| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morris of Manchester: I congratulate the noble Baroness—who is, of course, in truth also my noble friend—on her speech moving this important amendment. Her case is strong and she spoke with all her customary care and clarity.
Before commenting in detail on the amendment, I make one observation. Inevitably, there is pressure to extend and strengthen the Bill, which comes from its most committed supporters. They are the most anxious to ensure that whatever can be done to improve the measure is done without delaying its enactment. The amendment comes from one of the Bill's most committed supporters and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hollis will have that in mind when she replies to the debate.
The issue addressed by the amendment was not considered by the task force, but it follows exactly the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Bill. What is proposed is designed to demonstrate that workable provisions could be written into the DDA but, if that is unacceptable to the Government, I hope that they will at least consider taking a reserve power to tackle the issue by means of regulation, once there has been full consultation with stakeholders.
Currently, the right to make alterations in many leases will be confined to the actual premises leased. That does not assist the disabled tenant confronted by physical barriers in the approach to a property where that is not included in the lease. Indeed, a totally accessible flat may be of little use to a person who needs to but cannot negotiate even a short flight of steps to enter it. That person, as the noble Baroness,
20 Jan 2005 : Column GC315
Lady Darcy de Nayth, said, has no right under current land law or housing law to resist unreasonable refusal of consent. Nor do owners of private flats who have not been permitted to make alteration to the areas of a building outside their occupation, owned by a freeholder, over which they have a right of access.
These gaps need to be dealt with to relieve hardship among the often desperate people living with such problems. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Nayth, said, the Government appear to agree with this in principle. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hollis may be able to go further than the encouraging words of my noble friend Lord Rooker. She will know that the DRC attaches considerable importance to an early resolution of the problem, and I am sure that she will respond as helpfully as she can.
Lord Carter: As has already been pointed out, this was a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. We said that,
"the Committee recommends that the full bill includes a specific provision prohibiting controllers of premises from unreasonably"—
The Government's response seemed to be in two parts. The first segment said:
"We are not convinced that tenants should be able to make adjustments to common parts over which they have only limited rights or that a controller of premises should be required to allow a tenant to make changes to common parts".
That seems to be like an objection in principle. They went on to say:
"We believe that seeking to cover common or communal parts of premises in this way would pose quite severe problems on which we have not consulted and which involve complex interactions between a range of people with legal responsibilities and rights in connection with common parts"—
which implies that it is all too difficult. So, when my noble friend replies, it would be helpful if she could say whether the Government are opposed to the issue in principle or whether the difficulty is at the heart of their objection—if indeed they have objections.
We should look at this issue in conjunction with the length of the discussion in the previous Committee that we had on the rights of disabled tenants in their own homes to have alterations made—consent for which should not be unreasonably withheld. Is not one possible approach to getting the rights of tenants in the Bill perhaps to incorporate the appropriate parts of the famous LTA—Landlord and Tenant Act 1927—into it in some way, so that the rights are there, and to give the DRC some role in it, which would be extremely important?
Finally, we have to deal with the point that the Minister made about the cost of reinstatement. The route we suggested in the previous Grand Committee sitting was perhaps to use part of the disabilities facilities grant, which is at the discretion of the local authorities, for reinstatement costs. I do not think that the costs would be great because in most cases the
20 Jan 2005 : Column GC316
tenant would be able to afford the reinstatement. The Minister, to be fair, listed those cases where the estate was not big enough. I cannot believe that the global costs would be that great if we were able to use the facilities grant for reinstatement purposes. So perhaps some combination of the rights of the tenant, the role of the DRC and the reinstatement grant is the way to effect this.
Baroness Wilkins: As I also have my name to the amendment, perhaps I may briefly stress how important it is that we find a solution to this gap in the law.
The Committee will be only too aware of the lack of accessible housing in this country. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to find somewhere to live where they can manage in a wheelchair will know the utter misery and frustration that that entails. Literally hundreds of properties can be viewed before a suitable property is found. But then to be in a position where you have found an accessible property only to be prevented living there because the property owner refuses to alter removable barriers in the communal area is intolerable.
As the Minister pointed out on the previous Grand Committee sitting, at col. GC184 of the Official Report, it is going to take a very long time for building regulations to improve the accessibility of our public and private sector housing stock. In the mean time, we must be able to remove the barriers from the housing stock we do have, where it is reasonable to do so. That is what the amendment asks for—that officials urgently begin to draw up proposals for consultation and that power is taken in this Bill to make regulations to deal with this matter.
I hope that my noble friend will find a way to give us an encouraging response.
Lord Addington: As my name appears as tail-end Charlie on this amendment, it might be appropriate if I made a few comments now. It would have been more logical if this amendment had appeared where Amendment No. 61 appears and that amendment was here because if one cannot get into a property then Amendment No. 61 will not make a lot of difference. That is where we should start. If we want people to live independent lives, as apparently we do, it is very important to look at this in the round. Of everything that has been done not just by this Government but during the past 30 or 40 years to try to allow disabled people to live independent lives, allowing them access to their own homes has always been the first step.
When the noble Baroness moved the amendment she was unduly pessimistic about how good it is. Even if this reasonable approach cannot be embraced at this time, the Government should do something about the issue. When will be the next opportunity? The Housing Bill was not an opportunity. This Bill may not be one. So, the next opportunity may be 10 or 20 years down the road. Every time that we miss a chance to pick this up, we are placing someone who has movement difficulties in a situation where they have to take a chance on whether they will be able to get
20 Jan 2005 : Column GC317
accommodation. They will not have the right to it, where it can be done without serious inconvenience. There is a great defence of reason in this. Unless we can give disabled people that right, we are restricting their choice of where they can live for various parts of their life. If the wording of the amendment is not accepted, I hope that its principle will be. I hope that we shall hear how the Government are going to implement this.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I shall speak briefly on this issue, which we have discussed at great length in this Committee. Whether we are Ministers or non-Ministers, we are all facing a dilemma. I am sure that we understand the problems of the Minister. There is no doubt that she has limited room for manoeuvre. We want to press these amendments as strongly as we can because we feel deeply about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is a profoundly important amendment and far stronger than it appears to be at first sight.
How do we resolve this dilemma? We know that if we press this amendment, and other amendments, to a vote in the Chamber, they will go back to the House of Commons and then back to us, with all the damaging and dangerous delay. How do we resolve this? Without going over the details of the amendment, explained so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Darcy de Nayth, the best way to do so is to recognise that although it represents a radical break with land law, and so it does, it is not a major amendment in terms of cost, difficulty or properness. In fact, it is a minor amendment. Although it is so detailed that it covers a dozen pages in the Marshalled List and is of major importance, it is not of major importance in Government legislative terms or in terms of cost. If this point is taken by the Minister, it will avoid us voting on the amendment in the Chamber. If she is able to accept the amendment with good grace, and I am sure that she will if she can, then we can amicably resolve the difficult problem of where we go on it.
I shall say one more thing. I agree with my noble friend Lady Darcy de Nayth that not all the detail of the amendment may be acceptable to the Government. Let them bring forward their own amendment on Report and we will deal with it as sympathetically as we can.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |