PAYMENT OF REMOVAL EXPENSES IN CERTAIN CASES (Hansard, 9 June 1988)

§ Mr. Allan Roberts
I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 9, line 9, at end insert— '(1A) Where the order for possession relates to a dwelling house in respect of which structural modifications have been made for meeting the special needs of a disabled person (whether or not the tenant), then, if—

(a) a local authority having functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 provided assistance; or

(b) such an authority would, if an application had been made, have provided assistance,

for making those modifications, the sum shall include an amount equal to the reasonable expenses incurred in making, in respect of a dwelling to which the disabled person removes, comparable modifications which are reasonably required for meeting the disabled person's special needs.'. I shall be brief because the issues raised about this amendment were fully debated in Committee. This is a 1045 repeat of amendment No. 167 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and debated in the House on Tuesday 19 January.
Hon. Members might ask why if we debated it in Committee it is being debated again on Report. There are two reasons for that. First, it is a very important issue and relates to the removal expenses of replacing a disabled person's special needs in a new home. We are proposing to amend clause 11, page 9, line 9 and that clause deals with the circumstances and arrangements made when possession is sought of a home that is in public ownership and where the tenants, the residents of the home, are being rehoused elsewhere.
The amendment is before us again because of its importance and because it is necessary to protect the needs of the disabled. When expenses are incurred in the transfer, they should be paid if the money is to cover the cost of replacing a disabled person's special needs in a new home. If the home that a person is being thrown out of by the Government has been specially adapted for the disabled by means of some grant or other under the National Assistance Act, or by the local authority, it is not right that the disabled person should suffer. Some provision should be made. It is before us because it is an issue of principle that will affect, not a massive number of people, but a significant minority, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those are the disabled people who need the adaptations to their home.
The other reason that the amendment is before us is that, if we had debated it in Committee and we had been given an unsatisfactory answer, we would have voted on it and that might have been that. If it had been debated in Committee and we had been given a satisfactory answer and the Minister had accepted the proposals, that would have been that.
However, this is what the Minister said in Committee in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith: His amendments—if I have interpreted them correctly —raise a fair point which would need careful consideration. If the hon. Gentleman is content, we shall re-examine the matter and produce appropriate proposals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 19 January 1988; c. 344.] 7 pm
On the basis of what the Minister then said, the amendment was withdrawn. He has not re-examined the matter and produced appropriate proposals. It is another example of the Minister ratting on an undertaking given in Committee. Nothing has been tabled by the Government. There are no proposals here to protect disabled persons in the same respect as the amendment that we moved in Committee and we now repeat. Therefore, we ask the Minister to stand by what he said in Committee and accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I strongly rebut the suggestion that commitments have been made which have been broken, as has been said many times. They have not. I remember putting before the Committee the normal three types of commitment that any Minister gives. First, "If we agree it, we shall do what has been said". There have been several examples of that this afternoon. Secondly, "We shall have a look and see whether we can make that work". Thirdly, "That seems to be an interesting point, and, without commitment, we will look at it." This amendment falls into the third category.
1046 I am sorry if this is boring my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who may not be interested in these issues. However, to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, I am strongly advised by those advisers in my Department—and we have specialist advisers on matters concerning the disabled—could paradoxically have the opposite effect to what he and we want. I must say that I would not have spotted that the first time he raised it. Nobody will doubt that modifications of this kind are often crucial to disabled people. That is common ground between us. However, the work cannot be carried out without the landlord's consent. That would be severely jeopardised if the landlord was then laying himself open to having to spend possibly tens of thousands of pounds if he obliged the tenant to move later on. It would not mean that he would fork out that money; he just would not allow the changes to be carried out in the first place. Surely it is better to continue with the present position where the disabled tenant is entitled to receive grants for replacement adaptation when he goes to his new house. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I that, under the home improvement grant regime, disabled people are eligible to a grant of up to 90 per cent. from the housing department, with social services departments meeting the rest in cases of hardship.
We have considered this genuinely and discussed it with our disablement advisers. However, if we were to accept it, it has the paradoxical outcome that it might make it standard for landlords to refuse the work to be done in the first place and, therefore, disabled people would be worse off. That is a strong argument against accepting it.

§ Mr. George Howarth
In theory, what the Minister has said sounds all very well, that the local authority housing department can provide up to 90 per cent. and that the social services department can top up the rest. However, most hon. Members will be aware that, if the capital allocation is not there, there is often a waiting list that can stretch to two years or more. The reality is that people could find themselves in the position of moving and having to wait for that kind of assistance for a long time, during which time they will be subjected to some discomfort and difficulty.
The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is in some way detective. However, the Government with all their resources and all the advice available to them could surely have found a formula that would have achieved precisely what my hon. Friend and others intended with the original amendment that went through the Committee. I am bound to say that I do not find the Minister's explanation so far entirely convincing.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
What the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has said is perfectly legitimate. He is pushing to get improvements, saying that more money should go into improvement grants and the disablement grants that are part of them. That is the right part of the system. There are about £40 million worth of disabled adaptation grants awarded each year. Doubtless, he arid also many of my hon. Friends would like to see more. However, this change, which looks as though it would help, will make things worse.