| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: Being tossed a few crumbs when the Government choose not to accept an amendment is always welcome. The offer of a reference in guidance is at least a step in the right direction, so we will not press the
amendment any further. I trust that the guidance will correctly emphasise the importance of taking into account a local authority registration scheme.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Clappison:
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 22, leave out from first 'be' to 'make' in line 35 and insert
The amendment provides for authorities to have regard to the extent to which the landlord is able to generate higher rental income on the improved property and, if they think it appropriate, to seek and act upon advice from rent officers on any matters concerning rents.
Clause 31 provides authorities with discretion to determine the amount of grant in landlords' applications covered in subsection (1). It is important therefore that decisions taken by authorities on grant applications made by landlords are based on sound information. The scope for the landlord to charge a higher rent for the improved property will obviously have a bearing on the amount of grant that the local authority may award. We consider it appropriate, therefore, that express provision is made to ensure that authorities have regard to that in every case in determining grant.
The amendment simplifies the current version of clause 31(4), allowing local authorities to obtain and take into account any relevant matters. A general provision of this kind is preferable to more detailed provisions, which are more appropriately placed either in departmental guidance or in guidance issued to rent officers by the Institute of Rent Officers. The amendment therefore provides also for authorities to obtain and take into account advice from rent officers on any matters that they consider relevant to an application.
Those are sensible provisions which provide authorities with the flexibility that they need to reach sound decisions on such cases.
Mr. Raynsford:
Like the previous Government amendment, this is a partial move in the right direction by the Government, when a more extensive move would be welcome. It is a partial move because it recognises the importance of obtaining the best information on the likely increased rental income to a landlord when a property is renovated so that that income can be taken into account when determining the landlord's entitlement to grant. We approve of and endorse that provision, and we welcome the reference to the role of rent officers in that respect.
We regret that the Government have not seen the need to go further and accept the proposal we made in Committee--that it should be possible for a local
authority to get a binding agreement from a landlord that the rent estimates taken into account in calculating grant entitlement will be honoured for a specified period. What happens if, after the grant has been calculated on the assumption that the landlord will obtain certain rental income after the property has been improved, the landlord secures a much larger rent and therefore obtains a much better financial return? Had that return been taken into account when the grant was assessed, the landlord would have qualified for a lesser grant.
Seeking the best information when applications are assessed is one thing, but if one does so without having powers to require the landlord to be bound by those assumptions, or to recover grant if a landlord has broken such conditions, it is only a limited step. We regard the amendment as a step in the right direction, but only a modest one and we regret the fact that the Government have not gone further, followed the logic of our position--and probably the logic of their position, if they took the time to think the matter through--and agreed that there should be controls on the rents that can be charged subsequently as well on assumptions about what the rents would be.
Mr. Clappison:
We seem to have moved from talking about assumptions to talking about controls--something that rings warning bells.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Raynsford:
I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 21, line 8, after 'so', insert 'in exceptional circumstances'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 61, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'than' to end of line 12 and insert
No. 106, in page 21, line 13, at end insert--
Mr. Raynsford:
We now come to a very fundamental issue--the availability of grants to people who are disabled, and the provisions in clause 36 that allow delayed payment of such grants.
Most people who are familiar with the working of the current grant regime and with the availability of grants for people with disabilities are very conscious of the problems caused by delay. It takes a great deal of time, not only before applications are assessed, but there is often further delay while reports are obtained from relevant sources such as occupational therapists, people at social services and others qualified to make an assessment on the need for aids or adaptations to suit the needs of disabled people.
Currently, delays of two years and more are not uncommon, so clause 36, which allows for a further 12-month delay from approval of the grant to its payment has--quite rightly--caused serious alarm and concern among those who suffer from disabilities.
Disabled people's concerns have not been allayed by the Government's justification for that provision in clause 36. When challenged about it, Ministers accepted that there would be delays in some cases, but they said that they were necessary because the new framework allows some grants--such as the disabled facilities grant--to be mandatory, which in some cases will pose a serious problem for local authorities' finances. The discretion to postpone payment for 12 months was therefore necessary, they said, to enable local authorities to comply with the requirements.
We noticed that the Government's proposed solution was not a possible alternative framework to ensure that local authorities were able to finance disabled facilities grants within a year; instead, they argued for this provision as a fail-safe mechanism.
The Government also called in aid local authorities, arguing that they would find it difficult to comply with the obligations of a mandatory grant system without a framework allowing deferment. I must tell the Minister that local authorities are far from enthusiastic about clause 36. They know very well that it is an unpopular clause, that it will rightly lead to much anger and irritation among disabled people and that it will be resented very widely. Local authorities would much prefer a framework in which they can meet the need for disabled facilities grants within a reasonable timeframe.
A second issue, which has been aired in Committee but to which the Minister has not given a satisfactory answer, is the position of the contractor. Applications for disabled facilities grants will be based on an estimate from the contractor who is to carry out the work. There is a requirement that competitive tenders be obtained for grants and, when there are two or more tenders, the most favourable--presumably the lowest--will be accepted. The contractor will have tendered on the assumption that the work will be carried out within a reasonable period of time, and most contractors specify that the tender will be valid for only a limited time.
If grant payment is deferred for 12 months, the contractor will either try to honour a tender that is clearly out of time or--much more likely--seek to renegotiate the price because the tender period has passed. If that happens, the supposed beneficial effect of delaying implementation could result in a further claim on public funds when the contractor seeks an increase--it is not normal for contractors to seek reductions in tenders--because of the delay. That perfectly reasonable point was made in Committee, but the Minister had no answer to it.
Clause 36 is unpopular because it will cause anomalies and hardship to many people. It will also cause further increases in public expenditure. If disabled people have to remain in hospital, residential care or other similar accommodation because appropriate work has not been done to their homes so that they can live in them, the cost will almost certainly be far more than the cost of a renovation grant.
'determined by the local housing authority, having regard to--
(a) the extent to which the landlord is able to charge a higher rent for the premises because of the works, and
(b) such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct.
( ) The authority may, if they think it appropriate, seek and act upon the advice of rent officers as to any matter.
( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations'.
Amendment made: No. 24, in page 20, line 26, at end insert--
'( ) the amount of the costs which have been or are to be incurred as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) has increased,'.--[Mr. Clappison.]
Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 7, leave out
'by virtue of section 23(1)'
and insert
'under section 24(1)(a)'.--[Mr. Clappison.]
'six months after the date of the application.'.
'(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the disabled occupant is in hospital or residential care or a delay in adaptations would have a detrimental effect on the long term health or safety of the disabled occupant'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |