APPENDIX 1
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee to the
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance)
(England and Wales) Order 2002
Many thanks once again for your presentation to the
Committee this morning. I am now instructed by the Committee to
write to you for further clarification of on the following points:
1. Extension of ability to offer assistance
to residents of park homes and houseboats
What guidance does the Department
propose to offer authorities to avoid the danger that disabled
park home or houseboat occupiers resident in one authority might
be refused assistance on grounds of the age or condition of the
dwelling in circumstances where they would not in another authority?
The Committee recognises that the potential for this sort of 'postcode
lottery' is inherent in the basic principle of the proposal to
give local authorities greater flexibility in offering assistance
for housing renewal appropriate to their local circumstances.
However, it seems to the Committee that it could be argued that
it would be unfair to refuse assistance solely on the grounds
that it would be for the improvement of adaptation of a park home
or houseboat, rather than on other grounds relating to the situation
which pertains in a particular local authority area; the Committee
also recognises that it could be argued that, whereas a 'postcode
lottery' might be justified when the assistance in question is
offered at the discretion of the local authority concerned, it
is far more difficult to justify in the case of mandatory
assistance given under, for example, the Disabled Facilities Grant
regime.
2. Requirement to publish a policy on housing
renewal assistance
Whilst the proposed Order
would prevent an authority from using its power to give assistance
(under article 3) unless it was exercised in accordance with a
published policy, the Committee notes that there is in fact no
requirement on the face of the Order for an authority to publish
such a policy. Should the Order not provide for a requirement
for the authority to do so (within 12 months of the Order coming
into force)?
3. Guidance from the Secretary of State
The Committee would be grateful
for an explanation of the basis on which Cabinet Office lawyers
advised that you would not be able to require local authorities
to have regard to the guidance to be produced by the Secretary
of State. (You may wish to write to the Committee yourselves on
this point, or alternatively to ask the Cabinet Office to respond
separately.)
4. Provision of financial advice by local
authorities
The Committee has noted the
concerns raised by consultees about authorities' ability to offer
financial advice, and about liability in the event of poor advice
being given. What reassurance can you offer the Committee about
authorities' ability to offer appropriate advice, and can you
give more details of the guidance which you propose to give authorities
on this issue?
5. Provision to allow authorities to place
a charge on a property as security for assistance given
The Committee notes that
the current legislation appears to enable the authority to place
a charge on a property higher than an existing charge. For example,
if the recipient of assistance had both a mortgage, as the first
charge on a property, and a secured personal loan, as the second
charge on that property, an authority would currently be able
to place its charge above that relating to the secured personal
loan. That ability would, it appears, be removed by the proposed
Order. Does the Department agree that this is the case, and, if
so, does it believe that the current provision offers any necessary
protection which would be removed by the Order?
6. Authorship of report informing declaration
of a renewal area
Justifying the removal of
the requirements relating to the authorship of the report informing
declaration of a renewal area, your explanatory document states,
"The authority will still need to go through a formal declaration
process and they will have to satisfy themselves that the evidence
presented in recommending that a renewal area is declared is of
an approved source." It is not clear to the Committee, however,
how the latter part of this sentence applies. There is no such
requirement on the face of the Order, nor is it referred to in
the outline guidance at Annex G. The Committee would be grateful
know, firstly, why it intends to remove the requirements concerned
(given that they do not in any case appear unreasonably onerous)
and, secondly, how it is intended to ensure that the evidence
presented is "of an approved source".
7. Guidance to be prepared by the National
Assembly
The Committee is grateful
for sight of an outline of the guidance to be issued by the Secretary
of State, and looks forward to seeing a fuller version in due
course. However, it notes that it has not seen any guidance to
be issued by the National Assembly in respect of Wales. Given
that the proposal will also have effect in Wales, and given the
importance which the Committee is likely to attach to ensuring
that adequate guidance will be in place before clearing the proposal,
the Committee considers that it should have sight of the guidance
in respect of Wales in the same way as it has sight of the guidance
in respect of England; and would be grateful if the Department
would make arrangements accordingly.
8. Start-up costs to local authorities
The Committee notes that,
whilst the explanatory document acknowledges that local authorities
will incur some 'start-up' costs relating to the formulation of
the published policy and associated consultation, setting up new
systems and processes to administer grants and loans under the
new legislation, the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment is silent
about such costs, nor is there any indication in any of the explanatory
documentation of whether authorities will be given any help with
these costs. In view of the level of concern expressed on this
point by consultees, the Committee would be grateful for the Department's
assessment of these costs, and to know whether any additional
help will be offered to authorities to meet them in the initial
period of transition to the new regime.
9. Ability of local authorities to exercise
discretion
The Committee is concerned
that local authorities' ability to exercise discretion over the
most appropriate way to offer assistance for housing renewal should
not be fettered, as it believes has been the case in the past,
by central Government direction regarding how money provided to
them should be spent. This applies not to legislative requirements
of the sort which will be removed by this proposal, but rather
to understandings that money will only be provided to local authorities
if it is spent on certain projects, or kinds of project. Can the
Department give assurances that allocations of funding to local
authorities for housing renewal will be made available solely
on the basis that it is to be spent entirely as the authority
concerned sees fit (within the appropriate legislative constraints)?
10. Level of support for local authorities
The Committee would be grateful
for clarification of whether the Government intends to recoup
any of the savings expected to be made by local authorities through
the greater use of loans rather than grants, or whether it intends
to maintain (or increase) the current level of financial support
to authorities for private sector housing renewal over coming
years. The Committee notes particularly in this respect the provision
which is made at article 8 of the proposed Order: it may help
if the Department were to outline the use which is expected to
be made of this provision.
11. Changes to the discretionary DFG regime
The Committee notes the implications
of the proposal for the funding of Disabled Facilities Grant in
England. It would be grateful for confirmation that the funding
mechanisms which apply in Wales are such that there are no similar
implications there.
In addition, the Committee would be grateful to know
when it will be able to see the report on the consultation responses
to which you refer on page 54 of the explanatory document.
15 January 2002
|
