HC Deb 08 July 1996 vol 281 cc24-7

'.—(1) A local housing authority may specify the maximum amount of grant it will pay in respect of an application for a grant, which shall he determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of its private sector housing renewal strategy.

(2) A local housing authority may make different provisions for different types of grant, or for the same type of grant in different c ircumstances.'.—[Mr. Chris Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Davies

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 33, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 40.

No. 8, in page 19, line 31, leave out from 'grant): to end of line 38 and insert `there shall be no maximum amount of grant to be paid if the application is approved.'. No. 72, in page 19, line 39, leave out from 'not' to 'pay'.

Mr. Davies

The new clause gives local authorities flexibility to tailor their private sector renewal strategies to meet the circumstances that they encounter and to tackle unique and individual problems. It does not conflict with the prime purpose of the Bill and has no public expenditure implications, because the overall amounts allocated to housing authorities are strictly controlled by central Government, and any flexibility within that will be within the overall guidelines.

The new clause will enable local authorities to determine how that money is best spent in their districts and boroughs. In some cases, they could consider widening the scope of grants and enabling more people to qualify for grants each year, by setting the maximum grant at a lower level than the Minister might otherwise recommend. It would also enable local authorities to tackle particular circumstances by raising the grant to a higher level, but as fewer residents would qualify for grant in such circumstances, it would be a step that they would take only with reluctance. There will be instances in which that flexibility will be useful, particularly when large properties require modernisation and renovation, and when the needs of large families, perhaps of ethnic minority groups, must be catered for.

I ask the Minister to consider the new clause carefully and to recognise that it does not affect the overall tone of the Bill in any way; it will ensure that the Government's objective of ensuring that money is wisely used is implemented properly.

I ask the Minister to remember that when it comes to judging the circumstances in any one area, the local housing authority there is almost certainly in a better position than the Secretary of State to determine the most appropriate fine-tuning.

Mr. Clappison

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I do not think that he has done justice to the framework set out in clause 33, particularly the wide measure of discretion that it gives to local authorities. As he well knows, that is an important aspect of the purpose of the reforms.

Clause 33 restates the power of the Secretary of State to impose a grant limit on both mandatory and discretionary grants. The important point is that we intend to retain a grant maximum of £20,000 only for mandatory disabled facilities grants. As local housing authorities will be able to decide their grant policy within the resources made available to them, we currently believe that there is no reason to introduce a grant limit on other discretionary grants.

3.45 pm

New clause 5, replacing clause 33, would provide for the power to specify maximum grant limits to rest with individual local authorities rather than with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will remember the full discussion that we had in Committee. Despite the arguments which he advanced then, and which he advanced today, I remain of the view that a consistent national policy should apply when essential and important principles, such as the maximum grant payable, are involved. Therefore, we think that it is right for the power to make those determinations to rest with the Secretary of State.

Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 72 would remove the power to place a limit on the amount that may be paid on an application for a disabled facilities grant, regardless of the circumstances. As I have already said, we intend that there should be a maximum of £20,000 for mandatory disabled facilities grants.

It is worth mentioning that the average mandatory disabled facilities grant is about £4,000, with a very small minority of disabled facilities grants near the top end of the £20,000 limit. Those higher grants are usually given when a disabled person needs more extensive adaptations, including an extension to his home.

We recognise that there will be some disabled people whose needs will result in adaptations that require grant assistance in excess of the limit. So that authorities are not prevented from giving grants in those cases, a new provision—clause 33(3)—was introduced, enabling local authorities to pay discretionary grants above the grant limit when they consider that to be justified. So there is flexibility for local authorities.

When there could be a high cost to the recommended works, we believe that local authorities should be given the opportunity to assess the benefits of carrying out such works and to decide whether there is any other way in which to meet the disabled person's needs.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, our original proposals for the means-testing of disabled facilities grant applicants included relaxation of the test for mandatory grants, but not for discretionary grants. We considered that matter, and we have given an undertaking—which I now repeat—to allow for discretionary disabled facilities grants to be means-tested in the same manner as mandatory disabled facilities grants, thereby aligning the two means tests. That means that there will be no disadvantage to disabled applicants when they are given discretionary top-up grants beyond the £20,000 limit.

Given that undertaking, the £20,000 grant limit for mandatory disabled facilities grants now acts as a watershed, beyond which local authorities and social services departments must give careful consideration to whether the works proposed in the grant application are necessarily the only or even the best option available to meet the disabled person's needs. Local authorities will also have the power to exceed the limit when they are satisfied that that is necessary.

Notwithstanding the arguments that I have heard today, I believe that we have struck the right balance and given the correct discretion to local authorities.

Mr. Raynsford

The Minister rightly mentioned the earlier discussion about the different means tests applying to disabled applicants seeking a mandatory award as against a discretionary award. We highlighted that problem in Committee, and Opposition Members are delighted that the Government have now accepted the case for a streamlined procedure, with a single means test applying to disabled applicants seeking mandatory awards and to those seeking discretionary awards. Those important improvements, which were achieved in Committee, create a fairer climate for disabled people and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.

The existence of a limit has been part of the scheme—the Labour party believes that that is right. During the 1970s and 1980s a great deal of renovation work was undertaken with, on average, smaller sums than has recently been allocated to renovation grants. Under the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are, in effect, being repealed by the Bill, the size of individual grants rose astronomically and there were cases involving extraordinary sums of public money being allocated to individual properties. That led to the progressive introduction of, first, a £50,000 limit and, more recently, a £20,000 limit. Clearly, that limit needs to be kept under review; it would be wrong to see it as a fixed figure for all time.

Given the limited availability of public resources and the need to ensure that as many renovation grants as possible can be approved, the Opposition do not object to the principle of a broad, national limit to ensure consistency throughout the country and to ensure that resources are spread as widely as possible to benefit the maximum number of people.

Mr. Chris Davies

Rather than a consistent national policy—to use the Minister's words—which is promoted by both Conservative and Labour, I would prefer to see guidelines within which there was more flexibility for local authorities. It would seem that I am to be disappointed on this new clause and many other amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to