HC Deb 30 June 1969 vol 786 cc169-73
Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 21, leave out 'occupation' and insert 're-letting or sale'.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment we take also Amendment No. 13, in line 36, leave out 'occupies' and insert 're-lets or sells', and Amendment No. 14, also in line 36, leave out 'occupied' and insert 're-let or sold'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Clause 16 arises directly from paragraph 31 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3598, "The Older Houses in Scotland". While I appreciate and I do not in any way question the principle of the Clause, the need to control occupation of houses within housing treatment areas is obviously necessary. I certainly support that as it is laid out in paragraph 31 of the White Paper.

Whilst, however, the Clause refers in every case to the occupation of the house, it is interesting that the White Paper refers to control of reletting and of sale as the means by which to control occupation and not the direct control of occupation itself.

The final sentence of paragraph 31 of the White Paper states that Legislation might, for instance, provide that after a certain stage such houses could only be relet to tenants approved by the local authority or sold with the consent of the authority. Therefore, I am interested to know why "occupation" has had to be used throughout the Clause whereas in the White Paper the suggestion is that to control occupation, all that is needed is to control reletting and sale as the means of controlling occupation.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker

May I put just two points to the Minister? First, should like to support the Amendment particularly in relation to old people. Often, it will be possible for a demolition order to be placed on a house but not necessarily to come into operation right away, and I think it is right that old people who have been resident in a house should have an opportunity to go on residing there. That is the first point I would put to the Minister in support of this Amendment.

The second point is, that the rubric to Clause 16 is, Local authority may control occupation of houses in housing treatment area. It is conceivable in a constituency like my own that control will be necessary not in housing treatment areas but in isolated cases—a house which is taken over by the county council, for instance, in a remote area. I ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to make observation on that.

Mr. Speaker

There is no Amendment down to subsection (2).

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not say that only formally, either.

The House will recall that paragraph 31 of the White Paper proposed that the provision in any future Bill would be control of occupation or sale. The Amendment would change this to sale or letting. What we think would happen in that case is that there would not be the same control over families in these houses as we would desire.

The idea of Clause 16 is to encourage local authorities to go ahead with housing treatment areas. That means we want them to rehouse the families there as quickly as possible. We could not have an area, so to speak, of osmosis whereby one family moves on and has a local authority house, sometimes not necessarily, in priority over the housing waiting list, and then another family moves in and in its turn is rehoused in order to get the housing treatment area properly dealt with. That would be unfair to the families on the waiting list. It would discourage a local authority from getting ahead with housing treatment areas if we were to switch the bias from control of occupation to this proposed form of control.

I have looked very closely at the memorandum from the Chartered Land Societies, Scotland, and the Property Owners and Factors Federation in their representations to us, and, quite frankly, I cannot understand the reasons why they are asking for this. It seems to me that if their concern is over empty property then this is one of the penalties of getting housing treatment areas dealt with. Once one starts a housing treatment area there are bound to be empty properties. Not only in these areas but in any part of the country one cannot get a house either demolished or improved just at the drop of a hat. It is very difficulty; particularly in Scotland, there is a very difficult problem where we have to deal with old tenements with 12 or more families having to be rehoused in one single block instead of being scattered as, for instance, in Birmingham, over a reasonably larger area.

Therefore, I put it to the House that it is very important that we keep control over the occupation of the houses. The local authorities are very much with us on this. I am sure the whole House wants us to make a success of these housing treatment areas. The initiative lies with the local authorities. If we were to switch this proposed form of control I think we should be doing damage to the object of the exercise, which is to get housing treatment areas dealt with more expeditiously. I would agree that we do not want to keep houses empty too long, and I would agree that we do not want houses to fall into a bad state of maintenance. I accept that criticism, which is a good point.

10.15 p.m.

On balance, taking it that there can be only one form of control or the other, I think that the Government are right in sticking, with the local authorities, to Clause 16 as drafted. I realise that this is a probing Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied the Opposition on this ground. I do not see the advantages of the form of control which the Opposition suggest, but I do see the disadvantages of it.

The Clause specifically allows the person living in the house when the order is made to continue to live there. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) about old people. That is still controlling occupation. Where the landlord can provide alternative accommodation, when he is ready to go ahead he will transfer the old couple and this would, we hope, be done in a humane way. Should we do this by sale or letting or, alternatively, by control of occupation? I believe that the Clause is right as it stands.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Of course I accept the principle of the Clause. There must be control of occupation. I entirely accept the Minister's point that it is utterly unfair if as soon as one family moves out another family moves in, and that is why the Clause is necessary.

I am glad that the Minister accepts the point that there is an effect of almost a blight in housing treatment areas if houses are left empty for a long time. The whole area becomes shabby and derelict, and this has a bad effect.

In recognising this point, I hope that the Minister will impress on local authorities in carrying out the provisions of the Bill that when houses are empty they have the right to control occupation. In return for that right to control occupation, they should go ahead with rehousing as quickly as possible so that houses are not left empty for a long period.

The assurance which the Minister has given—that once a housing treatment area has been designated and houses become empty, the houses will be left empty for the shortest possible time—meets the point. I hope that the Minister will make sure that what he says is observed by the local authorities. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Forward to