§
'After subsection (11) of section 1 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection;
(11 A) This section shall not apply where the sale of dwelling houses situated within an area or community which is designated a rural area or community by the district or island council exceeds 25 per cent, of the stock available to rent if a waiting list for dwelling houses remains unless the Secretary of State shall certify that he will approve applications for building dwelling-houses to replace any dwelling-houses sold in excess of that percentage.
§ Mr. BruceNew clause 6 would safeguard the future of houses in rural areas that have been sold under the 1980 Act. It provides that the sale of a house in a rural area as defined in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 should be restricted to applicants who have an interest in the area. The 1980 Act refers to applicants who are employed in a local authority area, or who will be offered employment in that area, or who wish to move into that area, or who are more than 60 years old and wish to move into the area to be near a younger relative or have special social or medical reasons for requiring to be housed in that area. In other words, houses should be allocated to people who have a direct interest in the area. That excludes people who merely want to spend their summer holidays there.
One of the problems that rural areas face is that they generally have fewer council houses so that if they are sold their availability for people who wish to move into the area is even more restricted than in more densely populated areas. In remote parts of Scotland only 19 per cent, of housing is owned by the council. In the north-east of Scotland there are a few areas where the sale of council houses has already created significant problems.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Mcquarrie) has left the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: 366 "He has not."] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He has moved. He might be interested to know that if all the applications for council house sales in, for example, Gardenstown in his constituency were processed, 25 per cent, of council housing stock in the area would be sold. That would have significant implications for the community's future.
§ Mr. McQuarrieThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was in conversation with Mr. Speaker when he raised this subject. Gardenstown is one of the smaller villages in my constituency. Has the hon. Gentleman any more information on council house sales in larger towns?
§ Mr. BruceYes. If all applications for council house sales around Turriff are processed, about 13 per cent, of the council housing stock there will be sold. The eqivalent figure for Peterhead is 6 per cent. In Gordon district, in the remote parish of Corgarff, only 33 of the 62 houses are permanently occupied. In other words, more than half are holiday homes. Only one council house is available. The constraints that I have mentioned significantly restrict local authorities' ability to meet local housing needs. It is important to emphasise that we are discussing the resale of council houses. Without the proposed safeguards we are in danger of allowing some remote villages to degenerate into mere holiday villages that are evacuated during the winter.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythHow many of the 13 per cent, of houses that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, bearing in mind the fact that, thanks to the Government, tenants enjoy security of tenure, would be available for rent? If tenants wished to occupy them, how long would they have to wait? The hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes that, by being sold, those houses are no longer available to a group of people who, I suggest, would never acquire them.
§ Mr. BruceWe are worried about tenants who live in council houses exercising their right to buy and then selling them as holiday homes to people who have no interest in the area. New clause 6 would protect the community from the effects of such sales. We have allowed for such a condition to be waived by a local authority in special circumstances. I accept that there might be no demand for a house other than as a holiday home. Having it used as a holiday home is preferable to its being empty, but selling it for such a purpose should be a last resort. It is regrettable that such sales are frequently a first resort, as they provide commercial advantage to some people, although they do considerable damage to the community.
When the 1980 Act came into effect my local council expressed anxiety that, as a result of the expected sale of 3.4 per cent, of council houses, the hopes and desires of many people on the waiting list would be frustrated. Gordon district is well on the way to selling more than 12 per cent, of its housing stock. When I last spoke to the council I was advised that the number on the waiting list was substantially greater than the number of houses that had been sold. I do not object to the principle of such sales, but merely wish to highlight the fact that the consequence of the right to buy, without provision of safeguards for rural areas, is that waiting lists get longer and people who want the privilege of living in a council house and, 367 ultimately the opportunity to buy that house, are finding acquisition of such a home more difficult. That is regrettable.
§ Mr. HendersonThe hon. Gentleman said that the number of houses that have been sold was roughly equivalent to the numbers on the waiting list. He implies that people on the waiting list would have been satisfied if houses had not been sold. That is nonsense, as I suspect that none of the houses that have been sold have changed occupancy since they were sold.
§ Mr. BruceI do not have all the figures but I assure the hon. Gentleman that some houses have been resold as holiday homes. New clause 6 would prevent that.
Without additional safeguards, the sale of council houses as at present applied leaves many people on the waiting list with a longer wait. My local council made that point to me last week. It is having difficulty housing people. The Minister knows that my correspondence bag, unlike that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) — perhaps because of the different needs of our local authorities—is filled with inquiries about how to apply successfully for a council house. Since being elected I have received only one letter about the difficulty of buying a council house. The problem, as reflected in my post bag, is relevant. There are parts of the Highlands and Islands where the problem is even more acute. I hope that the House considers the new clause and I urge the Government to recognise the consequence of providing no such safeguards.
§ 7 pm
§ Mr. Michael ForsythI view this new clause with the greatest concern. We have already—albeit with some justification—reduced the rights of one group of tenants to buy. The new clause asks us to force people who exercise their right to buy to sell only to a limited group of people. When I saw the new clause on the Order Paper, I wondered whether its supporters had read section 26(3) of the 1980 Act. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made it clear that he had done so, which makes me even more surprised that he moved the motion. The new clause states that the only people to whom one is allowed to sell a council house are those who work in the area. That seems to be a reasonable group of people. Section 26(3) states that anyone who
wishes to move into the area of the local authority and the local authority is satisfied that his purpose in doing so is to seek employment".The mind boggles as to how the local authority could be expected to deal with that criterion. What measures could the authority apply? How could a person demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local authority that the intention of the move was to seek employment?People aged over 60 wishing to move to be near relatives may well be a category who should be potential purchasers of council houses, as are people with special social or medical needs. What about everyone else? What about those who want to retire to an area simply because they like the area? Are they to be denied the opportunity to purchase a house which formerly was a council house? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members say, "Yes," and that is predictable. I expect such an argument from people who do not believe in the right to buy. These restraints make a nonsense of the right to buy and of what 368 will be the biggest investment in the lives of many of the council tenants who exercise that right. The new clause seeks to prejudice that investment and to undermine the rights of relatives of those people to dispose of the property' at the best possible price. This is an "all things to all men" clause. It is supported by people who mouth support of the right to buy but who in word and deed support measures that would seriously undermine that right.
We were told that the basic reasoning behind the new clause was to prevent the development and provision of holiday homes through resales. We were given many statistics, but not many on how many holiday homes we are discussing in Scotland. I suspect that there are precious few—
§ Mr. ForsythWe are told that there is one in Gordon. [Interruption.] Perhaps there are two or three in Skye.
§ Mr. ForsythI shall give way for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how many there are.
§ Mr. KennedyThe hon. Gentleman has just said that there are two or three holiday homes in Skye. I do not have a specific figure, but I can assure him that the number is far higher.
§ Mr. ForsythIt is revealing that one Opposition Member who put his name to the new clause does not even know how many council houses have been sold as holiday homes in his constituency. That seems to demonstrate the disingenuous attitude observed by hon. Members when the new clause was moved.
If the purpose of the new clause was to prevent this escalating problem of holiday homes, which no one seems able to define, why was the new clause not drafted accordingly?
§ Mr. Home RobertsonThe hon. Gentleman has been harsh about the drafting of the new clause. I have some misgivings about it. Is he interested to know that the people who drafted the new clause and who sent it to various hon. Members were from the Rural Forum, which includes the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Transport and General Workers Union?
§ Mr. ForsythI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information and for the opportunity to examine new clause 5 to which his name is attached. The new clause is surely not a triumph of drafting; it is so badly drafted that I would almost suggest to the Minister that he accept it because it would have no effect. The new clause states:
This section shall not apply where the sale of dwelling houses situated within an area or community which is designated a rural area or community by the district or island council exceeds 25 per cent, of the stock available to rent".As the new clause does not define the date at which the stock is available for rent and each sale reduces the stock of housing available to rent, the new clause will never have any effect. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the drafting when he has put his name to new clauses which, although we understand their intention— we know that the Opposition are against council house sales — would have no effect. I am horrified that the new clause should come up at this late stage, when opinion 369 poll after opinion poll and election after election have shown that the Scottish people wish to exercise their right to buy.
§ Mr. CraigenThe hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) ought not be unduly worried about the number three because the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), as we came to know in Committee, thinks in multiples of three. We received 300 letters every time we had a meeting of the Standing Committee. A mistake was made in the new clause in putting down 25 per cent., instead of 33 per cent. If that had been done the hon. Member for Stirling would have fully understood the intention of the new clause.
We point out, as did the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that the Government ought to note the problems that arise in rural areas. I say that as an hon. Member representing an urban constituency. Distinct problems arise in rural areas. Only yesterday, I obtained a reply from the Under-Secretary about the percentage of housing stock that has been sold. House sales in certain rural areas of importance run into percentages of double figures, whereas in most urban authorities they are less than 10 per cent. With local authority sales of more than 10 per cent, in Stewartry, Gordon and the Western Isles, the Government must take cognisance of the effect of that sales policy. In the new clause we are seeking to draw attention to that aspect.
There is a clear distinction between the new clause proposed by the Liberals which, as the hon. Member for Gordon pointed out, is about resales and our new clause which is about sales. Rather than try the patience of the House, and lukewarm as we are about the ineffectiveness of new clause 6, we would be inclined to give the new clause a measure of support if only to show that we share a common concern about the likely social and economic impact of the unrestricted sale of houses in rural areas.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerI listened with great care to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the intervention from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I speak with some authority. It could be said that north Tayside is a rural and a holiday tourist area and that the sale of council houses by Angus district council and Perth and Kinross district council is something of which I am proud. Indeed, Perth and Kinross district council have sold 1,586 houses. Angus district council has sold 1,005 houses.
I shall now quote comments from the authorities who allegedly should be troubled by what hon. Gentlemen have been saying. Opposition Members have been theorising; I shall now talk in practical terms. No great stress or difficulties have been caused in the rural areas of Tayside, North as the result of an aggressive policy of selling council houses. Those of us who served on the Standing Committees on both Bills giving tenants their rights know that these problems are in the rural areas. I never minced words in Committee and I never minced words during the election on my views about giving the right to everyone to be able to purchase council houses. It is interesting that in my own constituency the Labour candidate, who was opposed to the sale of council houses polled just over 2,000. Is that not staggering?
370 If hon. Members suggest that in Tayside, North we do not understand the problems of council house tenants, I have news for them. In the town of Forfar more than half the houses are council houses. To suggest that we do not understand such problems and the problems in rural areas is absolute nonsense. I think that Liberals and SDP Members should think through very carefully what they are asking for. To suggest selling a council property to a tenant who then resells it at some later date to somebody else who wants to buy it and to live in the area—[HON. MEMBERS: "AS a holiday home."] I do not care, frankly, if it is being sold as a holiday home. My constituency would fall apart were it not for people going there on holiday. Let me make it quite clear that the largest proportion of income in my constituency is from tourism and the large number of people who come on a transient basis are vital to the economy. Indeed, some of them even come to pick berries, and they, too, are vital to the economy. To suggest that there is something ghastly and wrong about it is nonsense. I hope that the Government will reject this, as I expect them to do.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI suppose that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the only Conservative Member opposite from a Scottish constituency who can crow in the way he has just crowed because, as he will know from an article published in The Scotsman last week, with a bit of luck, he could be the only Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament left in the next Parliament. I found the argument he was advancing pretty alarming for his constituents. It sounded as if he would be happy for every council house in Forfar to be sold off as a holiday house. I cannot visualise that happening, but, even if it did, he sounded as if he would be quite happy to leave the house letting policy to the Earl of Strathmore. I suggest that the local education authority, whoever may be its members, is better placed to look after the needs of people who want to rent houses than is the Earl of Strathmore or any of the other gentry in the territory of his constituency.
New clause 6, moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), deals with the same problem as new clause 5, and I would be more inclined to support new clause 5. I suggest that new clause 6 goes about things in a rather complicated and relatively ineffective way. It does not seem the best way to try to regulate the disposal of houses by tenants who buy their houses in rural areas where there is a shortage of houses. It would probably be more effective to deal with the problem before it arises in the first place.
§ Mr. McQuarrieThe hon. Member made an observation during the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon, and he quoted approximately half a dozen different organisations that wanted new clause 6. Now that he is criticising new clause 6, will he advise these organisations that it was the most stupid thing they ever did?
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI know that the hon. Gentleman is an authority on stupidity. If the hon. Member could contain himself for a minute or two, he would begin to understand why I have misgivings about this approach to what I regard as a serious problem.
Apart from the fact, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, that this tactic would reduce the value 371 of the houses of some tenants who purchase them in certain areas — and it would be discriminatory if this kind of condition were to be imposed on sales already taking place — it would also be shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. The houses in question would already have left the rented sector for all time. This is one approach to the problem, but perhaps not the best. Hon. Members can weigh up the argument in the course of the debate. There is already one sort of posthumous safeguard, which would come into operation only when it is too late to do any good, in the form of section 4(6) and (7) of the 1980 Act.
§ Mr. BruceThe restrictions in the 1980 Act, and the fact that we are talking about the sale of council housing to sitting tenants, mean that the tenant buying the house in the first place is presumably resident in the area, but under the present Act he can then resell it. It is a little misleading, therefore, to suggest that the tenant in the first place is not resident.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI accept that this is one approach to the problem. However, I am not certain that it is the most effective way of going about it. As I have said, there is the proviso in the 1980 Act that says that when one-third of the housing stock has been sold and when the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable number of houses sold have become second homes, then and only then can the Secretary of State make an order, subject to approval by Parliament, designating the area in question as a rural area where certain restrictions can be applied to the disposal of houses sold to tenants. I understand that even those restrictions apply for only 10 years. I do not think that that safeguard and the other one discussed in the debate go far enough.
In small remote communities where there may be very few houses to let in the first place, where the open market sale prices and private sector rents may be grossly inflated by demand for holiday accommodation, where incomes of people seeking rented accommodation may tend to be very low—and I think that applies to all rural Scotland-the situation for people seeking houses to let has always been difficult. I believe that it is getting worse, however, in the long term because of the way in which the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 operates.
§ Mr. Michael Hirst (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. It surely is a non sequitur to suggest that any tenant who buys his house in a rural area will sell it on to a holiday maker or some such person. If Opposition Members are going to bring forward these new clauses, they must do a great deal more than merely chunter about the possibility of such sales. They must lay before the House facts and figures to justify the fear that the sale of council houses in rural areas will result in tenants selling them on to people who wish to have holiday homes. I have heard no evidence from the Opposition to justify the hon. Member's contention.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that short speech. If he will contain himself a little longer he will hear my arguments. I do not say that every tenant who buys a house will resell it as a holiday home, but such a person is as likely as anyone else to sell to the highest bidder, who is most unlikely to be on the council waiting list.
As a significant number of houses are to be taken out of the rented sector through sales to sitting tenants—a 372 trend which will no doubt accelerate as a result of the increase in discounts—safeguards are provided, but they will have only a marginal effect and will operate only when more than one third of existing district council houses have become holiday homes. I represent a mainly rural constituency and I have some experience of the problem that is developing. I cite just one example— Stenton — an attractive village at the foot of the Lammermuir hills.
In October 1980, when this performance started, there were just 16 council houses in that village. The last breakdown of the situation in East Lothian, a couple of months ago, showed that five of those houses had been sold. The proportion sold is just short of the one third required to trigger the safeguard in section 4 of the 1980 Act, but we do not yet know how many of those properties will become holiday homes. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) would shut up. There is plenty of time. We have all night. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time.
As I was saying, we do not yet know how many of those houses will be sold on to become holiday homes because the sitting tenants who bought them have not yet had time to move on and dispose of them. At this stage, the situation has not changed, but the time bomb is ticking away and there will be serious problems in the future. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) survives for long as a Member of Parliament for that area, which is unlikely, he will face the same problems to an increasing extent.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. Home RobertsonNo, the hon. Gentleman has already blethered quite a bit and he can blether again later with the leave of the House if he is lucky.
At the best of times, applicants for council houses in Stenton faced a long wait as there were only ever 16 houses and the turnover was very slow.
§ Mr. McQuarrieHow many people are on the waiting list?
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI am coming to that. Conservative Members seem to be getting very etched about this, but I have all the facts and figures. I wish to draw attention to the plight of the one individual and the six families now on the waiting list for a house in Stenton at a reasonable rent. That figure is thoroughly up to date, as I learnt from the Conservative councillor for that area on the telephone this evening. He is worried about the plight of those people. The whole House should be concerned at the plight of people waiting for houses as there is no more fundamental need for a family than a home of its own.
In Committee, the Minister constantly protested that council house sales made no difference to the problem because the tenants would have remained in the houses in any case. That is all very well in the short term. The problem arises when the occupier disposes of the house. If he had remained a council tenant the house would have been offered to the next person on the waiting list for rent, but that will not happen. The house will be sold to the highest bidder. In Stenton, as in so many similiar villages in rural Scotland, the next purchaser will probably be a commuter or a person seeking a holiday home. There will 373 be no hope for the young local family seeking a first home to rent. The problem will take a long time to build up, but it has already been identified as a serious one and it is bound to get worse. Conservative Members representing rural areas of Scotland will have to face the damage that they have done.
The problem exists throughout Scotland. Many people predicted that there would be more sales in the attractive rural areas, and that trend was confirmed in statistics given by the Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on Monday. They showed that the percentage of housing stock sold has reached double figures in only five areas—Stewartry, north-east Fife, Gordon, Kincardine and Deeside and the Western Isles, all almost entirely rural areas. In those and other rural areas council housing always represented a smaller proportion of the total housing stock than in other areas so the high proportion of sales represents an even greater relative loss of accommodation to rent than might appear at first to be the case. I have illustrated the point by citing the case of Stenton, but I could give many other examples.
The Labour party has been worried about this problem from the outset. In its briefing paper to hon. Members, Shelter cites the Tweeddale district council's housing plan and the Scottish Consumer Council report on the same subject. It also quotes a leaked report from the Scottish Office dated 1979, before the problem began to build up, which stated that in rural areas
many people are not able to command income sufficient to meet their basic housing needs in the private sector and reliance on the local authority as a major force in adequate housing provision will continue.If that is the official information, one wonders why the Scottish Office seems content to see a continuing rundown in public sector housing in rural areas.In addition, district councils in rural areas find it difficult to replace the houses that they are forced to sell, due to a combination of two factors—the higher cost of building in remote areas and the Government's unremitting squeeze on capital allocations. That means that there is and will continue to be a rundown in public sector housing in Scotland. As I said in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling, Rural Forum is also worried about the problem. That is an umbrella organisation set up by the Scottish Council for Social Service, including a wide range of organisations. I shall give the whole list.
§ Mr. McQuarrieNot again.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI did not give the whole list before. It includes the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers Union, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Council for Social Service, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes and the Transport and General Workers Union. The same fears have been expressed by the NFU branch in my constituency, so not only trade unions and housing pressure groups are acutely worried about the erosion of the housing stock available to let in rural areas. We are entitled to a positive response from the Government to a problem identified by such a wide range of organisations and I hope that we shall have one today.
§ Mr. McQuarrieThe hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred specifically to Gardenstown in my constituency, one of the smallest villages with a very small number of council houses, but he said nothing about the houses in Newburgh, Pitmedden, Udny or Ellon or the proportion of properties that had become holiday homes. Not one of the council houses sold in Gardenstown has been sold as a holiday home—
§ Mr. Home RobertsonNot yet.
§ Mr. McQuarrieThe same is true for the entire Banff and Buchan district council area.
We are passing legislation to give people the right to buy their council homes. Whether there are resales in 10, 20 or 30 years is a matter for a future Government. The people who are purchasing council houses in rural areas are the existing tenants, who are most unlikely to leave their homes. Any houses that are being purchased as holiday homes in the rural parts of my constituency are in places like New Aberdour, where dilapidated cottages are being renovated. The rural area is being repopulated in that way but not by taking over council houses and reselling them as holiday homes. I do not see that happening in my constituency.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerI would have thought that it would have been the experience of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side who know something about country matters—the lairds, and my hon. Friend will know who I mean—that country people tend not to move. In the country areas we usually find that aged people of 80-plus have been living in the same house for 40 or 50 years. They are not going to buy their houses to sell to others.
§ Mr. McQuarrieI accept what my hon. Friend says; that is the point I am trying to make. There will be no problem for a considerable time. I do not see the point in the new clauses. It might interest the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—his landed lairdship— to hear the relevant figures for the three main towns in my constituency. In Banff the housing stock is 3,887 and the waiting list is 12.8 per cent.; in Fraserburgh the housing stock is 3,932 and the waiting list is 9 per cent.; in Peterhead the housing stock is 4,804 and the waiting list is 10 per cent. We have a long way to go in the sale of council houses before reaching the figure of 25 per cent, in the new clause to which the hon. Member for East Lothian has put his name.
The new clauses have been conceived by the organisations quoted by the hon. Gentleman. They were not conceived by the hon. Members in whose names they stand. It has been obvious during the debate, when pertinent questions were put, that the people other than the Labour Members in whose names new clause 6 stands, did not have the requisite information to enable them to answer those questions.
§ Mr. BruceWill not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the 1980 Act has been in operation for three years but because our proposal has not yet been accepted we have no machinery to find out what happens to council houses after they are sold to the private sector? Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to commission research to find out how many are resold, we shall not know unless the new clause is accepted. To challenge us for not having the information is unreasonable.
§ Mr. McQuarrieIf the hon. Member knew his constituency well enough he would know how many of the council houses had been resold. He would know the people who are in them and could assess what kind of people had bought them. I am sure that in Gordon district not one solitary house of the 10 per cent. of council houses sold since the 1980 Act has been resold as a holiday home. I know part of that constituency, as the hon. Member well knows, because I gave him quite a portion of it in the redistribution.
I shall not detain the House further because I do not consider that either of the new clauses merits further debate. I shall oppose them wholeheartedly.
§ Mr. DouglasWe have had an entertaining, if not an enlightening, debate. I am always intrigued by the knowledge the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) displays of his constituency.
I want to deal with the balance of probability. Up to the moment, because the compensation that would go back to the authority would penalise people if they resold, the balance of probability, particularly in areas where there has been a reasonably stable population, is that it is unlikely that houses have been resold as holiday homes. It would be difficult for my hon. Friends and other hon. Members promoting the new clause to give statistical information.
What is emerging is that on balance of probability the provisions of the 1980 Act will have a more severe impact in rural areas than in urban areas in terms of changing the population. It is difficult to support new clause 6 because I do not see how we could embark on that type of amendment. However, there is merit in new clause 5, in which the Labour party is saying that the Government should examine the provisions of the Act in relation to sale rather than resale.
There is an obligation on the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office to investigate over a time the impact of the 1980 Act on the changing balance of population in rural areas. I understood the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to say that the benefits flowing from the legislation are marvellous and that he does not care what happens when council houses in Forfar are resold. That approach is too broad-brush. According to the hon. Member, if all local authority houses were sold to tenants and then resold as holiday homes the economic impact would be—
§ Mr. Bill WalkerThe hon. Member is very knowledgeable on the balance of probability. Surely he understands that what he has just said is not realistic.
§ Mr. DouglasIf I am interpreting wrongly what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise. He gave me the impression that he did not care whether all local authority houses in the public domain in Forfar were resold and became holiday homes because holiday homes and that type of accommodation were extremely beneficial to his area. I hope I am not misquoting him; I understood from him that his constituency would collapse if it were not for people coming in for recreational and holiday purposes. That might be beneficial to the cash flow but the sociological impact would be enormous in a place like Forfar. I would not regard my constituency as a rural area but the sociologicalimpact would be great if that happened in places such as Kincardine.
376 If the Minister resists the new clause, he should say what surveys he will carry out through his office into the impact sociologically and on the balance of population, particularly in rural areas, of the resale of council houses.
If people look for houses to rent in rural areas, but local authorities are prohibited from building houses because of the housing support grant, there is an obligation upon the Government to say how they would subvent local authorities which find that a large number of previously publicly owned houses are left vacant because they are holiday homes. That has a sociological and social impact.
I suspect that the Minister will resist the amendments, but I hope that we shall be able to persuade him that he has some obligation to take up the suggestion that has been made — which, I believe, has the support of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
§ Mr. KennedyHaving listened to some of the almost theological arguments from Conservative Members, I think that I should clear up a couple of misapprehensions. I am happy to give the SDP's support to the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was right when he said that we are debating a theoretical point. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) fairly pointed out that the legislation had not existed long enough for its effects to be fully known. That is a legitimate point with which I would not disagree.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie)—I am sure he will not be surprised about that — who seems happy to make a decision tonight and to leave it to Governments in 10, 20 or 30 years' time to deal with the consequences. What worries me about the scheme and the possibility of resale is what might happen within that time in an area such as the Highlands of Scotland which is distinctive and has particular problems. It has been at the receiving end of the policies of Labour and Conservative Governments to attract the type of tourism and inward investment about which the hon. Member for Tayside, North spoke, and which I support, and to maintain an indigenous local population. It must be acknowledged that we are discussing the resale of council houses — the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) may not have been clear about the distinction—because I must make it clear that the SDP-Liberal alliance in Scotland, as much as south of the border, supports the right to buy. There is no equivocation about that. However, once people have about exercised that legitimate right to buy, the Act should provide for monitoring of the resale of council houses. In the Highlands, we face indigenous decline, economic recession and depopulation, and have done so for a long time. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is perhaps misguided when he says that we should not worry about what will happen in 30 years' time. That will be a significant period in the Highlands because many of the problems we face go back longer than 30 years.
Decisions taken here will have far-reaching consequences for the Highlands for a long time. They will not be the problems that one could expect a Government in 30 years' time to deal with. When a problem needs Government action to solve it — we are talking about depopulation and large numbers of empty houses being used only for a few months of the year—it is almost 377 impossible to cure without draconian measures. It is a theoretical debate, but it raises serious principles. The Highlands have legitimate anxieties which deserve to be aired.
One talks to district and regional councillors and people who live in the Highlands, whose family background is there, and they confirm that one of the basic problems is that young people are moving out of the area because there is nothing there for them. Also, as the population becomes older, the available housing, whether private or council, which has been sold to sitting tenants, becomes more and more—
§ Mr. Bill WalkerThe hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself.
§ Mr. KennedyI am not. The housing becomes more attractive for people to purchase. The problem is impossible to quantify. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may be right; we might have to wait 20 years or 30 years to see the effects of the legislation.
The fact that there is genuine anxiety means that it is right that the matter should be debated in the House. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that, none the less, the Minister will say what steps the Government will take to monitor the position, because it could become serious.
§ Mr. AncramWe have had an entertaining and useful debate on these two clauses. It is not a new debate, because we have had it on a number of occasions previously. It was rehearsed fairly fully in Committee. I am sure that if the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has anything to do with it, we will have it again.
I welcome the opportunity to make clear once again for the benefit of Opposition Members—I made the point over and over again in Committee, but it did not seem to get through although it is a simple concept-that houses that are sold are not lost to the housing stock. If tenants were not allowed to buy their own homes, there is no evidence that they would be likely to move away. Every time Opposition Members make such assertions I ask them to produce the evidence. They return time after time and make the same assertions, but when pressed they have no evidence to show that there is any truth in what they are saying. If the great majority of people who buy their own houses had not been able to do so they would have continued to rent them, often for a considerable number of years, whether they were in urban or rural areas.
The hon. Member for East Lothian has mentioned the village of Stenton on many occasions. I recollect it from my short association with that area. When he first mentioned it I said to myself, "The hon. Member might have difficulty finding out what is happening in the large urban conurbations because the numbers may be a little beyond him. In Stenton, the numbers are small. As a Member of Parliament he will be able to find out the facts about particular matters." He has found out one thing. He has told us that five council houses have been sold. He makes a dramatic issue of that. However, when we asked him to tell us how many of the houses have been resold, 378 he said, "I cannot." If he is prepared to make an assertion on low figures he should at least have the basis of those figures correct.
When the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of Stenton before Christmas, I challenged him to say how many of those houses would have become available for his waiting list had the right to buy not been available. Four weeks later he returns to the Chamber and makes the same speech, but he still cannot give us any information. He must learn that if he is to put forward an argument and claim that there is strength behind it he must back it with facts. Otherwise the Conservative Benches will get tired of listening to what he has to say.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI apologise to the Minister for intervening in his speech, but as I am in the Chamber I shall take this opportunity to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his mind to the real question, which is what will happen to the houses that will be sold when the present occupiers move on? Does not the Minister accept that such houses will be sold to the highest bidder, and will not be available to anyone on the council house waiting list?
§ Mr. AncramThe hon. Gentleman asks me to speculate, so I shall say that the house may be sold to the highest bidder. For all I know, the hon. Gentleman's house may be sold to the highest bidder. On the other hand, he may decide to leave it to his family, as may the owners of these houses. The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is unsatisfactory to look that far into the future to try to draw definitive conclusions from pure speculation.
§ Mr. KennedyWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. AncramNo, I must get on. We have spent much time on the debate, and I want to cover some of the points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North made the point better than I possibly can. He represents a rural area where the district council has pursued an agressive sales policy, but where none of the problems that Opposition Members keep theorising about have appeared. That is the proof of the pudding. The evidence produced by my hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for a rural area, should be taken into account by Opposition Members.
Another point that is worth making, but which is often ignored, concerns the point that Labour Members accuse us of removing houses from the council stock and leaving local authorities without the means to do anything about it. But those houses are being sold, albeit at a discount, to realise receipts for the local authorities. District councils should consider using some of the additional money released through sales to reduce council house waiting lists.
I listened closely to the argument of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on new clause 6, which he tabled. Every time I hear him on the subject he argues in favour of council house sales but has reservations about selling them. Perhaps it is a typically Liberal stance to be for something in theory, but frightened of it in practice.
The objects of new clause 6 are rather different from those of new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). New clause 6 ensures that houses sold in rural areas are not subsequently resold to persons who do not have a direct 379 interest in the economic wellbeing of the area or other, social, reasons for wishing to live there. The clause aims to ensure that the houses are not subsequently resold as retirement homes, holiday homes, or as houses for those commuting to work in neighbouring areas.
I can see no justification for the new clause in relation to sales of former council houses to retired persons and commuters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who suggested that it is plainly unfair to make such restrictions.
The position in rural areas is no different from that elsewhere. I have already said that the sale of a council house does not reduce the overall housing stock of an area, and has little or no effect in the short or medium term on the availability of houses to rent. A tenant who does not buy is likely to continue paying rent.
With regard to sales of former council housesas holliday homes, I still believe, as I said in Committee, that the 1980 Act already does all that is necessary to prevent many former council houses in rural areas being sold as holiday or second homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who is silent by dint of his office, tabled an amendment to the original legislation because he foresaw some of the difficulties. His amendment was accepted by the Government, and is now part of the Act. Section 4(6) and section 4(7) of the 1980 Act enable the Secretary of State to make an order permitting authorities to impose pre-emption conditions on sales of houses in rural areas, provided that more than one third of the council houses in the area have been sold, and that an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold as second homes.
During the passage of the 1980 Act, we took the view that the likelihood of substantial numbers of council houses being resold as holiday homes was remote. Our experience since then, which has been backed up by some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends, has not caused us to alter that view. To date not one authority has approached us to suggest that the conditions have been satisfied and to ask for an order to be made under section 4(6). Perhaps that is one of the most powerful arguments against the case made by the hon. Member for Gordon.
I suggest, therefore, that the problems that hon. Members have suggested arise in rural areas are more imagined than real. They have not been substantiated by facts. The new clause is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his new clause and that he has listened to the hon. Member for Maryhill, who paid him a backhanded compliment, as the Labour party often does, saying that he would support the new clause as it was ineffective. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will realise that that is not necessarily the best reason for proceeding with such a new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will ask leave to withdraw his new clause. If not, I must ask the House to reject it, and new clause 5.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 203.
382| Division No. 127] | [7.55 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Bagier, Gordon A. T. |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Banks, Tony (Newham NW) |
| Ashton, Joe | Barron, Kevin |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Beckett, Mrs Margaret |
| Beith, A. J. | Lambie, David |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Lamond, James |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Leighton, Ronald |
| Blair, Anthony | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Litherland, Robert |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Loyden, Edward |
| Buchan, Norman | McCartney, Hugh |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McGuire, Michael |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Clay, Robert | McKelvey, William |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Cohen, Harry | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | McTaggart, Robert |
| Corbett, Robin | McWilliam, John |
| Cowans, Harry | Madden, Max |
| Craigen, J. M. | Marek, Dr John |
| Dalyell, Tam | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Maxton, John |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Deakins, Eric | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Dewar, Donald | Michie, William |
| Dixon, Donald | Mikardo, Ian |
| Dormand, Jack | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Douglas, Dick | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Dubs, Alfred | O'Brien, William |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | O'Neill, Martin |
| Eadie, Alex | Parry, Robert |
| Eastham, Ken | Patchett, Terry |
| Ellis, Raymond | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Penhaligon, David |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Prescott, John |
| Fisher, Mark | Randall, Stuart |
| Flannery, Martin | Robertson, George |
| Forrester, John | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Foster, Derek | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Foulkes, George | Sheerman, Barry |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Freud, Clement | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| George, Bruce | Skinner, Dennis |
| Gourlay, Harry | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'k"ds E) |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Snape, Peter |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Stott, Roger |
| Haynes, Frank | Strang, Gavin |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Home Robertson, John | Tinn, James |
| Howells, Geraint | Wareing, Robert |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | White, James |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Wilson, Gordon |
| Johnston, Russell | |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and |
| Kennedy, Charles | Mr. James Wallace. |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
| Amess, David | Bottomley, Peter |
| Ancram, Michael | Braine, Sir Bernard |
| Ashby, David | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Bright, Graham |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Brinton, Tim |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Bruinvels, Peter |
| Baldry, Anthony | Bryan, Sir Paul |
| Batiste, Spencer | Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Bellingham, Henry | Burt, Alistair |
| Benyon, William | Butcher, John |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Butterfill, John |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Carlisle, John (N Lutcn) |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Body, Richard | Carttiss, Michael |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Churchill, W. S. |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Colvin, Michael | Lightbown, David |
| Conway, Derek | Lilley, Peter |
| Coombs, Simon | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Cope, John | Lord, Michael |
| Couchman, James | Luce, Richard |
| Cranbome, Viscount | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Crouch, David | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | MacGregor, John |
| Dicks, T. | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Maclean, David John. |
| Dover, Denshore | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Dunn, Robert | Major, John |
| Durant, Tony | Malins, Humfrey |
| Dykes, Hugh | Malone, Gerald |
| Evennett, David | Maples, John |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marland, Paul |
| Fallon, Michael | Marlow, Antony |
| Favell, Anthony | Mates, Michael |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Maude, Francis |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Mellor, David |
| Freeman, Roger | Merchant, Piers |
| Gale, Roger | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Galley, Roy | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Moate, Roger |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Gow, Ian | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Gregory, Conal | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Grist, Ian | Murphy, Christopher |
| Ground, Patrick | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Needham, Richard |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Newton, Tony |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hannam, John | Onslow, Cranley |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Osborn, Sir John |
| Harvey, Robert | Ottaway, Richard |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Page, John (Harrow W) |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Hayes, J. | Pollock, Alexander |
| Hayward, Robert | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Powley, John |
| Henderson, Barry | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Hickmet, Richard | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hicks, Robert | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Hind, Kenneth | Raffan, Keith |
| Hirst, Michael | Rathbone, Tim |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Renton, Tim |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Holt, Richard | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Hooson, Tom | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Rost, Peter |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Silvester, Fred |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Sims, Roger |
| Hunter, Andrew | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Jessel, Toby | Spence, John |
| Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Key, Robert | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Knowles, Michael | Thurnham, Peter |
| Knox, David | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Lang, Ian | Walden, George |
| Latham, Michael | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Warren, Kenneth |
| Watson, John | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Wheeler, John | |
| Wiggin, Jerry | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Winterton, Mrs Ann | Mr. Tim Sainsbury and |
| Winterton, Nicholas | Mr. Michael Neubert. |
| Wood, Timothy |
§ Question accordingly negatived.