House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 1992

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a new Member, I have become increasingly aware of the difficulties of being called to ask a supplementary question at Question Time, and I have reflected on the fact that part of the difficulty for the Opposition is that 290 hon. Members are entitled to put supplementary questions from the Opposition Back Benches and only 250 from the Government Benches. Will an occasion present itself tomorrow evening, when 20 hon. Members on this side of the House, those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, will be supporting the Government, for you to consider them in future as being part of the Government side so that we can balance out Question Time?

Madam Speaker : It is a most ingenious suggestion that I do not think I will take up at this stage or at any other.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been a very important statement by one of the Commissioners, Martin Bangemann. Could you use your good offices to ensure that a copy of it is placed in the Library before the vote tomorrow night because, from the exchanges during Prime Minister's questions today, it looks as though other Commissioners and the Government may well try to cover up the statement by Martin Bangemann that the Maastricht treaty is a step towards a federal Europe? It seems to me that Parliament should have the original statement for consideration before the debate tomorrow.

Madam Speaker : I will use my best endeavours.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the importance that both you and the House place on the availability of documents. I wish to draw your attention to two documents which are directly related to subsidiarity, one produced by the Commission of the European Communities and one which ought to come from the Government, which could be relevant to tomorrow's debate and which might not be otherwise known.

You will know, Madam Speaker, that at the Birmingham European Council Mr. Delors gave an exposition of this matter and press reports indicated that the Commission was producing an extensive report on the matter. On 26 October, in the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated that this document had not been received by Her Majesty's Government, but on inquiring this afternoon from the Vote Office I have obtained this document, of 25 pages, dated 27 October, which is now in the Vote Office and which I believe to be relevant to tomorrow's debate.

Column 148

In the normal course of events, this document would be the subject of a memorandum from Her Majesty's Government, responding to the contents. It is a communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament. This would be passed to the Select Committee on European Legislation for report to the House, but, of course, the time scale may not allow for that. May I have an assurance that the document will be fully available before tomorrow's debate, and that--if Ministers have time--either a Government memorandum will be published some time tomorrow, responding to the document's contents at least in part, or such a response will be made during the opening speech in the debate?

Madam Speaker : The Government are always anxious--rightly--to ensure that documents relating to our debates are made available to hon. Members ahead of time. The documents are extensive, and require a good deal of attention. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising the matter.

Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Prime Minister's answer to a question on the same point. He said :

"The Commission's paper on subsidiarity will be deposited today in accordance with the usual procedures. There are no current plans for wider distribution."--[ Official Report, 2 November 1992 ; Vol. 213, c. 30. ]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker : By leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments. Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Insurance

That the draft Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Public Health

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Ducks and Geese) (England) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Town and Country Planning (Scotland)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Column 149

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement

3.35 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population ; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water ; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental ; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes ; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings ; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people.

As I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker, this is the eighth time that I have tried to introduce such a Bill. I have done so because I believe that one measure of the way in which a civilisation treats its people is the way in which it treats its elderly people. We have read press reports today that describe the plight of elderly people who are dying needlessly from hypothermia in the winter. We have also heard the Government's response.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the Government claimed that the average income of retired persons' households had risen by a third since they took office in 1979. We do not hear so much about that now. The Government worked out the figures by adding together occupational pension schemes and the income from shares and other investments accruing to a small minority of pensioner households. The vast majority of pensioner households rely on the state old-age pension to maintain themselves. They rely on public services to provide themselves with health, housing and transport. In short, they rely on the rest of the community. The tragedy is that, in the past few years, provision by the rest of the community has been woefully inadequate. The Government have also exerted enormous pressure on individuals to invest in their working lives, either in occupational pension schemes--and the Maxwell pension scandal has shown the danger posed by the way in which many such schemes are administered--or in personal portable pension schemes. The performance of those schemes also brings the Government's strategy into question.

The Bill--which is supported by millions of pensioners--asks for something more than that. It asks for a real increase in the state old-age pension. When the Government took office in 1979, pension law--set down by a Labour Government in 1975--stated that, every year, the state old-age pension should be increased in line with the increase in the retail prices index or in line with average earnings, whichever was the higher. In 1980, the Government broke that link, substituting a rejigged RPI which has cost every pensioner in the land around £15 per week. Since the Government took office, £25 billion has been stolen. The value of the state old- age pension as a proportion of average earnings has fallen from just under 21 per cent. to rather less than 16 per cent., and it is set to fall still further.

On top of that, the fact that health authorities around the country are closing hospitals and the centralising of facilities for secondary care in huge general hospitals make it difficult for pensioners to go to those hospitals and to visit relatives there. As local authorities--beset by rent capping and charge capping--are forced to cut services at the behest of a Government dedicated to market forces, it is the old and vulnerable who suffer. It is they who suffer

Column 150

because of cuts in leisure facilities and social services, and, often, the privatisation of the bus services means that they get an inferior public transport system. All those things make life worse for pensioners.

In the rejigging of the retail prices index some years ago the Government succeeded in hiding what I believe to be the true cost for pensioner households of the way in which the retail price system works. The average increase in the retail prices index for the first quarter of this year was 4.1 per cent. for the population as a whole. For a two-person pensioner household it was 6.3 per cent. These figures are taken from the Department of Employment. That shows how pensioners' living standards are consistently falling.

My Bill seeks to make eight points which I believe are within the spirit of those who campaigned for a state old-age pension at the end of the 19th century and gained it initially in the Budget of 1908. They campaigned for society as a whole to care for its retired people and to provide them with a decent standard of living. The eight points that I propose in the Bill are as follows.

The first is the appointment of a Minister for pensioner policy to co- ordinate all aspects of Government policy as they affect the retired population of this country, whether health, housing, social security, transport, education, leisure or the environment. Further, all local authorities should be required to produce an annual report on the services they are providing for their retired population and to report when they cut services. Many services desperately needed by those not necessarily able to articulate their views to local authorities are at risk of being cut. In London there is a great fear that the pensioners' bus pass will go, as one authority after another tries to get out of operating what is a valuable and important scheme.

Health authorities should be required to report annually on the services that they provide and on the health of their retired people, their life expectancy and the chronic and other conditions from which they suffer. Too many elderly people die from hypothermia ; too many are living in damp flats ; too many are living a lonely life with nothing to look forward to but premature death when they should be able to look forward to retirement in comfort after a lifetime either in work or at home looking after other people.

The poll tax is now recognised to be a totally iniquitous form of taxation, yet we have a form of poll tax in the standing charges levied on pensioner households for gas, electricity and water. Those charges are greater for those who use the least. The real cost of electricity and gas for a pensioner household is on average 11 per cent. of its weekly income ; it is less than 5 per cent. for the rest of the population. The abolition of standing charges, making the extremely profitable private enterprise utilities pay for them instead, would be a major boon for pensioners. Telephone rentals operate in the same way.

Some years ago, in early 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) tried to introduce a Bill to abolish the television licence for pensioner households. The payroll vote was wheeled in in limousines and the Bill was lost. This Bill seeks to achieve what my hon. Friend was trying to do.

The travel scheme operates in some cities but often not in rural areas. We need a national travel scheme. Other countries can afford it and it would allow retired people the chance to travel to see relatives throughout the

Column 151

country. Otherwise, being stuck at home becomes a form of imprisonment, with the moving wallpaper of the television their only comfort.

All that I have suggested would improve the lot of pensioners. But, at the end of the day, it is the level of the state old-age pension that is important. The national pensioners convention has campaigned, many trade unions have campaigned and my own party has campaigned for a much larger state old-age pension. We could afford it in view of the tax handouts that have been given to the very rich.

My Bill proposes that in future state old-age pensions should be increased to half average earnings for pensioner couples and one third for single pensioners. This country can afford it. It can also afford to increase them every year, in line with the rise in earnings or prices, whichever is the greater, as was provided for in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.

This is a ten-minute Bill and I know of all the difficulties associated with such Bills. I hope that the House will understand that millions of people are watching what we are doing. Millions of pensioners, after a lifetime of work, want something more than scraping around in queues for EEC butter, or looking around for remnants at jumble sales or car boot sales. They want dignity in retirement. With the support of many inside and outside the House, the Bill, if enacted, would go some way towards directing national expenditure to where it belongs--to those who most need it. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population ; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricty and water ; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental ; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes ; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings ; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Column 152

Orders of the Day

Housing and Urban Development Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker : I must inform the House that between 6 and 8 o'clock I have no alternative but to limit speeches to 10 minutes as pressure to speak in the debate is considerable.

3.46 pm

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The principles underlying the Bill are those of choice, standards and opportunity : the choice and opportunity to own one's home ; the right to decent standards for council tenants ; and the opportunity to revitalise our cities. Those principles are at the heart of the Government's philosophy for housing and the inner cities. Part I of the Bill fulfils our manifesto commitment that long leaseholders of flats and high-value houses should have the right to buy the freehold at a fair market price. That is a major step towards the removal of the landlord-tenant relationship, which has made the leasehold system so unpopular for more than a century.

Long leasehold is a form of ownership, comparable in most respects to freehold ownership, but it suffers from two drawbacks compared to freehold. First, a lease is a wasting asset. A new long lease costs virtually the same as the equivalent freehold, but its value declines inexorably as the term expires, which makes a lease increasingly difficult to mortgage and has knock-on effects on the property market and population mobility.

The second problem is that leaseholders are generally considered owner- occupiers, but legally remain tenants. In flats, control remains with the freeholder, but all the upkeep and insurance costs are paid by the leaseholder. The Consumers Association recently found that nearly half of all leaseholders reported serious problems with their freeholders, including difficulties in getting in touch with landlords ; failure to carry out repairs ; overcharging for services ; and the misuse of funds.

Part I of the Bill seeks to deal with those problems. It must be sensible that the people with the greatest financial and personal interest in a property should have the right to control it. Our proposals mark one more stage in the process of

enfranchisement. Leasehold enfranchisement was considered as far back as 1884-85 by the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes and by a Select Committee in 1886. The first Bill to seek to provide a right of enfranchisement was introduced in 1884.

A Conservative Government instituted the most significant reform of our land tenure system since the reforms of Edward I in 1290--the Law of Property Act 1925. The next step in the process was again taken by a Conservative Government when the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, gave leaseholders the right to a statutory tenancy once the lease had expired, which helped leaseholders, but did not go far enough in giving them control. The Conservative party then promised enfranchisement in its 1966 election manifesto. Parliament subsequently accepted the principle in the Leasehold

Column 153

Reform Act 1967. That Act gave most long leaseholders of houses the right to enfranchise, but it did not tackle the problem of flats. In 1974, the Conservative Opposition successfully moved amendments to increase rateable value limits and thus extend the scope of the 1967 Act for houses. We now believe that the time has come to extend the right to enfranchise to flat owners.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that owners of houses and flats who wish to improve their property in ways that are entirely congenial with surrounding property are prevented from doing so by the lease owners, who oblige them to use the lease owners' surveyors and architects at considerable expense, plus VAT? Does he further agree that such alterations could easily be supervised under the existing planning laws?

Mr. Howard : I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I agree, and she underlines the importance of not confining these rights to flat owners. For the reasons that I have given, chapter I of part I of the Bill gives most long leaseholders--I am dealing first with flats and will later come to the point made by my hon. Friend--the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their building.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : I accept the principle and intent of the Bill, but my understanding of clause 5 is that it would give a head lessee on a low rent with a long lease the ability to enfranchise in a block which he owned, and that he could do that even though he was not the tenant of any of the flats in the building. I cannot imagine that it was ever the policy intent that a head lessee should be in that position. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that is so, and agree to consider the drafting of the provision in Committee?

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend is broadly speaking right, and I have no doubt that we shall discover in Committee that there are many points where finely balanced arguments exist as to how we prevent anomalies of various kinds arising. My hon. Friend has alluded to one such difficulty. There are others, and they will be discussed extensively in Committee.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the biggest anomalies is the question of fair compensation--he used that phrase--because it is now widely accepted that when the deal is done--it is known as a marriage deal--there will be a substantial profit to the leaseholder at the expense of the freeholder? Surely Conservative party policy should not condone robbery. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the matter afresh in Committee or rename the measure the Building Societies (Robin Hood) Bill?

Mr. Howard : I am sorry that the first intervention with which I must disagree comes from my hon. Friend. I do not accept that the fair compensation clauses in the Bill do anything other than what they purport to do, which is to provide fair compensation. No doubt that, too, will be discussed exhaustively in Committee. The provisions of the Bill in that respect do not warrant the criticisms that my hon. Friend levelled at them.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) rose

Column 154

Mr. Howard : I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Jopling : Is the Secretary of State aware that many of his hon. Friends are astonished that the present Government, of all Governments, should be seeking to force people to sell their property and have freely made agreements broken by the will of the House? Is he further aware that many beautiful squares and streets in this capital city may no longer be maintained as they are? Will he bear it in mind that the concept of a fair market price, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) referred, will be nothing of the sort and gives great offence to many of us?

Mr. Howard : My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) raised several questions in that intervention. I have already replied to the point that he described as the most important. I do not accept his strictures and I ask the House to reflect on the fact that it is impossible to reform the law of property without affecting existing interests. If one accepts that, from time to time, reforms will be needed, one must also accept that that need will affect existing interests. I accept that it is important that any interests that are so affected should be the subject of proper compensation. I contend that the Bill provides for proper compensation. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare clearly take a different view and the details of that matter will no doubt be canvassed at considerable length in Committee.

As I was saying a considerable time ago, chapter I of part I gives most long leaseholders of flats the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their building. To qualify, flat owners must have a long lease--with an original term of more than 21 years--at a low annual rent in a building in which at least two thirds of the flats are let on long leases. A majority of at least two thirds of those qualifying leaseholders must agree that they wish to enfranchise. Properties in which more than 10 per cent. of the floor area is in commercial use, and conversions of four or fewer flats with a resident landlord, will be excluded.

Chapter II gives long leaseholders of flats in properties that are not eligible for enfranchisement, because, for example, less than two thirds of the flats are on long leases or more than 10 per cent. is in commercial use, an alternative individual right to extend their leases for a 90-year term at a peppercorn rent. That will tackle the problem of diminishing leases.

Chapter III extends the right to acquire the freehold to those living in higher value houses. When those in flats, regardless of value, and those in the vast majority of houses have the right to enfranchise, I do not believe that we can justify the anomaly of excluding high-value houses.

As for compensation, the leaseholders will pay a fair market price for their landlords' interest. That will comprise the investment value of the freeholder's interest in the block plus at least 50 per cent. of the so- called "marriage value"--the extra value that comes about from bringing the freehold and leasehold interests together into one set of hands. Leaseholders will, in addition, pay all reasonable legal costs incurred by the freeholder.

That is a much more equitable basis than that which the Labour Government used in 1967 for houses with low

Column 155

rateable values. I therefore hope that both sides of the House will welcome this extension of freedom and choice to another substantial sector of home owners.

Concern has been expressed--indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale expressed it a few moments ago--about the proposals' "heritage" implications for some of the fine areas of central London. That is why chapter IV of the Bill provides for landlords to apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal for the approval of an estate management scheme. A scheme will be approved and registered as a local land charge if it is in the general interest that an estate should retain powers of management in an area to maintain the appearance and amenity, and regulate development of that area. I know that many large estates have traditionally managed whole areas in London and elsewhere to high standards. The provision will ensure that they can continue to exert that benign influence. The public sector housing provisions contained in part II of the Bill--

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : Before the Minister leaves part I, and as he has not mentioned commonhold, will he explain why it is not mentioned in the Bill? Does he recall that, more than a year ago, the Minister for Housing and Planning gave a clear pledge that a Bill to introduce commonhold would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allowed? Why has that not happened?

Mr. Howard : The position is entirely as explained by my hon. Friend some time ago. A provision will be introduced to establish commonhold as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider this Bill an appropriate vehicle in which to bring in commonhold?

Mr. Howard : No. The responsibility for commonhold rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. No doubt in due course such provisions will be introduced, but time does not permit that now. Part II of the Bill contains the public sector housing provisions and the rent-to-mortgage scheme. The right-to-buy provisions have been one of the major achievements of the Government. The right to buy has enabled nearly 1,500,000 tenants to become owner-occupiers since 1979. It has irreversibly changed the perceptions of tenants about the choices that should be open to them. The opportunity to own a home is one that we now intend to extend to a further group of public sector tenants through the rent-to-mortgage scheme.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : The Government have presented the right to buy as a matter of high principle, but it is not a principle which is universally applied. Before 1988 the vast majority of people in social housing had the right to buy because they were secure tenants, but since then, with the advent of private finance in the social housing category, a new group of assured tenants has been created, and assured tenants do not have the right to buy. Does that show that the introduction of private finance is a higher principle for the Government than the right to own ; or does it show that

Column 156

the main purpose of the right to buy has in practice been to undermine the role of district councils as providers of social housing?

Mr. Howard : No, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. We need a balanced approach to the provision of social housing. It is extremely important that we encourage the private sector to make its contribution to that provision. The housing association movement, together with the private sector finance which it has so successfully levered into the provision of social housing, has an important part to play.

Under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, tenants will be able to buy their homes by spending the same amount on a mortgage as they do on rent. The sum that would have been rent will finance a mortgage for an initial payment with which a tenant can buy his home. The balance of the purchase price will be covered by an equity mortgage from the landlord. It will not have to be paid off until the purchaser sells up and moves. The rent-to-mortgage scheme will therefore give tenants the chance to buy their own homes without increasing their outgoings.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : The Secretary of State will be aware that local authorities own considerable amounts of accumulated capital receipts which the Government prevent them from spending on new build. Given the calls for a boost to the economy, especially to the construction industry, and the problem of homelessness, may we look forward to some good news soon about the use of those capital receipts?

Mr. Howard : I hope that that intervention from my hon. Friend--[ Hon. Members-- : "Hon. Friend ?"] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that I am right to beg his pardon in this instance. In any case, I hope that his intervention shows that he accepts the proposition expressed so emphatically by the present leader of his party during the last election campaign : that questions of the release of capital receipts have considerable macro-economic implications. They must always be taken into account when assessing the extent to which receipts can be released, and the matter will continue to be examined in the context of its macro- economic implications.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : Will the Minister give way ?

Mr. Howard : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was so conspicuously sat upon during the election campaign by the leader of his party when he ventured to step out of line on the issue of capital receipts.

Mr. Soley : I have been following the Minister's trips around the country when he has mentioned this incident, but he gets it consistently wrong. It did not take place during the election and it was not about capital receipts. It was about whether talks had taken place to bring the public sector borrowing requirement definition in the United Kingdom into line with the European definition. We want to know whether under article 105 of the Maastricht treaty the Government have already brought the PSBR into line with the European definition. If they have, does it mean that they can distinguish much more clearly now between capital and revenue investment ?

Mr. Howard : Article 105 is not yet in force. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a while before we come to

Column 157

deal with that sort of definition in the way in which he has suggested. It is undoubtedly the position--I understand the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity--that the intervention that he made on this matter during the election campaign and the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement of the treatment of capital receipts turn on the point that I made earlier. He had promptly to disown his intervention in the campaign, for which he had to apologise at the insistence of the present Leader of the Opposition. Those are the facts. I think that I must now press on.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) rose

Mr. Soley rose--

Mr. Howard : I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes : The Secretary of State made an important point about the financial consequences for those who avail themselves of the rent-to- mortgages scheme. He said that they would not be worse off in terms of their outgoings. He will be aware that one of the major complaints of those who purchased under the right-to-buy scheme is that they have been saddled with excessive and unexpected capital or service charges. Can he give an undertaking that while the Bill is passing through the House he will deal with the concern of local authorities that do not have money to carry out repairs and the concern of those who bought under the right-to-buy scheme who find that they cannot keep up their payments because of bills that they never expected to have to face?

Mr. Howard : There are safeguards in the provisions, as I think the hon. Gentleman will accept. It will be made clear to anyone who contemplates taking advantage of the provisions that we are discussing that exercising the right to buy involves greater responsibility for the cost of repairs. That is an important matter and something which anyone who is contemplating taking the step will need to take into account.

As I have already said, we remain committed to the extension of home ownership. We fully recognise, however, that individuals who remain tenants in the public sector have the right to expect high-quality service from their landlord. Part II therefore also contains important new measures for them. Public sector tenants have the right to improve their own homes and to invest in them. They have the right also to expect a decent level of service from their landlord.

The citizens charter promised to examine the existing right to repair. We want to simplify and strengthen procedures for the most urgent types of minor repair affecting health, safety or crime prevention. The Bill introduces powers to establish a new right of repair. Tenants will have the right to get urgent minor repairs carried out quickly and with a minimum of bureaucratic complication where their local authority has failed to undertake them properly. I believe that this will make a real difference in meeting the problems that public sector tenants encounter in their daily lives, which most often cause the deepest frustration. I believe that it will be a significant improvement.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the rights

Column 158

of public sector tenants. I want to ask him about a group of tenants who appear to have been omitted from the Bill. I refer to tenants who are covered by housing action trust schemes.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there has been much unhappiness among potential HAT members about the lack of any guarantees that at the end of the operation of an HAT the tenants will have the right to opt for a return to a local authority landlord. Further, there are worries about whether local authority landlords would have sufficient money available to them to buy back the properties concerned if they wished to do so. As I understand it, strong guarantees are being given by Ministers, particularly by the Minister for Housing and Planning, that as soon as an opportunity arises these matters will be taken on board and made the subject of legislation. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman promise us that he will at least consider amendments along the lines that I have indicated?

Mr. Howard : The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is yes. When I was Minister for Housing almost three years ago I first gave the undertaking to those who became tenants of housing action trusts that they would have the right to revert to council ownership, should they so desire, at the end of the HAT period. Those undertakings have been repeated by my hon. Friend. It would be appropriate, as I understand it, to amend the Bill to provide statutorily for the right to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Very often, tenants of local authorities spend their own money improving their home. In our manifesto, we said that we believe that it was right that they should have some compensation for that expense if or when they eventually moved away. Clause 109, therefore, provides for a scheme to be established to enable secure local authority tenants to claim compensation for home improvements. Tenants will, I am sure, welcome this further encouragement to develop more of a stake in their property.

I come now to our proposals on the delegation of housing management. Our purposes here are twofold. We want to pave the way for the introduction of competitive tendering as a spur to efficiency in housing management, and we want to give tenants real and direct influence over the management of their homes. Local authorities should have nothing to fear from competitive tendering. Where they are best able to provide the services, the competitive framework will enable them to continue to do so, but where those services can be better provided by others it must be in the interests of tenants that they should be. However, as we have always emphasised, compulsory competitive tendering must go hand in hand with an enhanced role for tenants. The present tenants' veto power on management delegation is no longer relevant in a competitive framework.

Next Section

Home Page