§ "(1) A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations to 578 purchase the dwelling providing he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years.
§ (2) The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years".—[Mr. Raison.]
§ Brought up, and read the First Time.
§ Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I make no apology for returning to the subject of the sale of new town houses in this new clause. We tabled an amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill designed to promote the sale of new town houses, and we also put forward an amendment to Clause 3 in Committee, and we had a Supply Day debate on this subject recently. We believe it is part of a policy proposal of fundamental importance to establish the right for council house tenants and new town house tenants to buy the houses if they are sitting tenants. This new clause, which is designed to that end, has to be related to the Bill and to come within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill, and the way we thought most appropriate of putting it forward was to see it as part of the scheme for transfer.
In Committee we took another course of action on this proposal. The way we envisaged it then was criticised by the Minister because it was technically imperfect, although I suspect he found it unacceptable in other ways as well. Now we believe that the right way to do it is to include it as part of a scheme under which a transfer takes place. Therefore, we have not felt it necessary to spell out all the details embodied in this process.
I had thought that we might do it first of all in Regulations, but there is no need for separate Regulations, because the procedure of a scheme, which is the heart and essence of the Bill, enables the Minister to set out the process by which the sale of new town houses would take place. This means that we have not filled in all the details of our approach, but I shall explain the kind of conditions that I think it likely that the Minister would include in a scheme to enable the sale to take place.
579 5.15 p.m.
I think it is very likely that a scheme would include the right of the local authority, as it will become after the scheme is implemented, to pre-empt these houses. If a person who has bought his house decides within five years that he wishes to sell it rather than remain in it, the local authority should have the right of pre-emption, which is a familiar part of the present system for selling new town and council houses.
A scheme would probably impose conditions that would provide that the sale should not take place at a price below the orginal cost of the house. That, also, is familiar in the present system.
It is also desirable that a scheme should set out the actual procedure by which an applicant would state his intention to buy, and confirm that intention. When we are talking about a transfer scheme of this kind, we have not got an unlimited period of time. With council housing one can establish a right to buy, and that right can be exercised at any subsequent time, but in the circumstances in which the duration of a scheme is laid down a would-be purchaser has a certain period in which to state his intention and some limits to the time in which that intention can actually be fulfilled.
I would hope that a scheme would set out helpful details about the process of conveyancing. One of the things that need to be encouraged and introduced is a much easier conveyancing system for those people who wish to buy their houses. Some kind of standard form should be implemented as part of national policy. We could make a start here.
§ Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)I am most interested in this point. Is the hon. Member saying that he would support the idea that we put forward, of local authorities being able to give this service to people? Is he sympathetic to the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch)?
§ Mr. RaisonNo, I cannot be totally sympathetic to the ideas of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). I dare not give too much offence to the solicitor's profession, as I have so many distinguished solicitors sitting opposite me, but I believe that we should think about these 580 details, and ways of making the job easier. I have no desire to do solicitors out of work, but I think we could find a scheme to simplify the process.
We should also consider the period in which the purchaser has to buy the house, because we have to remain within the terms of the Bill. It may well be that a scheme says something about the conditions governing the supply of mortgage money for the would-be purchaser. It should be made clear that although the tenant should have a right to buy, it does not follow that the mortgage money must be made available to him, if he has not the financial standing to justify his receiving a mortgage. No one could argue that the local authority should be put in a position where it had to provide a mortgage for someone who would not be able to sustain the payments resulting from it.
We would also expect a scheme of this kind to state the sort of exemptions that would apply. It is not part of our case to say that every conceivable kind of new town or council house should be sold. It might well be sensible to exempt from the right to buy, those houses which are specially built for the disabled, the old, and other similar categories. By and large, it would be less likely that the tenants of that sort of housing would want to buy. The older tenants would probably be unable to undertake the purchase. We would accept as a legitimate matter for discussion and decision exactly what categories might be excluded from this general right, which we are so keen to establish. All these details are of great importance, and I hope that the general debate about the sale of public housing can move on increasingly to these specific details, since I believe that the general principle is becoming more and more widely accepted. The clause seeks to establish this principle.
We pressed this general policy hard on Second Reading, in the local elections on 28th April, in Committee on the Bill, and again in the House on 18th May. On that last occasion the Minister gave some ground. The debate followed a certain amount of discussion in the Press on whether the Prime Minister had intervened in the general question. The Daily Express suggested that he had taken 581 a very strong line and had told Ministers to get on with the job of selling council houses. I think that there was a good deal in what the Daily Express said—
§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)There is an unreliable source.
§ Mr. RaisonThe hon. Member speaks for the NUJ, but he is showing unbrotherly love towards the Daily Express.
Perhaps I may read a short extract from the Minister's speech. He said, in talking about the sale of new town houses
I shall discuss with the New Town chairmen the arrangements for looking at the situation in each New Town individually. If in any New Town the average waiting period for those eligible for a New Town rented house is less than three months if the development corporation wished, we could, subject to proper consultations, start resuming sales. We would, of course, need to establish what conditions might be applied to such sales. For example, there might be a case for limiting them to tenants who had lived in a corporation dwelling for not less than, say, five years or some such period, and I shall be interested to learn the views of the New Town chairmen.It will also be important to monitor the sales policy regularly so that we do not find ourselves again in the situation which I inherited from the Conservatives, with swollen waiting lists and lengthening waiting periods. Every quarter, therefore, we would look at each town individually to see whether, in the light of any changes in the average waiting period, sales ought to be slowed down for the time being—or resumed—or whether we should continue as before."—[Official Report, 18th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1246.]We welcome that small amount of movement by the Minister. It is a change, after the obduracy of the last two years. No doubt he took some notice of the results of the district elections in the new town areas. In that speech the Minister repeated a fallacy that we have heard before and which it is important to nail. It is that the sale of new town houses has had a significant effect on the length of waiting lists. The Government claim that our policy of sale over the period when we were in office caused longer waiting lists, and that their ban on sales has caused a shortening of waiting lists. But how could sales have affected more than a very small number? How many of the houses sold over the three years would have been relet other than to the existing owners if the houses had not been sold? The Minister must answer that point.582 What are the facts? They are hard to come by, but I understand that the Department of the Environment says that there were 4.4 per cent. of relets in new towns in 1975–76. That is the scale of reletting that takes place. In 1972, 15,603 new town houses were sold, and 4.4 per cent of that figure is 686. In 1973, 7,254 houses were sold, and 4.4 per cent. of that is 319. It is clear that a drop of this size in the number of relets would not dramatically affect waiting lists in the manner that the Minister suggested. In any case, relets are provided from people who have just died, and, generally, elderly people will not buy their own homes. They are also provided from people who are moving, and that category, too, will also generally not buy. Thus the figures considerably overstate the impact of relets on sales. Those who buy and subsequently sell might well not have moved if they had not had a capital asset to realise.
§ Mr. CorbettWill the hon. Gentleman make clear to us that he is saying that he believes in the right to purchase, irrespective of the length of the waiting list in the new town or the district council area? Es he saying that these other factors should be disregarded?
§ Mr. RaisonI am saying that I believe the waiting list argument to be fallacious, and the reasons I have put forward demonstrate that to be so. We have said repeatedly that we are talking about selling to sitting tenants, and, by and large those tenants will remain in their houses whether they buy them or continue to rent them. Therefore, no more than a very small percentage of the houses can be "lost" to other would-be tenants.
The Government argue that their policy has lowered waiting lists in the new towns. Of course, that is not true and the Government know it perfectly well. What has affected waiting lists has been the naturally continuing amount of building that has gone on. But the real reason why waiting lists have fallen in so many of the new towns has been the collapse of the economy under the Labour Government. The fact is that there are not the jobs available in the new towns. People are not moving to them, because they cannot find work when they get 583 there. That shows the fallacy of the Government's argument. I hope that today the Minister will take time to come clean and tell the truth about this.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us more about one or two of the other things that he said on 18th May. Perhaps he will explain when the process will start again. He said that it was under review, but when does he actually expect the sale of new town houses to be resumed? Will he give us the terms upon which new town house sales will be based? Will they continue under the Regulations that we provided while we were in power, or does he intend to change them? Will he say something about how he sees the financing of new town sales taking place? Obviously they will require mortgages. Will the money come from the public sector, or is the right hon. Gentleman looking to the building societies to provide it? Or will it be a mixture of both? The building societies, through their association, have declared themselves to be generally in favour of the sale of public housing. We welcome that, and I have no doubt that the societies will play their part in making sales possible. Equally, however, it would no doubt be easier to push ahead with this programme if there were some possibility of public mortgage money coming in.
I was interested to read, in the Minister's speech on 18th May, the statement that sales would provide capital receipts for the development corporations. Those, in turn, will help to finance further investment for the needs of the disadvantaged from the inner cities.
5.30 p.m.
That makes the point that, as I understand it, there is a real public expenditure gain from the sale of new town houses. There has been some argument about the extent of the gain, but the Minister has quite clearly put it on record that there is a public expenditure gain from the public sale of such houses. I do not think that he can contradict that that is what he was saying, but no doubt he will deal with the point.
The size of the public expenditure gain will vary, depending on whether public money is used to finance the mortgages. That is a matter of common sense. If 584 the funds to buy are provided by the building societies, there is clearly a substantial public expenditure gain. If they come out of loans from Government funds the gain will be less, although I believe it will still be real.
The important point that the Minister made, with which I sympathise, is the notion that the additional money should be used to go to the help of those from the inner cities. One of the criticisms that we make about the present system of running the finances of new towns is that it does not maximise the returns. We tabled an amendment—I am not surprised that it has not been selected, as perhaps it was seeking to stretch the Long Title a little too much—which put forward the view that it should be possible to sell the freeholds of commercial and industrial sites. We were not trying to suggest that they should always be sold—merely that those who run the new towns should be in a position to make a judgment as to the most prudent way of using the vast resources that are locked up in the new towns with a view to trying to help the public expenditure situation.
I should be happy to think that one of the ways in which the new towns could make a positive contribution to those in the inner cities would be by releasing more resources—in other words, putting it crudely, making more money—and directing them, for example, to help with the vast problems of Dockland and inner Liverpool.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he sees the additional help for the inner cities coming into being. Is it that the sale of houses will provide money that will be used for that purpose? Is it that the money that is raised will somehow be transferred into the inner cities? Will the money that is raised and which will go to the development corporations be used to build new houses within the corporations, which will be made available for those in the inner cities? Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about what he meant by his remarks in column 1246 of the Official Report.
The objectives of the new clause are fairly clear. First, we believe that it is socially and economically desirable to do all that we can to encourage the possibility of home ownership for the less 585 prosperous members of society. This is a very good way of doing it. Secondly, we see great merit in the possibility of allowing people to move into home ownership without even having to move. Surely that is one of the strongest advantages to be found in the sale of both council housing and new town housing. Thirdly—this is a particularly important point, on which my hon. Friends who represent new towns may care to comment—we need to get away from the excessively monolithic pattern of public ownership that exists in the new towns and achieve a more varied form of tenure.
The pattern in the older new towns is especially unbalanced. I understand that in Harlow about 20 of every 100 new town houses are in owner-occupation, the rest being rented. I believe that there is a similar imbalance at Hemel Hempstead. The figures for Hemel Hempstead indicate that only one of every six new town houses is owner-occupied. If we move to the north of England, to Peterlee, there are 908 owner-occupied new town houses as against 6,500 rented houses. That must represent a very unsatisfactory form of community.
As we recalled in Committee, it was the objective of the late Richard Crossman to achieve a 50–50 balance between owner-occupation and rental in the new towns. I believe that the pattern in Milton Keynes is about 25–75 between owner-occupied and publicly owned houses. Labour Members, who, by and large, are owner-occupiers, must recognise that the existing pattern cannot be right and that it is perverse not to do all that we can to make use of the mechanism of selling new town houses to bring about a changed relationship.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have always argued, owner-occupation gives people a stake in the community and a feeling of independence. It encourages them to devote their own resources and energy to improving and maintaining their houses. That must be all to the good. In short, it adds to the general sum of human happiness. We have campaigned on those lines, and there is no doubt about the response to our campaign. As I believe many Socialists now recognise with a feeling of unease, it has produced an enormous demand for the right to buy the house that one occupies as a tenant. We believe strongly 586 in this policy. We believe that we should move towards a positive right to buy. Indeed, that is a right that the new clause embodies.
That does not mean that all the housing in the new towns, or anything like it, will be sold, any more than all the council housing, or anything like it, will be sold. We still need a public stock of council and new town housing. I do not dispute that need. However, we want to take this opportunity to allow people the chance of owner-occupation. It seems that that is a concept that all the arguments support. We want to move away from the situation that now applies in the new towns—namely, that an individual's chance to buy his house is ultimately dependent on the whims of Ministers.
I take this opportunity to dispose of one other argument. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) asked why there should be a discount price as against the market price in the sale of new town housing, and presumably council housing. The hon. Gentleman raised that matter in Committee and my hon. Friends and I tried to answer it. We said that it is generally the case that if a sitting tenant has the opportunity to buy he expects a discount.
I derive encouragement from the fact that the Under-Secretary of State who deals with housing reiterated that approach in a recent Adjournment debate. The Secretary of State appeared to reiterate it in an answer that he gave at Question Time when environment Questions were last taken. It seems that it is a sound and sensible principle that if one sells to a sitting tenant there should be a discount or a reduction in the market price. Quite apart from that, and as I have said repeatedly, we believe this to be a socially desirable policy and that we should make it easier to bring it about.
The scheme that the Minister has to endorse when the transfer of housing assets takes place will set out the full details. Essentially, because of the terms of the Bill that relates to sale during the actual process of transfer. In other words, we are talking about a sale that will take place with the development corporation or the commission as the vendor, the local authorities not coming into the matter. We are not trying—merely 587 because we think it would be out of order—to bind local authorities after the stage when transfer has taken place, although that is something we should like to see.
We have set out the conditions that we think important—for example, that a person must have occupied a new town dwelling for three years. We provide for a 20 per cent. discount, and we have introduced the notion that for each year beyond the three years there should be an additional 1 per cent. discount. That seems to be wholly advantageous. It would recoup the tenant for the long period of paying in that he will have experienced.
The new clause recognises that this is a real chance to push forward the whole notion of home ownership. Our package is fair and moderate. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it.
§ Mr. NewensI wish to speak against the new clause. It is preposterous that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should suggest that new towns such as Harlow are unsatisfactory communities because of the present balance between owner-occupiers and tenants. Harlow, far from being an unsatisfactory community, in many respects gives much greater satisfaction to the people living there than do communities where the balance is different.
One factor that has contributed to that situation in Harlow is that young people have not had to wait inordinately lengthy periods to be allocated houses. The rejection of the new clause would in this respect add to the sum total of human happiness in communities such as Harlow, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
New towns were built primarily to provide homes for those in need—people in old-established towns who could not be provided for within the confines of those towns. The London satellite towns, of which Harlow is one, were built to provide for the population of London.
The new towns were not intended to provide opportunities for people to become owner-occupiers. Therefore, the question whether houses are rented or purchased must be secondary to the fulfilment of the housing need. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition 588 Benches will be prepared to comment on that matter at some stage. Do they regard the fulfilment of the housing need as secondary or primary in this respect?
For some years many people in need of housing have been unable to buy houses because they have been unable to raise the necessary deposit or their income levels have been inadequate to meet the mortgage repayment requirements of building societies or local authorities. For such people the only hope of a home depends upon the offer of a tenancy, normally by a local authority, but, for those eligible to go to new towns, by a new town corporation or the commission.
The sale of corporation or council houses to sitting tenants must diminish the offers of tenancies that can be made to people in need. After all, a local authority or new town corporation can provide tenancies only from the building of new houses and houses that become available for reletting. Therefore the selling of houses that form part of the pool of rented housing stock must reduce the total number of houses that become available for reletting and the number of tenancies that can be offered.
5.45 p.m.
The sale of houses must inevitably lengthen waiting lists for second generation applicants, essential workers coming into new towns, and other applicants for houses in new towns. The hon. Member for Aylesbury quoted the figure of 4.4 per cent. I suggest that in principle he has conceded the point that to some extent the sales of council houses have affected waiting lists. I accept that to some extent the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the drop in the demand for houses in new towns has been affected by the present economic climate. But when the economic climate picks up again and more jobs are available in new towns, inevitably applications for housing will increase. If the houses have been sold, the waiting lists will be lengthened accordingly.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)On the assumption that the economy will improve and that industry will get going rather more than it is now, and that that will attract more people into new towns, as there will be highly paid jobs of about 589 £100 or more a week available, is it not possible that people will wish to purchase their own homes? Therefore, should not houses be made available for purchase in the new towns?
§ Mr. NewensSurely the suggestion by the hon. Member for Aylesbury is not that houses should be made available for purchase by people coming to new towns, but that they should be made available for purchase to sitting tenants. People, however high their wages when they come to a new town, will have to wait much longer for a tenancy if that policy is followed, whether or not they buy houses ultimately, because there will be fewer relets available. That must follow as night follows day.
§ Mr. Raison inicated dissent.
§ Mr. NewensThe hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his figures commit him to that principle, although he said that the extent to which sales affected available tenancies was not great. If the hon. Gentleman concedes the principle, as I believe he does, the waiting lists will inevitably lengthen as a result of the sales of houses that have taken place.
Furthermore, eligibility to go on the waiting list can be restricted in other ways. Some time ago Harlow was forced to close the list for old people who were eligible for rehousing because their sons and daughters had gone there. We are hoping to reopen that list. It is possible to limit the numbers who are eligible to be housed in a new town without regard to waiting lists elsewhere.
It is important to consider the general position of housing need. Many people living in the exporting areas—the old towns—are ineligible for the allocation of a houses in a new town because they have been unable to obtain jobs there under the industrial selection scheme. Unskilled, handicapped and older people have found it difficult to obtain jobs in new towns. As it is essential for people to obtain jobs in new towns before they can be allocated houses, they frequently have to put up with the most dreadful conditions in old towns. It is unreasonable to allow new town corporations to sell their houses when people from exporting areas are unable to obtain tenancies.
Furthermore, in surrounding areas the situation is frequently very much worse, 590 even for people in equivalent circumstances. A couple of weeks ago I wrote to one of Harlow's neighbouring authorities—Epping Forest District Council—about a tenancy application that had been made by somebody living in that area, three miles outside Harlow New Town. I received a reply that stated that the applicant came into the area only in 1967, and that he therefore did not go on to the waiting list until 1972 and could not possibly expect to be allocated a house without further years of waiting. In other words, somebody who came into my area nine years ago is still not eligible to be allocated a house. Opposition Members know that that prevails in areas with which they are concerned—in some case to a greater extent.
In these circumstances, to suggest selling off houses that are part of the existing rented housing stock means perpetrating and perpetuating unhappiness for those people who have to wait an inordinate length of time, such as nine years, to be allocated a house. In my view, difficulty over housing is one of the major social problems that produce, in part, the breakup of marriages, delinquency and all sorts of other problems. It is something to which we must pay very careful attention.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the point that I made in Committee, about selling houses at 20 per cent. below current market value. That, in effect, means an additional subsidy to owner-occupiers as against tenants. This shows that opposition Members are very free when it comes to the question of disposing of public funds, in a way that is not reflected in certain other declarations that they make from time to time.
If houses are sold out of the rented housing pool, they have to be replaced at current building cost. That means that a house that is sold off realises much less, particularly after the 20 per cent. has been deducted, than it would cost the authority to replace it. This means, therefore, that the burden of the interest charges and the capital repayments on the new replacement house must be met from the revenue raised from the rents of tenants as a whole, which must be increased. In other words, by giving the subsidy to the sitting owner-occupier, an additional burden is placed upon tenants, which, if the sort of policies that have 591 been advocated in the past by the Conservatives through housing revenue legislation were put into effect, would be very considerable indeed.
§ Mr. RaisonI should like to point out that although the hon. Gentleman attacks the Opposition for allowing 20 per cent. discounts, the 20 per cent. discount on the sale of public housing generally is also present Labour Government policy. They have allowed and endorsed this for a number of years.
§ Mr. NewensYes, but the difference is that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not proposing to sell off houses in the same way or on anything like the same scale that Opposition Members are proposing. I still argue that the points that I made have to be considered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure of one thing: hon. Gentlemen will not accuse me of not speaking out when I disagree with my own Front Bench on any issue. In these circumstances, I still maintain that the logic of what I said applies here, except that what the Government are suggesting is very different from the scale of the sales that Opposition Members are talking about.
§ Mr. George Rodgers (Chorley)There is a point that rather intrigues me. I see that a line or two down the amendment it is suggested that there should be a further 1 per cent. reduction beyond three years, and that this should be allowed for each year of the tenancy up to a maximum of 30 years. That is an astonishing proposition. It would bring down the cost of a house enormously. I wonder why Opposition Members never consider that such a concession should be made available to tenants of private landlords. Why is such a suggestion not made in that direction by Opposition Members?
§ Mr. NewensI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that matter shortly.
It seems to me that the sitting tenant who buys and subsequently sells, even if he sells after a five-year limitation, or whatever the limitation may be, makes a substantial capital gain. That is very good luck for him. However, the cost has to be met by the general burden on tenants of the town, who must meet the 592 additional cost of replacing those houses from their total rent revenue.
As I understand it, the basic objective of the Opposition is not to provide more fully for housing needs but to provide for the expansion of owner-occupation. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Aylesbury said in Committee, and I believe he said something like it today. Like the vast majority of my hon. Friends, if not all of them, I am certainly not opposed to owner-occupation, as such. I repeat what I said in Committee. I am an owner-occupier in Harlow. I bought my house from the development corporation. However, I did not buy it as a sitting tenant. The corporation, as part of its policy, built certain houses for sale, and certain houses that came into its domain through the acquisition of land within the designated area were sold. I am certainly not opposed to houses being sold in such circumstances.
In the past, the Labour Party has been particularly concerned to provide help for owner-occupiers. I believe that I am correct in saying that on the issue of 100 per cent. mortgages we were certainly first in the field. We have been concerned generally about mortgage rates and assisting owner-occupiers. Labour Members believe very strongly that such people ought to be assisted to the full.
I now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers). If the Opposition believe so strongly in owner-occupation as a principle, why do they not put forward a Bill that would give private tenants the right to buy their houses at a 20 per cent. discount? I repeat the point, and I hope that Opposition Members will reply to it. Why will they not introduce a Bill that would provide a right for private tenants to buy the houses in which they live at 20 per cent. discount, if this principle is so important? We know why they will not bring forward such a Bill. I think they should make the distinction clear, for this is a tremendously important principle, and it would allow people to see where the Opposition stand.
When corporation houses are sold, families frequently have very serious difficulties in meeting mortgage repayments. I have had a continual stream of people who have begun buying corporation houses or council houses and have 593 subsequently come to my advice bureau or written to me because they have been unable to meet their mortgage repayments, due to economic difficulties. In those circumstances, when the building society or whoever has advanced the loan, forecloses, what happens to the family? What can they do?
6.0 p.m.
One cannot expect, having bought the house, that the corporation or the local council should immediately rehouse them. Sometimes, unfortunately, families have broken up. In those circumstances, the wife argues that as her husband was the owner of the house the corporation should offer her another one, but is it fair that the corporation, having provided one house, should provide another?
There are many problems of this sort. Another one is the problem of maintenance and administration. Frequently, where there is an estate in which peppercorn sales have been made, the cost of maintenance and administration per house has risen.
I am unhappy about the new clause. I hope that it will be strongly resisted, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of the people in the new towns, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants. If any person in a new town wishes to become an owner-occupier, as far as I am aware, there has been no difficulty in that person becoming one, because houses are normally available for sale—but not at a 20 per cent. discount. If we resist the new clause we shall be acting much more in the interests of a happy and contented community than if we allow large numbers of houses to be sold off in the way proposed.
§ Mr. Stephen RossGenerally speaking I welcome the new clause, although I am not so sure about subsection (2). However, I welcome subsection (1) and I think that it is a new clause which ought to be supported. I also welcome the Minister's most recent statement. I think he has just about got the case right.
I wish we could get away from the perennial argument which we have in the House in respect of the arbitrary sale of council houses. It surely must depend upon the situation pertaining in the areas in which the houses are 594 situated. I accept that Harlow is probably an exception, but, on the whole, new town waiting lists are short. I have quoted figures in previous debates. Milton Keynes is one example, Northampton another and Peterlee one more.
Harlow has a 52-week waiting list, and there is probably a case for saying that in respect of Harlow it would be better to wait a little longer to see whether the list shortens before one permits sales. However, in other areas I think they should be permitted. I would also argue that there should be a discount. It was the practice previously to have a 20 per cent. discount. Everyone knows that in property transactions sitting tenants look for a discount, and one wants to encourage them to buy. All of us, even the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), wish to encourage owner-occupation, and people who have been in a house for three years or more expect to get a discount.
I do not think many people would take up the proposition if a Bill was brought in stating that people in private tenancies should be permitted to buy at 20 per cent. discount. They would want a far bigger discount than that. When I was in business, many of my clients asked me if I could possibly sell their property. On the open market it was probably worth about £10,000 or £12,000, but if it was let they would have been lucky to get about £2,000 from the tenant. Even when I advised tenants to buy the property because it was a bargain, they said "No".
There are also a lot of elderly people who have had a house left to them and who would like to get a little money out of it before they die. Yet when we encourage people to buy at a bargain price they expect a far bigger discount than 20 per cent. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Harlow says is a misconception.
I think the Minister knows that the chief executives in the new towns want to go back to a selling policy. In my own part of the world, in the Isle of Wight, we do not have any new towns, but I happen to know that a Conservative chairman of one housing committee is completely opposed to the sale of council houses. It is not necessarily a party argument.
§ The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin)May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question which is important as regards the way he might vote in a Division? The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) discounts altogether any possibility that the sale of houses affects the waiting list. I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was saying that I thought I was making the speech myself. The hon. Member said that in certain areas waiting lists were zero and that in those cases no harm was done. But he then quoted Harlow New Town, where the waiting list is 52 weeks. In saying that, does he not accept that the sale of houses affects the waiting list?
§ Mr. RossYes. I think that waiting lists are of great importance, and they certainly affect this matter. I do not accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). One must take that into account. If the Minister, in his reply, were to say that he intended to permit sales in new towns at 20 per cent. discount where there was a waiting list of nine weeks or less, that would be a great step forward and I would support him.
The hon. Member for Harlow is living in dreamland, because unless we start selling these properties or changing the way in which we finance house-building we shall not get the houses built anyway because the rent coming in from them does not make it a practical proposition. The Minister will know what the Treasury is saying. We shall have to adopt a different attitude. There are many people living in council houses who jolly well ought to be buying in the private sector, and I am greatly in favour of encouraging them to do so.
Another way around this problem is to give a grant to people living in rented accommodation in the new towns. We could give them up to £200 to encourage them to purchase in the private sector. Surely that makes sense. This would be another move to make our housing policy more flexible. We cannot simply sit still and say that we will build more houses to let, since it costs housing authorities far more to build those houses because of loan and mortgage interest, repayments and so on. That does not make sense. Anyone who has experience 596 knows that one has to be flexible and that there has to be finance from other areas and not only from the State.
§ Mr. NewensDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that if a local authority or a new town disposes of the stock of houses that were built some time ago, it will cost a great deal more money to replace those houses, particularly taking into account the 20 per cent. discount? The financial burden on the housing revenue account will be increased considerably. In that case, surely it is the hon. Member and not me who is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
§ Mr. RossI do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We do not want to get into an argument, but I consider that the housing revenue account would be in much better trim if a substantial proportion of the housing stock were sold, because fewer houses would have to be built as replacements. When they were built, there would not be an economic rent for them anyway. The calculations show that this is correct. More councils should be encouraged to build for sale, and people moving into the areas should be encouraged to buy, not to rent.
The situation today is far better than it was two or three years ago. Industrial wages in my constituency have almost doubled. Two years ago, when this Government came to power, they were right to stop some of the council house sales because there were people earning less than £30 a week who had no hope of buying. Now, they are earning between £55 and £60 and are within shooting distance of purchasing. People who want council houses come to see me on Saturday mornings. When I find that they often earn substantial sums, I ask why they do not buy. There are decent properties in inner urban areas in my constituency for £6,000 to £7,000. Some of these people are thinking about this matter again. People earning £100 a week could probably buy a house in Harlow.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is becoming more radical about conveyancing. All my relations are lawyers, but I believe that it is time that the Law Society put its house in order. This would greatly cheapen and 597 simplify the buying and selling of houses. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
§ Dr. Colin Phipps (Dudley West)I must apologise to the two Front Bench speakers for not having heard the start of this debate, but I was at another meeting.
Essentially, both sides are putting different interpretations on much the same thing. The important factor is the increase in the housing stock. If by selling local authority houses we can increase the stock, that must improve the housing of our population. I appreciate that for various reasons the Conservative Party believes that owner-occupation is important. I know that there are reasons which lead Frank Field, of the Child Poverty Action Group, to believe that the sale of council houses improves the distribution of wealth. From a Socialist point of view, that is also an important argument.
Probably 50 per cent. of the problems raised in our surgeries are housing problems. The selling of council houses may lead to an increase in the council housing stock, while in other cases it may diminish it. Speaking from a completely non-doctrinaire viewpoint, I believe that actions which increase the stock must be good while actions which might not allow the building of additional houses are bad.
The important factor is the type of house which is being sold. I have found among local authorities the peculiar attitude that older houses built before the war for £300 or £400 are still worth that amount instead of the more likely figure of £6,000 or £7,000. They are, in effect, paying 13 per cent. on £7,000, because that is the money they could obtain for each house on the open market. If one adds maintenance costs, which are obviously higher for older houses, one is paying interest on perhaps £11,000 or £12,000 for each house, which is sufficient to build another house and thereby increase the stock. This may not be true of more recent houses, so it is the type of house which is important.
6.15 p.m.
The Bill makes no distinction between different types of house. The Government should tell the new town corporations to examine their housing stock and realise 598 what costs each house represents and that a house built in, say, 1936 costs in real terms much more than one built in 1974. When the replacement money received including the saving on maintenance costs, is grossed up at 13 per cent. interest, the capital amount involved each year is considerable. If one is paying £130 a year in maintenance, that represents a capital cost of £1,000 if one is paying interest at 13 per cent. That money could be used to build new houses.
This is a totally non-doctrinaire view, which should not be taken as favouring owner-occupation or the greater distribution of wealth. I am merely considering bluntly the question of how we can increase the housing stock.
§ Mr. RaisonThe hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. What sort of house does he think it would not be worth selling? He is arguing a good case for selling older houses, but it is equally a case for selling new houses.
§ Dr. PhippsThe problem with selling new houses essentially comes down to the question of whether they are built for sale or for rent. There is a definite need for houses to rent. When we sell a council house, we should be looking to replace it with a house for rent. This is essential in view of the many people on waiting lists who cannot afford to buy their own homes.
We should increase the houses for rent by the required number by selling houses which, when sold, will enable us to build the same number of new houses for rent, thus killing two birds with one stone. It does not make sense to build purely for sale when there is such a demand for houses to rent.
I believe that the new clause should provide for the Government to direct local authorities to review their housing situation along the lines I have suggested, thus helping to increase the total number of houses. In that way we are bound eventually to solve the housing problem.
§ Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham and Crawley)I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who so cogently moved the new clause. I am also happy to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). He referred to his speech as 599 being non-controversial, and I shall do my best to follow the lines of his argument and in the same spirit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested that the clause would be popular in new towns. I agree. The local election results in Crawley New Town demonstrated this by resulting in more Conservative than Labour votes on a very high turn-out.
Pursuing my non-controversial theme and returning to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley, West about the desirability of selling the old stock of housing and retaining the new stock, I remember the hon. Member saying that that would be killing two birds with one stone. I suggest that it is better to kill three birds with one stone. Indeed, that is what the Government are groping for. The Government admit the principle that in certain circumstances the sale of new town houses is correct. They admit this for the best of all possible reasons—because it is financially better. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is better to offer tenants of new town and council houses the opportunity to buy their homes.
In Crawley New Towns, more than half the rent received for a new council house is spent on administration and repairs. The net receipts of the council from this source are very small. On average, in my constituency it costs £25 a week to run a council house, whereas the rent received is £6. On average, in the GLC area the cost of administration and repairs exceeds the rent. It would be cheaper for the GLC to give houses to tenants than to sell them. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, West will pursue the logic of his thoughtful argument and join us in the Division Lobby.
§ Dr. PhippsI am trying to establish that there is not much logic in a local authority building a new house and selling it essentially at a discount. In that way local authorities would rapidly approach bankruptcy. With houses which still have a book value of £20 or more written down within the local authority's balance sheet, there is logic in finding out whether their current value, grossed up at the current interest rate, plus the grossed-up value of maintenance is sufficient to provide an alternative house. It is difficult 600 to suggest to a local authority that it should build a house for £10,000 and sell it for £8,000.
§ Mr. HordernThe hon. Gentleman must pursue the logic of his argument to its conclusion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is right to build council houses for rent and that we urgently need to increase the supply of housing stock. It would be inconceivable not to encourage maximum building for rent. That objective can best be achieved by offering tenants the opportunity to buy their homes, for the simple reason that that is the best way of improving the housing revenue account.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that, if we go on as we are with rents as they are and as they are prescribed in the Public Expenditure White Paper, either the building programme will grind to a halt or the Government will have drastically to increase council house rents. The figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper show that to be so.
What is the reason for the extraordinary increase in the cost of public sector housing in the last four years if it is not the fact that council rents have been kept so low? Speaking in terms of 1975 prices, the increase in public expenditure has been from £2.5 billion in 1972–73 to £4.4 billion in 1974–75. We are led to believe that in 1979–80, at 1975 prices, public expenditure on housing will be £4.09 billion, which is a reduction on the 1974–75 figure.
Public sector rent increases have been kept at 60p a dwelling for 1976–77, but the average level of rent compared with expenditure over the country as a whole is 43 per cent., and the Government's objective is to increase that proportion to 50 per cent. by 1978–79. It is inconceivable that that can happen without a substantial increase in rents. Either we must disbelieve the Public Expenditure White Paper, as I am inclined to do on other grounds, or council tenants face an undreamt-of increase in rent if the housing programme is to continue at the same rate.
If the hon. Member for Harlow wishes to see an increase in housing in his constituency, as I do in mine, the only way to achieve the objective that we both 601 desire is to ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes. Otherwise there will be disaster, either a slow-down in the housing programme or greatly increased rents. There can be no other alternative.
§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)Is there not a third possibility—a reduction in the monstrous administration and maintenance charges?
§ Mr. HordernI entirely accept that. That is the point I made earlier when I said that the cost of administration and repairs in my costituency amounted to half the rents received and in the GLC area exceeded the rent received.
The hon. Member for Harlow and I represent new towns, and we arc both anxious to secure the expansion of housing programmes. I do not see the logic of the distinction which the Government draw between offering houses for sale in new towns where there is no waiting list and offering houses for sale in new towns where there is a waiting list.
The length of the waiting list is determined by the cheapness of the rent compared with the price of housing in the private sector. The Crawley council's waiting list grew by 10 per cent. last year and the waiting time is three years. On those grounds, I doubt whether the Government would encourage Crawley council to offer houses for sale to sitting tenants. On all counts, and for financial reasons particularly, it is better to allow the sale of council houses to enable the council housing revenue account to be in a better position.
I do not know what is the position in Harlow, but in my constituency the council has a substantial building programme during the next few years of 2,300 houses, and it is building at the rate of 500 houses a year. This is a particularly difficult problem for all new towns because they have a large stock of comparatively new houses and a small stock of old houses. The extent to which they depend on housing subsidies is greater than that of average towns throughout the country as a whole. I do not see how the objective of providing more housing can be attained unless tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes at a discount.
602 6.30 p.m.
For all those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will press the new clause to a Division. I shall be interested to know what are the Minister's arguments. He has put his own case, with which the hon. Member for Harlow disagreed. His case was that on principle there should be no right for a Government agency to offer tenants their houses for sale. The Minister thinks that some people should have the right. If that principle is acceded to, bearing in mind the financial considerations it is plainly better to offer that opportunity and that that principle should apply to all and not only to some. For those reasons I am happy to support my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. John SilkinWe have cantered round this particular course on a number of occasions recently, but the horse that is being cantered today seems to be of a different colour. I congratulate the Opposition on their ingenuity in framing the new clause, but I am not sure that I shall get the applause that I received a moment ago when I explain why.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he was introducing the new clause in the words and form in which it appears because he had had second thoughts about his amendment in Committee and he was taking the Long Title and other matters into consideration. He fairly said that the fact that the new clause asks for the scheme to include certain rights does not mean that there should not be other rights when one deals with the disposal of new town houses.
Let us examine the new clause and let us see the mounting enthusiasm with which my "pair", the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) decides to move towards the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. HordernEx-pair.
Mr. SilkhiPrivate enterprise pair.
The first subsection of the new clause reads as follows:
A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations".One should note that no development corporations are actually specified, but the gentleman in question who is to have a 603 statutory right must be a tenant of both the Commission for the New Towns and a number of unspecified development corporations. The word "tenant" does not refer here only to a tenant of a house, because the gentleman in question could be a tenant of a factory or warehouse. A person who is a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow is the person who may, under the clause, be allowed to purchase a dwelling provided that he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years. The new town need not have been a new town when he was a resident. He must at least have been a tenant of a factory and resident in a dwelling in a new town area for a period of three years.Clause 16 explains what a dwelling is. It says:
'dwelling' means any building or part of a building occupied, or erected or adapted for occupation, as a dwelling or as a hostel (including any land belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith);Our tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow has also to have been in a hostel for three years, irrespective of whether the new town was in existence or even thought of, in order to qualify. I wondered why my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) spoke of housing in 1936. He was right, because the gentleman in question could have been in a hostel for three years in 1936, now being a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow. That would qualify him.I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and I may have to warn the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), of the terrible consequences involved because of the provisions of New Clause 3(2). Part of what has been suggested is coming true. It was suggested that the logic of that subsection was that it should extend to private housing as well as to development corporation houses. It does. The subsection states:
"The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years.Provided that our gentleman has been living in a hostel for three years at any 604 time and has been a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow, he can go to my hon. Friend's house and purchase it at 20 per cent. off and get another 1 per cent. off for every year after that. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had also better watch out.I make that rather facetious point not because I do not realise that there can be defects in new clauses. Of course I realise that. I am saying that this is a defect the like of which none of us could possibly vote for. It is an incredible defect. Rules for a scheme of the sort suggested by the hon. Member for Aylesbury for the purchase of houses from a local authority cannot be put in a Bill in such a rigid and doctrinaire fashion. One can do it by circular or regulation, although those would have to be altered from time to time. The matter cannot be dealt with in the way which has been suggested in the way I have described it.
There are other points of substance. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made the distinction that all reasonable people, including those in new towns, would make—that there is a difference between one new town and another. There may be a great deal of difference between waiting lists in one new town and another. The hon. Member for Aylesbury must accept that, just as my hon. future and past pair has to accept it, because that is part of the case. A large waiting list would not be affected if one were to sell any of the houses to tenants. But we all know that it is affected. It is one of those hunch things that one knows perfectly well. It is not the only factor, but the very 4.4 per cent. relets that the hon. Member for Aylesbury accepts mean that there is a turn-round. I do not know whether the figures quoted are correct, but they seem rather horrific.
When we talk about new town housing we are talking about a very special form of housing. We are talking about people who went there originally because they were qualified to do a job—skilled workers. I think that I have the general sympathy of the House on the consultation document. I have heard kind noises from the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who knows his new towns because he is a Member for one. He said that I was 605 right in saying that my priorities should include the handicapped, single-parent families, the old and second-generation families.
Are all those people capable of buying their own house? Have they the money to do it? Of course not. Where are they to obtain the money? Therefore, there must always be an element of renting, however much one wants to weight matters in favour of owner-occupation. I should love everybody to be an owner-occupier, but it will not be possible. Therefore, our basis must be that of need.
We must accept that there is a difference between one new town and another. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is right to draw distinctions between them. He gave the case to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) with the 52-week waiting list.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West said. But there is an absolutely fundamental point on which Conservative Members do not argee with him, and their purrs of approval as he spoke seemed to glide past that point, which concerned the use of the money to increase the public housing stock. I said that where housing was sold I wanted the money to be used to help meet the need—to help the disabled, the second-generation families and the elderly. That is what my hon. Friend wants. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asks me many questions and I try to answer them. I have three times asked him whether he would use the money from the sale of new town houses or local authority houses to increase the public housing stock. Each time he has failed to answer. He knows that that is not his intention. That is where he differs from my hon. Friend.
We believe that there is a difference in need between new towns. Here I must again refer to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley. He says that I accept the case because of the financial benefit, by which he means the public expenditure benefit. I accept that it is socially right that new towns should mirror the old towns, but if I am to accept that it is socially right that we should have more owner-occupation in new towns I also accept that it is socially right that we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. HordernI accept that the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is socially right that there should be a proper balance between the private and the public sector in new towns. But does he agree that it is to the financial advantage of the new towns that they should offer their tenants the opportunity to buy their houses?
§ Mr. SilkinIt depends. If one accepts my view that we may want to increase the housing stock where necessary and provide houses to rent, we may not see those houses let at the sort of rents the hon. Gentleman would regard as economic, because we may be dealing with the disadvantaged. That is what I want to do, and I believe it to be socially right.
§ Mr. Ronald Atkins (Preston, North)Is it not the case that Government intervention in housing policy has never been financial? That has been accepted by both parties since the First World War. The aim is to meet a social need in order to improve dire social circumstances resulting from inadequate houses and the fact that so many people cannot provide proper houses for themselves.
§ Mr. SilkinThat it should be so, I absolutely agree. I do not want to reopen old wounds, but I remember an occasion about four years ago when I would have said that that was not necessarily the basis of what was going on in housing policy.
I have been asked what I shall say to the chairmen of the new towns. We must accept that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman and, therefore, must be able to claim some victories, even when he has been pushing at an open door. He says that I gave ground in my speech on 18th May this year. At Question Time after Question Time I have always taken the same point of view as I did then. What I said on 18th May is what I have said before and since. The timing has not altered by one second as a result of anything the hon. Gentleman said.
My meeting with the new town chairman is on 12th July, a few weeks later than I had originally intended, but certain difficulties have kept me in the House when I might have been able to do some other work. The meeting will be purely 607 on the basis I expressed on 18th May, that certain new towns will now be able to sell their houses, in accordance with the social conditions that I have outlined, and others will not. It is up to them to tell me, and for me therefore to consult them and everybody concerned, what the basis should be.
It is not for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to tell me, even if this were not the nonsensical clause that it is and even if the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about people who live in the new town houses and not people who live in hostels and own factories, or are tenants of factories. Even if the hon. Gentleman had got it right, even if he had been competent in it, it would still not be for him to start dictating the terms to the new town chairmen.
It is for us to discuss the matter and work it out. It is on that basis, and that basis alone, that the programme will be carried out. It will not be done because the hon. Gentleman thinks it looks good on the Notice Paper.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisThe right hon. Gentleman played a lot with the technicalities of the clause. I have never yet known one lawyer agree with another on interpretation. Experienced as the right hon. Gentleman is, I suggest that in time his view will probably be proved incorrect. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were correct, if he had said that he accepted the spirit of the clause my hon. Friend and I would have sought leave to withdraw it, and would have looked forward to seeing a new clause introduced in another place. But the right hon. Gentleman has come down firmly against it, and therefore we shall press very hard.
I should like to comment briefly on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who is not now present. The primary rôle of housing in the new towns is to meet need, but there is no role for a Government who take the view that the Government must for ever hold on to that housing. It is the rôle of the Government to provide for all people to have a home and then, at some point of time, to envisage that that accommodation can be re-used to further the public good.
Secondly, we appreciate that the re-letting figure of 4.4 per cent. could have 608 had some effect in regard to waiting lists. However, the numbers involved are minuscule. In the new town in my area 160 homes have been sold, and of that proportion only a tiny percentage have been re-let. Therefore, the net loss has been insignificant. We must not restrict people's potential.
§ Mr. John SilkinThe hon. Gentleman well knows that, as I am sure is common ground between us, the waiting list in Northampton is not very long. Would it not be fairer if he were to give figures of other waiting lists—for example—that in the Harlow area?
§ Mr. MorrisI was referring to a point of time at which the Northampton waiting list was running at a figure of 48 weeks. It was then that the Minister came down with a chopper on the situation.
The distressing feature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Harlow was that, once again, it demonstrated the politics of envy. The idea was that the people who cannot buy a house at this time should for ever be precluded from so doing. Surely it is not wrong for a person who has made a new home in an area then to want to buy his own home.
Mention has been made of mortgage defaulters and of the annual reports issued by Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Hatfield and Welwyn. The fact is that 23 homes out of a total figure of 5,470 homes were repossessed because of mortgage difficulties. It is a sad problem, but it is not a problem that negates the whole policy of sale. It has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) that the housing revenue account will benefit substantially from sales.
The new clause is the Conservative commitment to home ownership. The Government must know that 80 per cent. of people want to own their own homes. This is no laughing matter, although I see that the Minister finds it amusing. I repeat the people want to own their own homes. We also accept that 15 per cent. of people want to rent accommodation in the public sector. Furthermore, we accept that there are people who are put at a disadvantage because they have to rent accommodation. It is the role of the State to provide sources for them. However, this does not mean that we should 609 deny people the opportunity to buy their own homes. The clause will give those people the opportunity to purchase their own homes at the point of transfer.
The Minister persists in using as an axis of his policy the fact that waiting lists become a little less tenable when they are examined. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked for information about waiting lists at the end of March. I asked an identical question in regard to the situation up to the middle of May, some six weeks later. It is interesting to note how waiting lists fluctuate in a period of six weeks. For example, the waiting list in Corby for the period to the end of March involved a figure of 40 weeks, but six weeks later that figure had come down to 14 weeks. That is some indication of how unreliable are waiting lists when considering the question of need. If the Minister examines the situation of waiting lists, he will see that there arc violent fluctuations.
§ Mr. John SilkinDoes not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of my conditions was that we should have a more effective monitoring system?
§ Mr. MorrisIs the Minister suggesting that, because the waiting lists fluctuate, he will need to have an army of people to keep a close monitoring of the situation, or would it not be better to adopt a broad-brush approach and embrace a swings-and-roundabouts situation and allow matters to settle down? The people who buy are the people who will stay, and in no way will that accommodation be re-let. The Minister should go along to see some of the new town tenants. He will soon appreciate that people who buy will not be those who have to be regarded as potential re-lets.
Two months have now elapsed since the Minister's statement. There has been much disappointment that the Minister in that statement did not say when he would give permission to allow sales to begin. It would very much assist hon. Members if they could be given a date. If the Minister wishes to give us that information, I shall willingly give way to him.
§ Mr. John SilkinI appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants an opportunity to have a short rest while he is waiting for the events that will take place at 610 7 o'clock, and I also know that he is anxious to have an answer to his question. He will be interested to know that, curiously enough, the basis of the consultation with the chairmen of the new towns has the aim of consulting those chairmen—in other words, I want to hear what they have to say. Provided we meet the conditions laid down on 18th May—and there is no reason why that should not be the case—there is no reason why the sale process should not begin straight away. However, it must contain those conditions and must be subject to what the new town chairmen have to say.
§ Mr. MorrisI am grateful that the Minister says that sales can begin straight away. He knows that the new town chairmen have written to him expressing forceful views to the effect that they wish to begin sales. We are grateful to the Minister, since it is now on the record that they can begin that process straight away.
§ Mr. John SilkinThe hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said, which seems to have been rather endemic on the Opposition Front Bench today because I appear to have to repeat almost everything I say. I shall be meeting the new town chairmen. The purpose of that meeting is that I should consult them as to the conditions we need. Obviously, there will have to be proper consultations with each individual town. There is no question of a cut-and-dried answer being given in this House until we have carried out those consultations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me later to repeat all this.
§ Mr. MorrisNo, I do not expect it. It seems to vary a little each time the right hon. Gentleman speaks. I was listening to him extremely carefully. I was referring to his receiving a communication from the chairmen of the new towns, which I think was on 26th February. The views of the chairmen of the new towns have not changed since then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. He is playing for time. He is very good at this, and we acknowledge it.
The case we put forward in the clause is based on the fact that the Conservative Party—I think the right hon. Gentleman 611 accepts this—has paid tribute to the concept of the new towns and to the practical experience on the ground, but we say that the right hon. Gentleman, by putting down the chopper two years ago, has lost two years' benefit to the people who live in the new towns. We say that the time has come for him to stop treating them as a special case and denying them the opportunity to buy when people in local council areas can buy.
The Bill provides a golden opportunity, where a transfer is made, to give people
§ the right to have an option to buy. It does no more and no less. I believe that we in this House should, just for once, respond to the wishes of the people. People want to own their own homes, and the clause gives them an opportunity to do so. I urge my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members to support the clause.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 288.
615| Division No. 185] | AYES | [7 01 p m. |
| Adley, Robert | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Knox, David |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Lamont, Norman |
| Alison, Michael | Fookes, Miss Janet | Lane, David |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Forman, Nigel | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Arnold, Tom | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Latham, Michael (Melton) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Fox, Marcus | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Awdry, Daniel | Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Lawson, Nigel |
| Baker, Kenneth | Fry, Peter | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Banks, Robert | Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Lloyd, Ian |
| Bell, Ronald | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Loveridge, John |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Luce, Richard |
| Benyon, W. | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Glyn, Dr Alan | McCrindle, Robert |
| Biffen, John | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Goodhart, Philip | MacGregor, John |
| Blaker, Peter | Goodhew, Victor | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) |
| Body, Richard | Goodlad, Alastair | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Gorst, John | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Madel, David |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Marten, Neil |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Gray, Hamish | Mates, Michael |
| Brittan, Leon | Griffiths, Eldon | Mather, Carol |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Grist, Ian | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Brotherton, Michael | ||
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Grylls, Michael | Mawby, Ray |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hall, Sir John | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Budgen, Nick | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Hampson, Dr Keith | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) |
| Burden, F. A. | Hannam, John | Mills, Peter |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Carlisle, Mark | Hastings, Stephen | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Havers, Sir Michael | Moate, Roger |
| Channon, Paul | Hayhoe, Barney | Monro, Hector |
| Churchill, W. S. | Heath, Rt Hon Edward | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Heseltine, Michael | Moore, John (Croydon C) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Hicks, Robert | More, Jasper (Ludlow) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Higgins, Terence L. | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral |
| Clegg, Walter | Holland, Philip | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) |
| Cockcroft, John | Hordern, Peter | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) |
| Cope, John | Howell, David (Guildford) | Mudd, David |
| Corrie, John | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Neave, Airey |
| Costain, A. P. | Hunt, John | Nelson, Anthony |
| Crouch, David | Hurd, Douglas | Neubert, Michael |
| Crowder, F. P. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Newton, Tony |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Nott, John |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | James, David | Onslow, Cranley |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd) | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Jessel, Toby | Page, John (Harrow West) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Durant, Tony | Jopling, Michael | Percival, Ian |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Peyton, Rt Hon John |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Kershaw, Anthony | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Emery, Peter | Kimball, Marcus | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Eyre, Reginald | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Farr, John | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Raison, Timothy |
| Fell, Anthony | Knight, Mrs Jill | Rathbone, Tim |
| Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Sinclair, Sir George | Trotter, Neville |
| Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Skeet, T. H. H. | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | Speed, Keith | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Spence, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) | Wakeham, John |
| Ridsdale, Julian | Sproat, Iain | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Stainton, Keith | Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Stanbrook, Ivor | Wall, Patrick |
| Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) | Stanley, John | Walters, Dennis |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) | Wells, John |
| Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | Stokes, John | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Royle, Sir Anthony | Storehouse, Rt Hon John | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Sainsbury, Tim | Stradling Thomas, J. | Winterton, Nicholas |
| St. John-Stevas, Norman | Tapsell, Peter | Wood, Rt Hon Richard |
| Scott, Nicholas | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Tebbit, Norman | Younger, Hon George |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Temple-Morris, Peter | |
| Shepherd, Colin | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Shersby, Michael | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and |
| Silvester, Fred | Townsend, Cyril D. | Mr. Cecil Parkinson |
| Sims, Roger | ||
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Huckfield, Les |
| Allaun, Frank | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) |
| Anderson, Donald | Dempsey, James | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Archer, Peter | Doig, Peter | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Dormand, J. D. | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Ashley, Jack | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Duffy, A. E. P. | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Dunn, James A. | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Dunnett, Jack | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Janner, Greville |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Eadie, Alex | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Bates, Alf | Edge, Geoff | Jeger, Mrs Lena |
| Bean, R. E. | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Beith, A. J. | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | John, Brynmor |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Boardman, H. | Evans, John (Newton) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Ewing Harry (Stirling) | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Faulds, Andrew | Kelley, Richard |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Kerr, Russell |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Bradley, Tom | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Lambie, David |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Flannery, Martin | Lamborn, Harry |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston) | Lamond, James |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) |
| Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Buchan, Norman | Ford, Ben | Lever, Rt Hon Harold |
| Buchanan, Richard | Forrester, John | Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Fraser, John (Lambeth,N'w'd) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Freeson, Reginald | Litterick, Tom |
| Campbell, Ian | Freud, Clement | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Canavan, Dennis | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Carmichael, Neil | George, Bruce | Luard, Evan |
| Carter, Ray | Golding, John | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) |
| Cartwright, John | Gould, Bryan | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Gourlay, Harry | McCartney, Hugh |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Grant, George (Morpeth) | McElhone, Frank |
| Cohen, Stanley | Grant, John (Islington C) | MacFarquhar, Roderick |
| Coleman, Donald | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | McGuire, Michael (Ince) |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Grocott, Bruce | Mackenzie, Gregor |
| Concannon, J. D. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Hardy, Peter | Maclennan, Robert |
| Corbett, Robin | Harper, Joseph | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Madden, Max |
| Cronin, John | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Magee, Bryan |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Hatton, Frank | Mahon, Simon |
| Cryer, Bob | Hayman, Mrs Helena | Mallalieu, J. P. W. |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Marks, Kenneth |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) | Heffer, Eric S. | Marquand, David |
| Davidson, Arthur | Hooley, Frank | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Hooson, Emlyn | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Horam, John | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Howell, Rt Hon Denis | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Deakins, Eric | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Meacher, Michael |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Mendelson, John |
| Mikardo, Ian | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Tinn, James |
| Millan, Bruce | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Tomlinson, John |
| Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Robinson, Geoffrey | Tomney, Frank |
| Molloy, William | Roderick, Caerwyn | Torney, Tom |
| Moonman, Eric | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Tuck, Raphael |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rooker, J. W. | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Roper, John | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Moyle, Roland | Rose, Paul B. | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Mulley, Rt Hon Ronald King | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Newens, Stanley | Rowlands, Ted | Ward, Michael |
| Noble, Mike | Sandelson, Neville | Watkins, David |
| Oakes, Gordon | Sedgemore, Brian | Watkinson, John |
| Ogden, Eric | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Weetch, Ken |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Weitzman, David |
| Orbach, Maurice | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Wellbeloved, James |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Ovenden, John | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | White, James (Pollok) |
| Owen, Dr David | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Padley, Walter | Silverman, Julius | Whitlock, William |
| Palmer, Arthur | Skinner, Dennis | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Pardoe, John | Small, William | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Park, George | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Parker, John | Snape, Peter | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Parry, Robert | Spearing, Nigel | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Stallard, A. W. | Williams. Sir Thomas |
| Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Steel, David (Roxburgh) | Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) |
| Pendry, Tom | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Penhaligon, David | Stoddart, David | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Perry, Ernest | Strang, Gavin | Woodall, Alec |
| Phipps, Dr Colin | Strauss, Rt Hn G. R. | Woof, Robert |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Prescott, John | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) | |
| Price, William (Rugby) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Radice, Giles | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) | Mr. Ted Graham and |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Tierney, Sydney | Mr. Thomas Cox |
| Richardson, Miss Jo |
§ Question accordingly negatived.