HOUSING GRANTS: THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.

§ Mr. Clappison
The joint effect of amendment No. 17 and new clause 11 is to remove the 10-year age requirement as a condition of grant for houses in multiple occupation that are provided by conversion. We accept that, in terms of the 10-year condition, houses in multiple occupation are a special case.

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)
The new clause, which responds to one that we moved in Committee, makes a great deal of sense. Houses in multiple occupation are often in poor condition. They form some of the worst housing in the country and present some of the most life-threatening conditions. It is vital that action is taken to remedy that. Often, because of the way in which the conversion takes place, the property has been brought into multiple occupation fairly recently, so the 10-year limitation, which would apply otherwise and is perfectly sensible other than in respect of disabled facility grants, where the Government already accept the need for an exemption, would be unhelpful. We are pleased that the Government recognise the logic that we advocated in Committee, so we welcome the new clause.

§ Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
I welcome the general tone of the new clause, which is 22 helpful, but I draw the House's attention to subsection (2) and the power that it gives to the Secretary of State, rather in the way referred to during questions to the Leader of the House. It enables a Secretary of State, at a whim and with a parliamentary majority, to substitute almost any period that he or she may wish for the time specified.
No doubt the Secretary of State, in keeping with the views of the House, would always act reasonably and ensure that any amendment was in keeping with what the Minister intends today, but, in practice, this is a good example of broad drafting that can allow massive changes later. Unwritten rules and conventions, which many of us follow as a matter of course, can so easily be torn up if the political complexion of the Executive decides that that should be the case.
I lost my position as chairman of housing in Liverpool when a Labour administration came in, with its strong bias towards the militant tendency. Those unwritten rules were torn up immediately. The administration took full advantage of broad drafting of this sort in the council's policies. Within days, policies that we would have expected to continue for many years were completely revised, without the council's full endorsement. Much the same can happen to laws with such broad drafting. Ministers are keen to respond to points made in the House and say that they would not dream of giving the Secretary of State undue powers, but this new clause gives the Secretary of State, of whatever political party, just that sort of authority.