchair. Many of those people can still walk, however, and can get out and around if accompanied, or if they use a walking-aid. The remaining 6 per cent, are very severely impaired, and frequently require a wheelchair to move around. Many are either wheelchair-bound or bedfast. Some of this group will be in need of constant care or special medical facilities.
Although the numbers of disabled people are therefore relatively small, the Government do not underestimate the size of the problem involved in meeting their housing needs. This is reflected in the fivefold increase in public 121 sector housing suitable for the disabled since 1979. The number of such dwellings has increased from just over 3,000 to 15,500 at March 1987.
As I have already indicated, not all physically handicapped people require special housing. A considerable number of those who are ambulant can be well and comfortably accommodated in housing that is not significantly different from mainstream housing. The Government are actively encouraging the concept of barrier-free housing. The main aim is to eliminate, by design, from as many general needs houses and flats as practicable, those features that otherwise would prevent dwellings from being occupied by, for example, a disabled person who may only require a wheelchair from time to time.
Our aim is to ensure that such barriers can be eliminated without increasing the recommended space standards or cost yardsticks. Particularly suitable for that approach are single storey houses or flats; any house with a bathroom, kitchen, living room and at least one bedroom at ground level; and two-storey houses that can accommodate a stair lift. Taken in total, therefore, it should be possible for disabled persons readily to occupy a substantial percentage of mainstream housing, without major structural alterations or additions being necessary.
However, some disabled people — for example those who are handicapped by multiple sclerosis, strokes or arthritis—require to be permanently in a wheelchair, or need large items of equipment. A major contribution to meeting their needs can be made by adapting existing 122 properties in ways which meet the specific needs of the known occupier. To assist with these adaptations, housing authorities have a duty to make improvement grants available to the public and private sectors to allow provision of additional standard amenities essential to the needs of a disabled occupant. Such amenities include floor lifts, special doors and windows, ramps, and special bath, shower or kitchen units. In order to clarify where the financial responsibility for the provision of such aids and equipment should lie, the Government issued an advice circular in 1985. This has helped practitioners in the field to deal with those cases which otherwise might have caused problems.
We must not forget, too, that people of all ages suffer from handicaps and require specially designed housing. For example, families where a child is disabled may require to be suitably housed to meet the child's needs. In the assessment of the need for such housing, consultation between housing, health and social work services departments is essential. Similarly, it is important that the placing of a person in a specially designed or adapted house should be co-ordinated. The disabled person needs the support of both statutory and voluntary services to ensure that he receives the level of personal care that is essential—
§ The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
§ Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.