HL Deb 30 June 1986 vol 477 cc664-9

8.12 p.m.

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The draft order has two main purposes: first, it provides a scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector; secondly, it enhances the rights of public sector tenants by extending the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and by providing new statutory rights for secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations. The draft order has been the subject of wide ranging consultation with interested bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and its environment committee, and has also been debated recently in another place.

Part II of the draft order provides a statutory scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector which are designated as defective by reason of their design or construction and which, as a result of those defects having become generally known, have been substan-tially reduced in value. The assistance is to be provided by the housing executive to eligible owners of designated defective dwellings in the form of a reinstatement grant at a rate of 90 per cent. of the cost of the reinstatement works (subject to an expenditure limit) or, in certain circumstances if the owner wishes, by repurchase of the dwelling at a price of 95 per cent. of the defect-free value.

These provisions flow from the discovery of defects in a wide range of prefabricated reinforced concrete or PRC dwellings built before about 1960. A scheme of assistance for people who had unwittingly purchased such dwellings from the public sector in Great Britain was introduced in the Housing Defects Act 1984.

In Northern Ireland we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. The housing executive had about 3,000 Orlit dwellings in its stock and sold about 200 of them before the defects became known. Initially, therefore, the scheme of assistance is likely to apply only to those 200 or so dwellings.

As many noble Lords will be aware, the defect in PRC dwellings is essentially one of corrosion of the reinforcing bars in the structural concrete components. That process is a gradual one and technical investigations carried out by the housing executive have confirmed that no dangerous situations currently exist. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is at least one benefit. Many of these dwellings will provide perfectly good housing for a long time to come. Even those Orlit properties in which the corrosion is most advanced have a serviceable life of between five and 10 years without the need for remedial action, while others have a serviceable life of up to 30 years.

Part III, Chapter I, of the draft order deals with the right of housing executive tenants to buy their dwellings. It makes two important extensions to the scheme provided in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. First, under Article 22 and Schedule 4 secure tenants will have the right to buy their homes where the executive owns only on leasehold interest. This will ensure that the right-to-buy will apply equally to all secure tenants. Noble Lords may recall that these provisions fulfil the commitment given by the Government in their response to the report of the Assembly on the 1983 order that the extension of the right-to-buy to leasehold interests would be introduced in legislation at the earliest opportunity. The second extension to the right-to-buy scheme is that for the first time tenants who cannot afford to purchase outright will be able to buy their homes on an equity-sharing basis.

The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter I, amend the existing right-to-buy provisions of the 1983 order in ways that further help tenants who wish to become home owners to realise their ambition. The minimum tenancy period before entitlement to discount arises is reduced from three years to two years and the maximum discount is increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. In addition, the range of public sector tenancies which can be taken into account for qualification and discount is extended.

However, we are also aware that there are those tenants who, for whatever reason, do not wish to become home owners, and it has always been our policy that such people should as far as possible be given the same freedoms and responsibilities as owner-occupiers to exercise their own personal preferences in the use of their homes. That is why in the 1983 order we provided a new framework of statutory rights for public sector tenants—the Tenants' Charter. The provisions in Part III, Chapter II, of the draft order reinforce this policy. In particular, secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations are given two important new rights; the right to exchange dwelling-houses and the right to carry out repairs.

The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter II, are minor in nature. Part IV of the draft order contains a number of miscellaneous provisions.

The draft order is important to both the private and public sectors in Northern Ireland. It provides assistance for certain private owners who, through no fault of their own, purchased defective dwellings sold by the public sector. It ensures that housing executive tenants will continue to be able to become the owners of their own homes on favourable terms. It also extends the freedom of public sector tenants to enjoy their homes in a way best suited to their requirements. I commend the order to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now approved.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves for being sandwiched in the middle of a most important Bill which is the main business of the day and having to try to discharge our responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland in such a shabby fashion. It is no fault of the Minister, but in the debate on the first order 40 minutes were taken up by the Minister, 20 minutes in the introduction and 20 minutes in reply. Other noble Lords took only 40 minutes in order to curtail the debate out of respect for the Minister and for other colleagues.

This side of the House may have failed to convince the business managers that Northern Ireland business deserves more time, but the biggest failure must be that of the Minister. I assume that he has impressed upon his colleagues that it is a disgrace that the affairs of Northern Ireland are treated in such a shabby fashion. I hope that when he has an opportunity of speaking to the Government Chief Whip and others he will tell them that although this evening's assembly is only small there might have been other Members present at prime time who want to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that their affairs deserve a much higher priority. Sadly, our colleagues are waiting to continue the following business, and they must be irritated, frustrated and annoyed. That is sad and bad. I hope that the Minister will take on board how angry I am and how disappointed others outside the House must be.

The Minister will remember that before the debate I asked him to confirm that in Northern Ireland the rights, benefits and responsibilities of mainland legislation which has already been enacted are being visited upon the Northern Ireland scene.

I happen to have played a part in the Housing Defects Bill 1984 and I am therefore fairly familiar with the main arguments. The great problem with which we have to grapple is that on the mainland 16,000 people are affected by the designated categories. Can the Minister tell us how many people will be affected if this order goes through? We were trying to get those 16,000 people out of the difficulties into which the Government had helped them by encouraging them with the right-to-buy scheme to buy houses that turned out to be pigs in pokes. While we were trying to assist them, 160,000 people were in comparable houses owned by councils. The Government did not bat an eyelid about them or where the councils would obtain the money to put right those houses.

Billions and billions of pounds are needed to put houses right, in general. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has talked about the Divis Flats. Those people are as much entitled to a decent place to live as those who will benefit from this order. They have had to whistle. They will have to have them put right out of the housing executive's depressed housing allocation. However, good luck to the people we are dealing with. The Government believe that having encouraged them to buy houses which have a major defect they should have that put right.

Will the noble Lord explain to the House what is special about the council tenant who has bought his house and who then finds that that house must be repurchased or substantially underpinned? Why do the Government believe that in order to induce council tenants to buy they must say to them that they need pay only 40 per cent. of the value? If it is such a good thing to purchase a council house, and it is, why does one need to say that a house worth £30,000 can be bought for £12,000? What other sector of the community is given such largesse? It is not the tenant of a private house. There is no legislation which says that the tenant of a private landlord who wants to buy his house will be encouraged by the Government to buy it by being given a 60 per cent. discount.

The Government believe that the council tenant should have the right to buy, which is right. The original argument was that the tenant had lived in it, paid all the rent and was entitled to be able to buy it. The Government will know from the experience of the past five years that that has been a substantial free gift. Having received that capital sum, people are selling their houses and moving elsewhere. There are some questions there for the Government to answer.

We know the dreadful housing situation in Northern Ireland. The record of this and other governments is good. There has been a decline in the percentage of unfit houses. At one time the figure was 25 per cent. It is now down to 10 per cent. Of all Northern Ireland housing, 10 per cent. is unfit. That is still twice the mainland level. The Belfast Telegraph of last Friday stated: Why the outlook is bleak for those who live in Ulster's unfit houses". Whatever the Government say that they are doing, which I do not deny, for the vast majority of people who live in private and council rented accommodation, the prospect is bleak. Can the Government tell us how they can square that with the housing strategy that the former Secretary of State, Mr. Jim Prior, announced in December 1983? He told the people of Northern Ireland with a great deal of enthusiasm, "What we have is a programme to improve private and public housing." My information is that many businessmen in Northern Ireland are in despair because they assumed that they would receive money from the Government in grants and aid. Individuals bought houses on the premise that they would receive improvement grants, but those have now dried up.

As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has pointed out, in the past six months 5,000 more construction workers have been put on the dole. The Government can wring their hands and say, "We have a plan. We are doing our best. It is better than it was." I believe the Government's housing record is an absolute disgrace. The Government have let down a great many people in Northern Ireland and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, speaks with experience, but I shall be briefer for obvious reasons. This is a long and technical order. The idea and value of providing financial assistance to those who have brought property and then found it to be defective can hardy be challenged. I should have thought that that would have been accepted as fair play. I ask the Minister just one question. The implication here is that bad workmanship is not uncommon. Is that, regrettably, the true position?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, if I may, I shall reply succinctly and swiftly to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I commend him upon a passionate speech on this order. Even he has stressed that it brings Northern Ireland into line with what we hope will be the case in the United Kingdom. I stress to the noble Lord that such legislation is a priority. We want to bring in legislation to ensure that we are in step with the rest of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord asked how many people were involved. In my opening remarks I said that initially we think there will be about 200. About 3,000 Orlit houses have these defects, which I did not go into too technically. I did not think that your Lordships would wish me to. As I understand it, there is some corrosion of the reinforced concrete beams. Only 200 of those Orlit houses were sold to tenants, and they will be covered by this order.

As for the noble Lord's questions about council tenants and discounts, I mentioned 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. That is in step with legislation for Great Britain which we have discussed for many years. I do not think that I can add anything new (or say anything different) to the discussions that we have had over years in your Lordships' House, in another place and outside.

I stress that we are not ashamed of what we have done. I believe that the noble Lord asked about unfit housing and I shall write to him on that point. I do not think that we have any reason to be ashamed of our record, as I stressed in my opening remarks and my remarks in the previous debate.

I take on board the noble Lord's opening remarks. This is a matter for the usual channels. I have done my best, but if I am at fault, I apologise to your Lordships. I am as frustrated as the noble Lord in trying to get through this business. I do so with the courtesy due to everyone in your Lordships' House.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that there was one of 28 categories—the Orlit house—that had been built in Northern Ireland. Can he tell me whether in actual fact there are any other than Orlit houses in Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that the designation of those entitled to the grant is always under review, there is great pressure. Everyone who bought a house that has turned out to be defective is putting the Government under pressure to include that housing in the list for treatment. I should be grateful if he could write to me.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I believe I shall not necessarily need to do that. I take the noble Lord's point but I do stress that we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord accepts that. If there is any further technicality I shall write to him, I hope more fully than I have been able to speak tonight. I hope that I have covered the point.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I am afraid that I have forgotten precisely what his point was, Will he raise it again?

Lord Hampton

My Lords, my point was that the implication seems to be that bad workmanship is not uncommon.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I hope that bad workman-ship is uncommon but where we find it I think that it will be covered by the 28 different types of PRC defects which we attempt to cover with this particular order. I take the point concerning the question of bad workmanship but perhaps that can be dealt with another day. If your Lordships will allow me, I beg to commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.