Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 2:51 pm on 24 January 1997.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on having secured a debate on a subject in which he has long taken an interest. His speech exemplified that interest and his knowledge of the subject. I appreciate what he said about the Government's approach towards the extension of part M of the building regulations.
I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that we need to strike the right balance between costs and benefits to ensure that house buyers get worthwhile improvements for any additional costs they may be asked to pay. As my hon. Friend has said, the Government received more than 1,000 responses to the consultation, giving diverse opinions. Assessment of the responses has been a long and complex task, which is continuing. The comments we have received about the costs of the proposals require further work, because the Government have a duty to produce a compliance cost assessment for the extension of the regulations. Without such an assessment, the Government would face heavy criticism from the business sector.
My hon. Friend questions why we did not calculate costings at the time of issuing the consultation exercise—concurrently, as he put it. My answer to him is that we did. However, the responses from house builders consistently expressed concern that the Department's compliance cost assessment had underestimated the costs of the proposals, particularly for smaller, low-cost units and high-density schemes, typically on infill sites. My hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency met the House Builders Federation to discuss their concerns and agreed to a further, short independent study into the cost and design implications for those particular schemes. The study will be carried out jointly with the House Builders Federation.
To date, we have written to eight local authorities asking for their help in selecting suitable schemes for the study. Once that information has been received, we shall be able to let the contract. It is expected to run for some three months, but clearly we cannot give a completion date until we have let the work.
Of course we are sympathetic to the needs of disabled and elderly people with mobility problems, but the vast majority of them will not wish to move from their existing housing, so regulating to improve accessibility in new homes would have no impact on their lives. We believe that grants to allow the elderly and disabled to carry out essential modifications to their home are an effective way in which to help people with mobility problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the subject, will be aware of disabled facilities grants, and the form in which they emerged from last year's legislation.
Disabled facilities grants payable by local housing authorities play an important role in providing help to elderly and disabled people who need essential adaptations such as modifications to their homes to provide better access into and around the home and to provide suitably adapted facilities for cooking and washing. They enable many people to remain in their homes and to manage as independently as possible. I am pleased to say that local authorities have approved more than 125,000 disabled facilities grants since they were introduced in 1990.
As a clear demonstration of our commitment to ensure that disabled and elderly people continue to receive the help that they need to enable them to live comfortably in their homes, we retained mandatory disabled facilities grant in an otherwise discretionary renovation grant system under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who is a veteran of the Act, will be aware of those provisions. We have also made a number of improvements designed to provide more help to those least able to afford costly adaptations.
Authorities now have discretion to pay grant above the £20,000 limit where costly adaptations are needed. Help is now available for works to make the home safe for a disabled occupant or other household members such as children. It will benefit households where a disabled person has behavioural problems and may be a danger to himself and others in the home. Furthermore, we have relaxed the means test to ensure that other household members are not penalised when the disabled occupant applies for grant. Disabled people are also eligible for home repair assistance, which provides speedy help with small works of repair, improvement or adaptation.
That is not the only way in which we are providing assistance to disabled people. We are also helping them through the work of the home improvement agencies, which have an important role in helping elderly and disabled people and those on low incomes to carry out improvement works to their property to enable them to stay in the comfort and security of their own homes.
The importance of the work of the agencies is reflected in the Government's decision to continue the grant programme for at least another five years from April 1995. Our commitment is further demonstrated by the fact that £4.8 million has been provided in 1996–97 to fund the home improvement agency movement. That represents an increase of 13 per cent. compared with 1995–96. The number of home improvement agencies receiving grant from my Department has increased substantially since 1991.
I heard the comments that have been made about lifetime homes and we are aware of the arguments in support of the benefits of lifetime homes. Although we take a keen interest in new developments, we must be cautious, because lifetime homes tend to be more spacious than ordinary housing and the additional floor space required will add to costs, particularly where land prices are high. We do not consider it worth while to build all homes to the specification of lifetime homes, as only a small number of people are likely to need all the facilities lifetime homes can provide. Many will be older people who wish to move from family housing to smaller homes which are easier to manage.
With the projected increase of more than 4 million new households in England over the next 20 years, there is pressure on us to make the best available use of land for housing.