| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.10 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): In giving a general but not unequivocal welcome to the Bill, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for
Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency on his hard work, particularly with the building industry, and his almost unrivalled grasp of the issues involved. It is a shame that he is not in his place--he has probably gone to dinner--nevertheless it should be recognised that he has done a wonderful job.
I should first declare an interest. I am proud to have been in the housebuilding industry for the past 20 years and I understand some of the problems that have been mentioned, particularly in respect of part II of the Bill. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that I have always used an architect. Generally speaking, the architectural profession produces excellent work.
It would be remiss of me to mention some aspects of the Bill without referring to the extraordinary remarks by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He said that Conservative Members tended to laugh at what he had to say. I certainly did not laugh; I found his words absolutely chilling. I am glad that he said them, however, as I suspect that they reflect the views of a large proportion of Labour Members.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East):
indicated dissent.
Mr. Coombs:
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) shakes his head, possibly signifying yet another split within the Labour party in this as in other areas of policy.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke in Castro-esque terms about the nationalisation or common ownership of land, and denigrated people's sincere attempts to own their own homes just because they might have to raise the money by taking on a mortgage. When the right hon. Gentleman was Viscount Stansgate, he might not have had to do that, but the vast majority of the rest of the world does. His comments might have been considered a slap in the face by people who aspire to home ownership in that way.
In that context, the capitalist society, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, has done rather a good job in terms of the condition of housing stock in Britain. As we have heard, in the past five years the proportion of dwellings regarded as unfit has fallen by about 10 per cent. to1 million. The figure is still too high. We also heard that one third of those dwellings could be put right at a cost of less than £500 and that half were unfit in only one respect.
Throughout the building industry and in my constituency, the interaction of the private and public sector, technological advances and improved building regulations over the past few years have resulted in significant improvements in the general standard of our housing. To give just one example, the latest household survey, which relates to the period between 1979 and 1991, shows that when Labour was last in government, only 43 per cent. of pensioners--who are not regarded as a high wealth sector in society--had central heating in their homes; something that most people regard as pretty basic. The present figure is well over 75 per cent. That demonstrates an improvement in the housing conditions of a large proportion of people in Britain.
Part I of the Bill deals with housing renovation grants and grant regimes generally. The Government are absolutely right to put those matters on a discretionary, not a mandatory, basis, for the simple reason that councils should be able to decide their priorities in those matters. Their objection to a discretionary scheme sits ill with Labour Members who are always extolling the virtues of
giving local councils more power to object. As Lord Williams of Elvel said in the House of Lords on20 February 1996:
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote speeches made in the House of Lords, except by Ministers.
Mr. Coombs:
I stand admonished, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact that he said that that would be so demonstrates one of the strengths of the system, which until now has been reactive rather than proactive and has led to a pepper pot or static approach. The Bill will allow local authorities to target resources to ensure that renovation grants are properly monitored. In too many cases, they are not, and that leads to a waste of resources.
The proposed change would affect certain properties, particularly those owned by private landlords, who are not covered by the housing renovation grant scheme. Only 4 per cent. of approvals for renovation grants relate to properties owned by private landlords although they preside over one third of unfit buildings. It would allow local councils--if they wished, and I hope they do, irrespective of their political colour--to work with private landlords to improve the condition of their housing stock. Obviously, that will depend on the commitment of an individual council to its task and its willingness to work with private landlords.
It is important to avoid a feeling of injustice and discrimination--despite the neighbourhood renewal assessments--among those who will no longer receive housing renovation grants to which they feel automatically entitled. It is even more important that local councils who will be working on a strategic basis ensure that local communities have a sense of ownership in respect of improvements to the area.
When I represented Moseley on Birmingham city council, I worked closely with the Balsall Heath residents action group as Balsall Heath was an inner-city part of my ward. One of that group's continual gripes about the council in those days--irrespective of political control--was that improvements were being carried out despite them and over their heads. They had no feeling of ownership so they did not consider any improvements to be of lasting value.
Sadly, the housing renovation grant scheme--irrespective of the fact that it will be discretionary--continues to overlay the existing means test, which is complicated and which many of my thrifty constituents, who have maintained a certain level of income as a result of their savings, consider to be discriminatory. We have heard that there were £357 million worth of applications for housing renovation when £250 million was available. There will always be a scarcity of resources, irrespective of which party is in government at Westminster.
It is important that resources are used sensibly, not wasted, and to engage the efforts of the private sector through housing improvement trusts, venture capital trusts and so on, to add to available resources. Tax relief for essential improvements, even though it may exceed the £30,000 limit, is something that the Treasury should examine. There is an argument for allowing capital
receipts to be targeted for the purpose in some councils--[Hon. Members: "Oh."]--subject to the councils being able to prove via the Audit Commission or the Department of the Environment that their overall financial position is such that the use of capital receipts would not be irresponsible.
I welcome the home repairs grant, which replaces the minor works assistance grants--particularly in respect of mobile home owners. There is an enormous number of caravan and mobile home owners in my constituency--the highest in the United Kingdom. Too often, they have missed out on grants for minor improvements that would make a significant difference to their properties. The scheme marks a significant advance.
We must attribute part II to not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but Sir Michael Latham and his team. I am always slightly suspicious--it may just be bloody-mindedness on my part--when there is a consensus across the House in favour of one particular action, particularly when it involves greater Government interference in an industry as large as construction, which has a turnover of £50 billion and employs 5 million people. However, I accept that Sir Michael was right in identifying significant improvements that could be made to the industry. The estimate of 30 per cent. overcosting is probably not unrealistic, to the extent that the industry is too often confrontational--although I have never found it particularly so in my 25 years of dealing with contractors and sub-contractors.
Training standards are generally poor. Despite the existence--and here is a lesson for us all--of the Construction Industry Training Board, there is a lack of qualifications in what is a fragmented industry, and it is significantly undercapitalised in many cases--particularly in respect of smaller companies. I support the Bill's proposals to outlaw "pay when paid" contracts.
A company in my constituency, Burke Brothers, laid electrical cable along the M5 and M4. That firm, which employed about 90 people, worked with Tilbury Douglas. I do not suggest that that company, which was contracted by the Highways Agency, was at all to blame. As there was no easy way of arbitrating on the agency's refusal to pay Tilbury Douglas because the standard of work was not adequate, and because Tilbury Douglas operated a "pay when paid" contract with Burke Brothers, that firm ran into enormous financial difficulties. As a result, its 90 former employees work elsewhere or not at all. "Pay when paid" contracts are unrealistic and anachronistic, and they should be abolished.
I agree that the new engineering contract ought to be the industry standard, but I have some reservations about the circumstances under which it might be replaced and what might replace it, under the scheme for construction contracts. I am not sure who would activate the move to the mandatory, Government-led contract. Who would decide that a particular contract was not appropriate in terms of its payments and other provisions, and when? I see the potential, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for considerable delay unless such questions are clearly answered by the Committee and the Bill.
A much clearer definition of construction operations is needed. We heard the plea made on behalf of the process industries. I believe that more and more construction will
be off-site, by prefabrication. Provision for that development needs to be made in the contractual conditions.
Although I welcome adjudication, we must ensure that it is not over used by people who are trying to seek an unjustified advantage in the contract. I would like adjudication to be continually used throughout a contract, but with recourse to the courts available at the end of the contract if either party felt aggrieved in respect of overpayment or contract length.
The power exercised by different commercial interests--particularly by large contractors over small firms--will remain in evidence, irrespective of the letter of contracts. Small contractors will still want more business from larger companies, so will be unwilling to rock the boat. Any contract should take cognisance of that.
One reason for confrontation in the building industry in recent years is the narrow profit margins resulting from the state of trade. When there is more meat, companies are prepared to share it. Firms too often sign up to a contract on which they will notionally make a loss at a particular price, hoping to negotiate a profit from the extras that come along during the contract's life. That practice is due to the state of trade, and I do not see how it can be avoided. When trade picks up, hopefully such practices will gradually disappear--as in the past.
"Worse still, practice on how to apply the discretionary system will vary from local authority to local authority."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 984.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |