APPROVAL AND REFUSAL OF APPLICATIONS (Hansard, 14 June 1989)

§ Sir George Young
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 94, line 45, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
The Committee was unable to come to a decision on the issue to which the amendment relates without the intervention of its Chairman, who used his casting vote in favour of the Government. The amendment relates to the length of time that a local authority can take to process an improvement grant application. The proposition was made in Standing Committee that the authority should have 12 months, but there was a strong feeling that that was a somewhat leisurely period of time and that six months would be more appropriate.
The record of the Division in Standing Committee G states: "The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 11. As only 25 right hon. and hon. Members served on the Committee, it appears that that is a misprint. The report adds: The Chairman: In accordance with precedent, I give my vote to the Noes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 April 1989; c. 1085.] I believe that the score was 11 all.
Given the pressure that the Government rightly place on local authorities to process right-to-buy and planning applications more quickly, 12 months is a long time to deal with an improvement grant application. In forcing the matter to a Division in Committee, I hoped to strengthen my hon. Friend's hand in his negotiations with local authorities. I trust that he will be able to tell the House that the period allowed will be only six months.

§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)
I declare an interest as an electrical contractor associated with the subject matter of clause 104. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Minister for covering the point raised in 997 Committee and agreeing to the amendment. I draw attention to a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister dated 19 May in which he accepts the need for electrical work to be included in the grant provisions. He writes: It is often the elderly, living in a home of long standing, who have the most urgent need of assistance with rewiring. As that need is considered to be urgent, I ask him to consider that a time limit of six months rather than 12 would be better. Nevertheless, I thank him for acknowledging that the previous anomaly needed to be rectified.
Figures for deaths and accidents arising from fires and faulty wiring show the importance of reaching a decision sooner rather than later. Latest statistics show that 3,600 fires in dwellings were directly attributable to faulty electrical wiring, and that they resulted in 22 deaths and 320 non-fatal casualties. The sooner the decisions can be made, the better.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the need for the change to be made, but in practice local authorities are reluctant to accept the need for the grants which are still discretionary rather than mandatory. I should like my hon. Friend to consider the inclusion of the Electrical Contractors Association in the proposed working party which will provide guidance notes on the working of the Act to local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he considers whether the period should be reduced from 12 months to six months.

§ Mr. Trippier
I shall be happy to look at the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
On a more general point with regard to the powerful advocacy that we have heard both from him and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), to use one of the favourite expressions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, I am anxious to smile on the amendment and on him, and to be user-friendly. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment. It may be a lesson to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that, if he is nice to the Minister who knows what he might get?

§ Mr. Tony Banks
I am sure that it will be a lesson for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), but I happen to come from Newham, North-West.