| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.28 pm
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): The Bill covers many issues, and we could spend a long time trying to consider them all, but I want to refer to the housing issues that arise out of it, because I consider housing to be the greatest social problem in the country. I know that we have unemployment benefit, community care, health care and education, but if we had proper and significant housing provision, many other social problems would be eased.
I want, therefore, to impress on the House the need to introduce a comprehensive housing strategy to resolve the problems that I, as a constituency Member of Parliament, encounter. I receive more correspondence and other
representations on housing issues than on any other subject. I know that unemployment is high on the agenda of the Labour party, but I must tell the Minister, the Conservative Government and my colleagues that we must place housing high on our agenda because of the social consequences of the lack of a housing strategy.
The Bill is designed to end grant assistance for low-income owners and landlords to bring their property up to a minimum standard of repair and to replace it with grants given at the discretion of the local authority. That is not a welcome move, because proper resources should be given to local authorities if they are to have responsibility for distributing grants.
The Bill would remove the basic human right to a home that is fit to live in. The current system gives a statutory right to cash help to bring property up to a minimum standard, subject to a means test. It ensures that owner-occupiers and tenants who are trapped in housing that is officially unfit to live in and who are unable to afford its repair are eligible for Government grant. A significant number of people find it difficult to provide the resources to bring their homes up to a proper quality.
It is now the Government's policy that elderly people should remain in their homes longer. The removal of the right to a Government grant--less than five years after its introduction--will extinguish any hope of help or support in many vulnerable people who live in homes that are in need of urgent repair. One in six--or 3.5 million--properties require urgent repairs costing more than £1,000.
The Bill refers to deferred action. That is an option that will legitimise doing nothing when a house is found to fail minimum standards. Unfitness will be officially sanctioned and many properties will suffer from blight while awaiting action, which will be put off. At the resource levels currently planned, many local authorities will be unable to use the new grant more flexibly, as cash will be spread too thinly to do much more than deal with the worst problems and meet obligations to pay grants to disabled people. We will witness a patch-and-mend system, which I consider totally unacceptable.
We have a serious reservation about the way in which legislation has been implemented--in particular, the lack of transparency in the allocation processes, including the competitive nature of the process, the role of the Government offices in the regions and the extent to which need is taken into account. We also have reservations about the fact that the number of areas able to access regeneration resources has been extended, while resources have been reduced.
Age Concern has told the Government that it is
The Minister has said that the Government are considering that issue, but unless it is addressed, greater problems will occur.
Age Concern also reports, in the briefing material that every hon. Member has received, that 71 per cent. of disabled facility grants were given to applicants aged 60 or over. That is the area at which grants should be targeted, but without the proper resources it will be more difficult to help people over 60.
The National Home Improvement Council has also presented a report, arising out of its house condition survey, that shows that about 1.5 million dwellings are
unfit for habitation and that a further 1.1 million, while not unfit, require substantial repair. We have evidence, therefore, of a significant problem in housing repair, and the reduction in grants will not help people who are in need of assistance.
Wakefield housing department reports a problem because a range of other grants and provisions aimed at helping people to improve and maintain the standard of their homes will also be affected by the Bill. The chairman of the housing committee makes it clear that, if the Bill is passed, the effect will be worrying for that housing authority.
Contrary to what the Minister said in his opening remarks about canvassing local authorities and receiving their support in principle for the Bill, my local authority has made it clear on more than one occasion that, without the proper resources and assistance from the Government to make grants, there will be a deterioration in the quality of housing stock throughout the Wakefield metropolitan district area. The annual capital allocation for 1996-97 that has been set in my area is half of what the authority will require if it is to meet the demand for housing grants and provide the help that is needed.
The glass industry has said that it could help with renovations and housing grants. In my area, which is part of the Yorkshire and Humberside area, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of grants made available. Without some additional provisions in the Bill, greater problems will arise. That is clear from the representations that I have received--as, I am sure, have other Members of Parliament--from constituents.
Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West):
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has signalled to me requesting that I speak for only five minutes. I shall do my best.
I am chairman of the all-party group on the construction industry, so I feel that I should make a few comments. I am also a personal friend of Sir Michael Latham. He and I have been involved in politics for a long time. He did an outstanding job on his report and it is well worth all hon. Members' reading it.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras(Mr. Dobson) made a fatuous and silly speech. It was wide of the Bill and no more than the usual soundbite stuff that we have come to expect from him.
However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield(Mr. Benn) made an outstanding and extraordinary speech. He wants to nationalise the land. That has been attempted. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Community Land Act 1975, night after night, for about a month. The Bill was enacted and 80
acres were nationalised at a cost of £150 million. The measure was then dropped. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Labour party's experience in nationalising the land.
The Institution of Civil Engineers is concerned about contracting. It asked, and I in turn ask my hon. Friend the Minister, about the date of implementation of the Bill. The institution suggests that it should be some six months after Royal Assent. It wants time to amend its standard contracts in line with the Bill. It is also concerned about existing contracts, which it feels should stand. In addition, it would like clarification of some kind of outline of the scheme. I believe that that will come in the form of a statutory instrument. It would like to see that as soon as possible.
The Bill does not deal with professional negligence, which is another concern of the industry. I understand that that matter is being considered separately.
The institution feels that adjudication is good for obtaining a quick decision on a dispute during construction so that work can continue, but it is concerned that adjudication is being confused with arbitration. The decision resulting from adjudication should be binding only until completion; complex legal arguments should be dealt with later. That is in the Bill, and I merely emphasise it.
The institution is also concerned about the withholding of payments and the suspending of performance--walking off site. It suggests that a contractor intending to withhold payments should give valid reasons for so doing. It proposes an extra clause, which on careful study does seem reasonable, under which, if a contractor sought an adjudication on whether effective notice of withholding payment had been given, the right of a sub-contractor to walk off site could not be exercised on withholding payment.
Those are some of the worries of the Institution of Civil Engineers of which my hon. Friend the Minister is probably well aware, but I simply wanted to put them on the record.
"disappointed that Government proposals to extend Part M of the building regulations to take account of the access requirements of disabled people . . . are not included in the bill."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |