DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC. (Hansard, 6 August 1980)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to allow local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to designate the additional rural areas under clause 18(1).

§ Mr. Kaufman
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that last night on television the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) made statements about the amendment. He is not present in the Chamber. Is not that an abuse of the House? What protection does the House have if hon. Members make statements on television but are not present when the issue is debated?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Finsberg
That remark belongs in fort Ardwick. The amendment deals 622 with areas besides national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in which the special rural safeguards apply.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
Is the Minister aware that arising out of last night's programme on television there is considerable concern in national park areas about the statement by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth? Will the Minister please confirm that it will not be illegal to sell council houses within national parks?

§ Mr. Finsberg
I did not have the spare time that Labour Members had to watch the programme. As I did not have the pleasure of seeing it, I cannot comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) is alleged to have said. However, I tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is not illegal. I should have seen the programme, as my hon. Friend was participating.
As the Bill stood when it left this House, it was the Secretary of State who was to make the order. We made it clear that the Secretary of State would listen to what local authorities had to say on such designations.
I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee: I give him a clear assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that we regard the matter not just as one of consultation between the local authorities and the Secretary of State but as a matter for initiative by the local authorities. We have no pre-conceived view about areas that are suitable for rural designation. We regard the initiative as lying with local authorities and it is for them to take a view as to the relevance of the clause to their circumstances. I am sure that they will put forward proposals to the Secretary of State if they feel they should have designations in their areas. We regard the involvement of the Local authorities as integral with the operation of the locality covenant, in the new way that is described here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 February 1980; c. 406.] We stand by that.

§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I am delighted to hear that the Minister stands by that. However, as the courts are precluded from looking at Hansard, does he accept that it would be appropriate for that undertaking to be embodied in the Bill? The Lords amendment gives effect to that.

§ Mr. Finsberg
I anticipated that that might be said, and I shall come to the point in a moment.
In trying to convert an undertaking into a statutory duty, the amendment risks causing confusion without achieving valuable practical effect. The local authority would now make the order to designate the rural area under clause 18(1), but the Secretary of State would still have the job of designating the regions from which future purchasers must come where there was a locality covenant. The Secretary of State would also still have to give or withhold his consent under clause 18(4) to the imposition of the alternative safeguards of a 10-year pre-emption condition. Out of necessity, the arrangements under clause 18 are already complicated. Surely the subdivision of duties between the Secretary of State and the local authority provides an additional complication that is unnecessary.
There are further objections to the amendment. If the orders were made by a local authority and not by the Secretary of State, they would not come under the scrutiny of Parliament.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
That was exactly the point made by Lord Bellwin, but I fail to understand it. If the Secretary of State's consent is required, the exercise of that consent will properly be the subject of scrutiny by this House.

§ Mr. Finsberg
That is almost the next point that I was coming to. Not only does the absence of scrutiny seem constitutionally undesirable. It would also mean that there would be no way of finding out whether orders had been made, such as would be provided by the relevant statutory instrument if the Secretary of State made the order.
I suggest that the amendment would lead to administrative inconvenience and inefficiency. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be on a tenant of the inconvenience and inefficiency. It would enable a local authority to delay the exercise of the right to buy by saying that it was considering whether to make an order, and, when it had done so, approaching the Secretary of State for his consent. In our view, that would get the right to buy off to a thoroughly slow start in many areas. No doubt that 624 thought has occurred to some Labour Members who support the amendment, but it is not an argument that commends itself to me or to my hon. Friends. Therefore, I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.
Let me repeat, so that it is on the record once more, that any considered recommendation by a local authority for the designation of an additional rural area under clause 18(1) will receive my right hon. Friend's careful investigation and consideration.

§ Mr. Straw
I listened with care to the Under-Secretary, as usual, but I found him less convincing than usual. He failed to give a proper answer to the question that I asked. One of the arguments that the Government have used—at length—in another place is that to provide that the initiative should rest with a local authority would be to ensure that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions made by the Secretary of State in exercising his consent. That is simple nonsense.

§ Mr. Kaufman
Does my hon. Friend realise that the Government have made precisely that provision in their amendment dealing with old people's dwellings? It is on the initiative of the local authority, the Secretary of State is required to give consent and there is no parliamentary scrutiny.

§ Mr. Straw
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that analogy to my attention, but I hope that he will agree that, in fact, there will be every opportunity for scrutiny, because any decision that a Minister makes is subject to scrutiny by the House through written and oral questions and through the normal processes of debate.
The Under-Secretary is also wrong to allege that we should not be able to find out how the Secretary of State had exercised his consent. I hope and assume that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the Government would refuse to answer questions about whether, and in what circumstances, the Secretary of State had decided to exercise his consent. Those objections of the Under-Secretary are worthless and should be treated as such.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Labour Opposition have fought, often 625 with the support of Conservative local authorities, to say that local authorities and local people know most about defending the housing needs of their areas. The Government have wished to provide a uniform scheme irrespective of local circumstances and whether, for example, council houses that are desperately needed in rural areas could be snapped up as second homes and removed from the market of working people.
Bit by bit, the Government have conceded some changes and improvements to give some protection to those living in council houses in rural areas and those in need of such houses, but they have refused to accord local authorities the responsibility, that they deserve, for deciding whether they should be treated as rural areas. It is our view that the initiative must rest with the local authorities.
The Under-Secretary said that if that happened it would ensure that the right to buy got off to a thoroughly slow start which was what most Labour Members wanted. Occasionally, the hon. Gentleman gets at the truth and it is true that we wish the sale of council houses to get off to a slow start. However, that is not our intention in putting forward this proposal. Neither, in response to the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), will it be the effect. Although the designation of a rural area is on the initiative of a local authority, it depends for its consent and its operation upon the Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State, for the foreseeable future, will exercise that discretion, and he will no doubt do so swiftly and exercise it in those areas where he is convinced that the local authority is justified.

§ Mr. John Major (Huntingdonshire)
Is it not a fact that the local authority could take a considerable time before deciding to designate the area and indicating that it has such a designation in mind? That, in itself, could cause considerable delay.

§ Mr. Straw
A local authority could do the same now. It could indicate that it intended to apply to the Secretary of State for an order. As long as the local authority has not applied, and no order has been given, under the present provisions, and provided that the local authority has made no order under the clauses 626 proposed in another place, that would in no way affect the rights of individuals wishing to buy their council houses. The Minister's suggestion that the right to buy would be seriously undermined by the amendment is nonsense. It would enhance the right of local authorities. They have the information, and they know when to take the initiative. I support the amendment.

§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
As the House will be aware, the Environment Committee has taken evidence on the financial and social consequences of selling local authority houses. Among that evidence were representations from a number of rural authorities, including oral evidence from the South Lakeland district council and the Allerdale district council. As a consequence of their evidence the Committee instructed me to write to the Secretary of State to draw attention to the anxieties felt by a large number of rural areas about the prospect of the loss of the few council houses in villages—not necessarily in areas of national parks or outstanding natural beauty, but in agricultural villages where the council houses are occupied by key workers. They are at risk of being compulsorily sold with the consequence that within a few years the houses will be taken over as second homes.
I accept that since the time when I, on the instructions of the Committee, communicated with the Secretary of State amendments have been introduced which improve the position for those areas that have been designated. Subject to the Lords amendments, the defect in the Bill as it stands is that there are large parts of the country where a local authority may feel, rightly and essentially, that if it loses the few houses upon which the key workers depend, a village will die. I am sure that Conservative Members will know even better than Opposition Members the extent to which a village can suddenly be transformed from a place with real life to a place which is a source of commuters or a base for holiday homes. I urge the Minister and Conservative Members to seek to protect the viability of rural communities by maintaining the Lords amendment as it stands.
The Minister will be aware that, in a question which was answered in 627 Hansard on 30 July, c. 741, I asked which local authorities had made representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the Housing Bill for rural areas. The Minister listed 12 authorities which had made representations about the dangers to rural areas. I draw his attention to the fact that only one of those 12 authorities was a Labour-controlled authority. The remainder were Conservative, independent or non-party authorities, and they made the greater part of the case in urging him to have second thoughts about this measure.
The Minister must know what harm this Bill can cause in an area in which those on whom the rural economy depends are liable to find that they no longer have the opportunity to be housed by the local authority. I am glad that the Government have accepted that they should not make changes in the provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act. But, if they lose local authority houses, how will they fulfil their obligations? How will they sustain the life of rural areas if they allow these few houses to be sold?
It is the local authorities in those areas that know, far better than the Minister or anyone in Whitehall can know, the extent to which the few houses in a particular locality are essential to the economy and to the society of that locality. It is for them to make the representations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has demolished the Under-Secretary's point about Parliament not having the opportunity to exercise control over this. Let the local authority make the representations. Under the amendment, the Minister has the power to say "No, this is a nonsense."

§ Mr. Hill
Does it not exacerbate the difficulty when local authorities are so reluctant to give any planning consent, even for tied cottages on farms? It is extremely difficult these days to get any planning consent in the sort of areas about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.

§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
The hon. Gentleman is raising a point which no doubt he can raise on another occasion. It is not directly relevant. Local authorities said 628 to the Select Committee "We must not lose these houses. They are irreplaceable, because we cannot get the planning consent to enable us to build more houses." That is a valid point.
There is no need for the Government to use their majority to crush this amendment on this minor proposal for a degree of local government autonomy. The Government have been crushing local government democracy with measures such as the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and this Bill. This opportunity for local authorities to take the initiative to propose is something which should be enacted in the statute. We have had the undertaking from the Secretary of State in Committee, which the Minister has repeated. As I pointed out in an intervention, an undertaking in Committee is in no way enforceable. The courts will not look at that. They will look at the words in the statute. I urge the House to ensure that these words remain in the statute.

§ Mr. Kaufman
Without being contentious, I should like to draw attention to the fact that a Member of this House took part in a television debate on this matter last night, apparently misinforming the public about the content of the Bill, and has not seen fit to be present when the House of Commons is debating it. I regard that as an abuse of the House. It is Parliament where these matters are debated. If an hon. Member is to discuss a piece of legislation which is being debated in this House the next day, apparently inaccurately representing, in any case, what the legislation contains, I should have thought it incumbent on the hon. Member at least to do the House the courtesy of attending the debate on the matter on which he has been lecturing us on television.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
I even made the point of speaking to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) prior to this debate. I did not know that this matter was to be raised. However, as the Minister will be aware, there are many people in the national parks, nationally, who are very anxious about the clauses which would require them to sell property in the event of the tenants applying under the right to buy. 629 As a result of the programme last night, whatever the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said, it has been construed from his statement that in the national parks people do not have the right to buy their homes. Indeed, the local authorities were today celebrating their belief that this right to buy did not exist. I think that it is incumbent on the Minister in this debate to make clear nationally what the law is, and to take into account the position of local authorities which not only own properties within a national park but whose national parks are surrounded by other rural areas which are just as exciting for potential second home owners—indeed, great parts of my constituency—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That was a long intervention.

§ Mr. Kaufman
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) feels passionately on this issue and has worked hard to correct the situation in his constituency. It is hard on him, when he has a constituency that is particulary affected, that his constituents, who are very concerned about the matter, should be misinformed by an hon. Member who does not understand the Bill, who does not speak for the Government and who does not bother to turn up in the Chamber when the issue is debated.

§ Mr. Straw
rose—

§ Mr. Kaufman
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to address myself to the merits—

§ Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Kaufman
I should like to address myself to the merits of this important matter. If the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) wishes to vindicate himself, he has the opportunity to be present here to do so, and he does not require the protection of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth knew that the matter was being debated. It is down in the amendment book and on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Durant
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to give notice that, after the shadow spokesman has concluded, I would like to speak on behalf 630 of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle).

§ Mr. Kaufman
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is so gallant. I admire him for his efforts on this issue.
As my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the amendment have said, and as I hope a number of Conservative Members will also agree, this is a modest amendment. It is not an amendment that will do what television viewers were apparently told last night. It will not end the compulsory sale of council houses in this area.
The amendment is so modest that I find it impossible to understand why the Government are so determined to smother it. Strong arguments have been advanced far beyond the limits of the Labour Party for the exclusion of rural areas altogether from the compulsory sale of council houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has pointed out, great damage can be inflicted on the balance in such communities if high proportions of a small housing stock are being sold off.
The amendment does not go anything like so wide as the kind of exclusion that we have achieved for old people's dwellings. The amendment accepts the principle and content of clause 18 as it stands. We regard clause 18, even with its improvements, as unsatisfactory, but we are not seeking to have that clause rejected. All the amendment does is to say "Do not leave it to the Secretary of State to decide what is a rural area." After all, the Secretary of State, any Secretary of State—I am not making a personal reflection on the right hon. Gentleman—cannot know the whole country intimately. Lord Bellwin, for the Government, admitted in the Lords that he did not know what areas, or even what kind of areas, the Secretary of State is going to designate as rural areas. We have not had that clarification.
We are saying that the local authorities, which do know the areas intimately, should have the initiative in designating those areas. We are not asking that the local authorities be given the last word. We are not asking even that they have a deciding word, because the Secretary of State will have to give his consent if a local authority seeks to designate 631 itself as a rural area. It would not be possible, for example, in my constituency, for the Manchester city council to seek to evade the provision by designating Ardwick Green of Victoria Park as a rural area.
9 pm
The answer to my hon. Friend for Mitcham and Morden which my hon. Friend has quoted shows that a considerable number of local authorities, often Conservative-controlled, are very worried about the impact of the Bill, even with clause 18, on rural areas. Lord Hylton, a person of Conservative antecedents, said: it is entirely consistent with Conservative principles that there should be this initiative in the hands of the local authority, who know the area and who are elected to represent it." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol. 412, c.76.] I am not a connoisseur of Conservative principles, but the Secretary of State is supposed to be. This small amendment would alleviate the concern of rural areas. I cannot imagine why the Government will not accept it. I trust that they will.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am now required to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am now required to designate any amendments involving privilege. There is only one such amendment, namely, No. 110.
Next, I put the Question on each motion to be moved by a Minister to disagree with the Lords amendment.