REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON REAPPLICATION TO PURCHASE (Hansard, 18 January 1984)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 1.

§ Mr. Ancram
New Clause 9 would repeal subsection (10) of section 2 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which provides that a tenant who has received an offer to sell, but subsequently withdraws his application, shall not be entitled to make a fresh application for a further period of 12 months. Amendment 1 is a consquential amendment, which would delete subsection (3) from clause 1.
In Committee we had a very useful discussion of the transitional provisions in clause 1. Subsection (3) in particular sought to provide that where a tenant had received, but not accepted, an offer to sell on the date the Bill takes effect, he should be entitled to withdraw his application and submit a fresh one, to take account of the higher levels of discount available, without having to wait the normal period of 12 months which would be required under section 2(10) of the 1980 Act.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out, however, that this appeared to place at a disadvantage tenants who might have withdrawn their applications before the Bill took effect, possibly in anticipation of its provisions. These tenants would still be caught by section 2(10) and would have to wait the full 12 months before they could submit a new application.
In replying to these points, I said that I did not favour amending the Bill specifically to allow tenants who withdraw their applications during the passage of the measure to reapply immediately it takes effect, without waiting for the normal 12 months, because this would run the danger of introducing legislation which was retrospective. However, I said that I would be prepared to consider the case for removing the 12-month ban on reapplications entirely. The ban was introduced into the 1980 Act to deter frivolous applications in the early days of the right to buy, when tenants might have been encouraged to make probing applications to try to find out what the selling prices of their houses would be, even though they had no serious intention of purchasing. There is no corresponding time bar on reapplications under the English legislation, and this does not appear to have caused any problems in England and Wales. This is why 332 we are proposing that section 2(10) of the 1980 Act should be repealed in its entirety and I trust that the new clause will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I took it from the debates that we had in Committee that this suggestion would find favour with both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) makes a face. I suppose that every body is entitled to change his mind. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was still on the Committee when we discussed this matter, but my recollection is that there was general support for this suggestion.
If section 2(10) is repealed there is nothing to stop a tenant who has a current offer to sell, which he has not yet accepted, at the time the Bill takes effect from withdrawing his application and submitting a fresh one immediately, and subsection (3) of clause 1 therefore becomes unnecessary. As a consequence, amendment 1 proposes that this subsection of clause 1 should be omitted.
I hope that the new clause and the amendment find favour with the House.

§ Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)
As the Minister said, this matter was touched on in Committee, although he perhaps discerns an enthusiasm from the Opposition that was not there. I note his proposals, and ask him one thing—will this put additional administrative burdens on housing authorities?

§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)
It is a happy coincidence that the Government's new clause is the first one that comes before us in our consideration of the Bill.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
They always do.

§ Mr. Henderson
I mean this particular new clause.
This illustrates the courtesy and consideration that my hon. Friend the Minister gave the members of the Committee during our sittings when he met the points that we raised. This point arose during the discussion of an Opposition amendment, and made me realise the possibility of a problem in a particular constituency case, to which I drew my hon. Friend's attention. His response in bringing forward this new clause fulfills the obligation that he gave the Committee. What is even better is that this is an imaginative way of dealing with a minor problem, and the result has been a substantial improvement of the Bill. The English experience led to anxieties that allowed that clause to be in the Bill originally, but we have no reason to fear now. I thank my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Hugh Brown (Glasgow, Provan)
There was general agreement in Committee that there was an injustice. Although we were in favour of the principle of changing the discount from 50 to 60 per cent., there was an injustice between current and future applications, so there is merit in what the Minister is proposing and I am not in disagreement with him. However, there is one point that I should like the Minister to clarify. As he does not yet have the authority of the Act, how will he or the housing authorities advise current applicants on applications that could be withdrawn to take advantage of the increased discount in the future?

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)
In Committee I mentioned the sale by the Property Services Agency of Ministry of Defence houses in Crombie. The Minister undertook to make some inquiries.

§ Mr. Ancram
Where?

§ Mr. Douglas
Crombie — perhaps the Minister is having difficulty with my good west of Scotland accent. I understand that the Ministry of Defence, through the PSA, is suggesting to the people who are being moved from some parts of Crombie that they are being moved because of the possible expansion of the depot there and the dangers that that might involve. The Ministry is putting tenants in other property. I have received representations from those tenants who are anxious to know what their status during the passage of this Bill is likely to be. Will the Minister undertake to take the issue up with the Ministry of Defence so that it can be clarified? Tenants are anxious to know what benefits will flow to them as a result of the Bill.

§ Mr. Ancram
I undertake to take up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) with my colleague in the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that that will be done.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked whether new clause 9 will involve increased administration. As far as I am aware, it will not. Perhaps I should have said earlier that new clause 9 owes much to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) who produced a constituency case in Committee. That case highlighted the difficulties which could arise. I am grateful to him for doing that. New clause 9 is an improvement.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked about current applicants. If new clause 9 is passed there will be nothing to prevent tenants who have received an offer to sell when the Bill takes effect from withdrawing their application and submitting a fresh one so that they might benefit from the higher rate of discount. However, that provision is restricted to tenants who have received an offer to sell but have not accepted it. It is clear that once an offer has been accepted the contractual arrangement involved creates different circumstances. People who consider whether to withdraw an application and to submit a fresh one should bear in mind whether the valuation of their property might have changed in the time between their original application and the new one. They will have to take that into account when deciding whether that would be the right way in which to proceed.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill, I might not have detected enthusiasm—I used the word "favour". As he is always a conscientious representative of his party on the Front Bench I always take it that if he does not oppose something in his normal robust way, his silence can be construed as acceptance of what is proposed. That is why, with some confidence, I suggested that new clause 9 would be regarded as an improvement by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that it will find favour.