Mr. Paul (Torfaen)I beg to move amendment No. 191, in page 88, line 4, at end insert
'or(d) in the case of an application for a renovation grant to improve a dwelling, the applicant is a tenant to whom Section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 applies.'.The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that council tenants continue to be eligible for grants to improve their homes. Earlier today, the Minister said that he believed that his Government had done well by tenants. However, that is not the case with this part of the Bill.The Government's position is indefensible. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the right for council tenants to get grants as part of their "tenants' charter" in 1980. Similarly, that right is now contained in section 463 of the Housing Act 1985. The Minister will remember that his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said in Committee that she believed that responsibility for essential repairs and improvements rested with the landlord, not with the tenant. That clearly argues against council tenants having the right to improve, and takes away the individual freedom of council tenants to decide for themselves to what extent they want their property to be improved in a situation when, because of Government cuts, their landlord may not be in a position to help.
Later during the Committee stage, at column 1052, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West stated: "No, it is not right … It would not be right for council tenants to be eligible for grants".
We know that housing association tenants will be eligible for grants although council tenants will not. The Government are taking away a right that they granted as recently as 1980 and which they confirmed in 1985.
In Committee the Minister also said:
we have made it abundantly clear that we expect local authorities to make proper provision … so there is no difficulty." [Official Report, Standing Committee G; 25 April 1989, c. 1052–53.]The Minister may say that there is no difficulty, but Exchequer subsidies to local authorities have been cut from £1,393 million in 1980–81 to just £496 million in 1988–89. Local authorities' HIP allocations have been reduced from £5,266 million in 1978–79 to £1,127 million in 1988–89.If owners can improve and renovate with a grant, council tenants should be able to do exactly the same. The amendment does not extend to essential repairs. This is a debate about principles and about the Government yet again taking away a right that is enjoyed by council tenants.
§ Mr. TrippierAlthough I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has moved the amendment, we went around that course many times in Committee. The hon. Gentleman quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), accurately although his earlier quote may have been from myself. However, what he said about the Committee stage was absolutely true. If the amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that we would be giving preferential treatment to those in public sector housing as opposed to those in the private sector. That would never do. Even when a Labour Government were in power, they pursued a policy of housing improvement grants available in the private sector.
The whole purpose of the first GIAs that were set up in my own ward by Richard Crossman was to concentrate a considerable amount of funding on private sector stock through housing improvement grants. That is the sort of thing that we are continuing.
The new housing finance regime that we are introducing in the Bill for the public housing sector is expressly designed to tackle the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
Renovation grants are essentially concerned with the repair and improvement of private sector stock. Local authorities and other public sector bodies have other sources of funding with which to meet their responsibilities as landlords. I accept that we could debate that issue at some length on a political platform, because the hon. Member for Torfaen would argue that we have cut the HIP allocation, and we would say that we have increased the amount of capital money available through the increased amount of money made available through the right to buy. That debate would go on endlessly. We have had many opportunities to debate that in the past and no doubt we will again in the future.
In the part of the Bill that we are now discussing, the housing improvement grants are specifically targeted at the private sector. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wants that to continue, and so do I. I hope that, if the hon. Member for Torfaen will not withdraw the amendment, my hon. Friends will oppose it.
§ Amendment negatived.