| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has announced. Does he agree, however, that the proper way to approach this problem, which is a serious one, would be to introduce a scheme for mortgages to rents generally across the board rather than the scheme of rents for mortgages that the Government had in place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall need to work out exactly what the noble Lord is saying. Some people have their mental processes work rather slower than the noble Lord's. I shall consider what he is saying about mortgages to rents and rents to mortgages. People who decide to purchase their house take a risk--of course they do. It happens with everyone. In the council sector they are given substantial concessions. The negative equity problem to which my noble friend referred does not affect them nearly so much, particularly now, because house prices are increasing. Negative equity at the moment is about one-fifth of what it was in 1992.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the facts in the noble Lord's question were wrong? Is he further aware that just after the right to buy was established several years ago, a substantial number of tenants bought industrially built houses which showed serious defects after a short time and that
the Government introduced substantial grants for them to be repaired? Will the Minister consider extending that scheme to these people?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have explained to your Lordships that the exchange sales scheme enables local authorities to buy back houses where there is a difficulty. The fact is that anyone who purchases a house takes a risk and has to have professional advice. I realise that some people fall into difficulties not necessarily of their own making and we have taken steps to help.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are grateful that the Government are recognising the problems experienced by some people who have bought their houses or flats, and that they are prepared to make financial provision to help them. However, there is a difference between the situation of those people who have bought their houses or flats and who then experience unforeseen problems and the situation in Westminster where the Conservative council mis-sold its flats with the result that the owners have faced enormous bills. Presumably the government scheme will apply to them, too. However, have the Government any intention of surcharging the councillors responsible for mis-selling their council's property?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper and does not require an answer, other than the fact that I am not aware that it is so.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Dean of Beswick, that a survey carried out in 1994 of the people who had bought council houses showed that 97 per cent. of those who purchased under the right-to-buy scheme considered that they had good value for money; 86 per cent. of council flat owners considered that they had good value for money; only 8 per cent. of flat owners were more than one year in arrears with their service charges; and only 12 per cent. of all sales under the right-to-buy scheme are flats. Therefore, a considerable number of people who have purchased flats or houses are satisfied with what they have done.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there any incentive for local authorities to buy houses or flats at less than their market value and to relet them to the tenants at rents which do not cover the interest or management charges? Will the Minister say how many local authorities have taken advantage of the powers that he says they possess in this regard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not many councils have taken advantage of the exchange sales scheme, although it is there for their benefit. With regard to buying back houses which are owned by people who have got into difficulties, if people are old and may
become homeless it may well be cost effective for the local authority to do so; otherwise, it would have to find alternative accommodation for such people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that not many local authorities have taken advantage of the scheme. Can he give a figure indicating how many is not many?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to scratch around in the books to find the answer. I do not have it at the moment, but I shall see what it is and tell the noble Lord.
Office of Public Service
3.24 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are the functions of the Office of Public Service and whether they are satisfied that these functions do not encroach upon those of other government departments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Office of Public Service carries out functions designed to promote and support good government, the provision of efficient and effective public service and policies which improve UK competitiveness. Details of these functions are set out in the department's last annual report (Command Paper 3220). Co-ordination arrangements exist to ensure that they complement and support those of other government departments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I wonder how much other government departments have welcomed this spur to greater efficiency and also whether the help proffered to them does not seem more like a hard grip on their windpipes. Will my noble friend do what she can to ensure that the new department keeps Parliament informed of its plans and gives Parliament an opportunity to discuss them? The handling of the RAS and the plans in so far as they are understood for the Whitehall estate have generated a few breezes of anxiety.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am surprised that my noble friend has finished. He is stating his opinion, but he would not expect me to share it. However, I have noted his concerns and I shall draw them to the attention of the First Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister.
As regards the RAS and parliamentary accountability, both Houses had the opportunity to debate the Government's proposal to privatise it and the
Government responded to the detailed report of the Public Service Committee of this House on the sale, accepting all but one of its detailed recommendations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will recall that accepting all but one recommendation means accepting all the recommendations except the really important one. Does she recall that in May this year Sir Peter Kemp, the former Permanent Secretary of the Office of Public Service, said that Whitehall's existing structure reflects a view of the world that is usually anachronistic, distorted and sometimes just plain wrong. Is that the Government's view?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. I believe that a pretty good bite was had at the cherry on 7th November when the whole matter was discussed in detail. My noble friend Lord Howe said that the Select Committee did not include the wider question as to whether privatisation should proceed. That was the one recommendation with which the Government did not agree. He also said that the recommendations of your Lordships made for a better contract and arrangements with the new owners in the end and he was grateful to this House.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the most useful thing that the Office of Public Service could do would be to direct the scrutiny of Mr. Fisher and the deregulation taskforce to its own operations; for instance, to deal with the novel idea in the OPS that it is going to tackle the burden of paperwork in the public sector, with further scrutinies to be launched? That is a very interesting point of view. Is it my noble friend's view that it may conceivably be part of the intention of the Deputy Prime Minister to change the culture of the Civil Service; but changing that culture seems to involve more paper, not less, except that the paper is OPS-generated and perhaps for that reason is respectable?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this Government are committed to a permanent, politically impartial Civil Service, recruited through the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit. The Government introduced the new Civil Service code and are committed to uphold the values of integrity, impartiality and objectivity across the Civil Service, which my noble friend Lady Park will know a great deal about.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should be grateful if my noble friend could forecast the likelihood of that office achieving its own target of becoming a model of good management practice by the end of this year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not forecast anything, but I shall pass on those remarks, as I said I would my noble friend's other remarks, to the department.
National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Clause 1 [Financial assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. When we discussed the Bill in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, proposed a number of amendments, the main thrust of which was to add the word "engineering" to the various lists of heritage "interests" which appear throughout the Bill. The amendments attracted support from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote. My response was that the amendments added nothing of substance since the funding remit of the National Heritage Memorial Fund under the terms of the Bill will encompass objects of interest in relation to engineering history. I nonetheless recognised fully the noble Lord's firm conviction that engineering must be seen as an aspect of the heritage in its own right, rather than simply an element falling within architecture or science. I therefore agreed to look again at the case for making specific reference to engineering on the face of the Bill.
Having now done so, I have concluded that there are two lists of heritage "interests" set out in the National Heritage Act 1980, as amended by the Bill, where a specific reference to engineering might happily be included. These are the lists in new Section 3(1) and new Section 4(2) of the 1980 Act. My proposed amendments accordingly add the word "engineering" in those two places. The other lists of heritage "interests" in the legislation are rather narrower in scope and I do not think it would be helpful to add any further items in these cases for the reasons I explained at Committee stage.
I hope the House and in particular the noble Lords to whom I have just referred will agree that what I am now proposing represents a sensible way of dealing with the concerns expressed in Committee. I accordingly commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Page 1, line 10, after ("architectural,") insert ("engineering,").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page