HC Deb 04 March 1986 vol 93 cc203-10

'Regional authorities, or where appropriate joint boards, may appeal to the Secretary of State against the sale of a particular house on the grounds that it has to be retained in order to allow them to effectively fulfil their statutory functions.'.—[Sir Russell Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Russell Johnston

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in page 28, line 20, Schedule 1, leave out sub-paragraph 9.

Sir Russell Johnston

This is a limited but important proposal. Hon. Members, particularly those who served on the Committee, will recall that, from the moment of the publication of the Bill, education authorities with areas of sparse population and joint fire authorities with similar difficulties have expressed great concern that the legislation could deprive them of the limited housing stock that they retain for the performance of their statutory functions.

In Committee on 16 January amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) who sought to make provision for regions and joint boards similar to that which was made for the island councils in 1984. The Minister rejected them but gave only three arguments for doing so. First, he said: I cannot accept … that the problems of finding alternative accommodation which can occur in the remote islands arise to the same degree on the mainland, even in the rural areas. Moreover, the present amendments go well beyond the rural areas. They would give regional councils a wide power to refuse applications to buy any education authority house. The fact was that the Minister's mind was on Strathclyde which he felt, rightly or wrongly, had not implemented the voluntary code.

At this stage is is worth noting, even in retrospect, the four criteria of which, according to section 3B of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, island councils have to take note. They are, first, that it is an education authority house required for the performance of that function; secondly, that it is required immediately, or, thirdly, that it will be required within a perceptible time; fourthly, and most important or most confining of all, that there is no way in which the authorities can obtain a similar house.

It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us whether, as a consequence of that change, there have been any Government refusals of the islands' requests of this nature. My new clause seeks to apply the fourth criterion in such a way that the onus clearly rests on the regional authority or joint board to demonstrate a requirement. Therefore, I should think that the clause would be acceptable to the Government because they retain the final say.

The second ministerial argument about such a system being unnecessary is that an authority could make occupancy of a house a condition of employment. In Committee the Minister said:

Schedule 1 of the 1980 Act provides that where a teacher, or any other employee, is required to occupy a particular house as a condition of his employment, he shall not have security of tenure or the right to buy. That was nice and simple, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Cathcart rebutted this simply and comprehensively when he said: I do not believe that they could get it"— that is, agreement of this type— included in a teacher's contract of employment. I doubt that many individual teachers would accept that as a contract nor would the negotiating body, when it meets, agree to such a change in teachers' contracts on a general basis. An amusing point— perhaps it says something of the nature of these debates—is that the Minister's statement came after the hon. Gentleman's rebuttal. The Minister never tried to deal with what the hon. Member said. The best he could say, rather sadly, was, "I am disappointed."

It is not possible for regional authorities to get such an agreement from teachers, and in the case of fire officers the position is worse still. In January 1985 the joint negotiating body specifically forbade a firemaster to require that an officer occupy a particular house. I and the hon. Member for Cathcart do not believe that, in the case of teachers, the negotiating body would accede to such a proposal and, in the case of firemasters, they had discussions and rejected it. Thus, in making this argument, the Minister is suggesting that regional authorities can protect their statutory interests by securing safeguards which it is beyond their ability to obtain. That applies to education and fire authorities alike.

The third ministerial argument is the curtilage argument. In Committee the Minister said: we are introducing a new provision to meet the special position of regional councils by introducing a new category which provides that a tenant shall not have security or right to buy if his house comes within the curtilage of another building. This recognises, for example, the situation where a teacher's house might form part of or be attached to a school building, or a janitor's house coming within the school grounds. Both these instances were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may recognise them in areas such as his constituency."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 January 1986; c. 193–94.] I recognise that there are many such examples in rural areas where housing is in short supply. However, in many rural areas neither education authority houses nor fire houses are within the curtilage of the school or the fire station.

7.15 pm

There are many examples which are different. I think, for example, of education in Caithness and Sutherland and, in the case of fire, there are the examples of Kirkwall, Invergordon and Fort William.

I hold the view that the amendments accepted by the Government in 1984 in respect of the island councils and the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cathcart for regions and joint boards would have been the sensible way ahead. Indeed, one could argue that, since the island authorities are also housing authorities, they could meet education and fire requirements more easily from general needs than regional authorities which are not housing authorities.

I accept that the Government will not yield on this point. However, my new clause — it could be reintroduced in appropriate form in another place —would give authorities such as Grampian, Highlands and the Borders which have operated, as the Minister would agree, the voluntary code fairly an opportunity to make their case genuinely to the Government. The onus would be on the authorities to do so and the Government in the end would decide. Equally, if the Minister's contention is that Strathclyde was resisting a proper application of the voluntary code, the new clause would put that authority in the same position of having to make a case as the other local authorities would have to do.

This is a reasonable proposal on a matter which has caused, and which continues to cause, great concern among the rural education and fire authorities. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. If he is not able to give an absolute nay or yea tonight, I shall be perfectly happy if he says that the issue will be studied in another place. I hope that, in listening to the debate, he will recognise that the argument I have advanced is sound and sensible and is supported by reasonable parties.

Mr. Kennedy

I shall speak briefly in support of the new clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has moved. I underline the sentiment that he expressed at the end of his speech, that even if this formulation of the clause is not acceptable to the Government, they should look seriously at the issue and the principles which it raises, and the difficulties which this legislation, if not altered from its present form, will cause in areas such as the Highland region. Perhaps the Government could use the opportunity in another place to deal with some of the difficulties which are expected to arise.

We have all received representations, especially from teachers in the Highland region. Teachers want the right to buy their own homes—that is understandable—and any sensible person would support that. The Minister acknowledged the difficulty in a letter to me dated 31 January 1986. He said—arguing, first, for the general policy of the right to buy, which he knows I support: I accept however that there may need to be restrictions on the sale of houses in rural areas. The Minister is correct in that. The new clause is not about every designated local authority house; it is about those occasions in remote rural communities, particularly on the west coast, but also elsewhere in the highlands, where the loss of the teacher's house would militate against the replacement of a teacher where necessary. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that that is a genuine concern in smaller communities. It is something about which we have received many representations.

The chairman of Gairloch high school council in my constituency wrote to me a month ago expressing great concern on behalf of the council at the proposal. He made the following telling points: 1. Housing both private and public are very scarce and in great demand. 2. The few houses that become available for sale are therefore expensive and often well beyond the means of many young teachers. The Scottish Office has never sought to deny, and we would never deny, that teachers are not well paid, and there is no doubt that they cannot afford large mortgages, particularly where housing is scarce, prices are high and accordingly the market is inflated.

Another difficulty faced in the highlands all too often, as the chairman of the Gairloch high school council points out, is that land is not as available as we would like it to be. There are many complicated reasons for that, but I shall not go into them now. That backdrop shows the legitimate problem. The chairman goes on to make the case, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, that in many cases in rural communities the school house is an integral part of the school building. The Government appear to be aware of this problem, as there have been specific, and welcome, references to it.

This is not a widespread issue. It does not have to be applied as an absolute principle that the teachers who happen to live in the Highland region, for example, should not have the right to buy their own home. That is not what we are asking. The way in which my hon. Friend both phrased the new clause and argued for it shows how sensible it would be if the local authority—in this case the Highland regional council—when it felt that the proper exercise of its statutory function was being called into doubt by the provisions of the legislation, had the right to make a direct appeal to the Scottish Office. The counterarguments could then be heard, and the Scottish Office and the Government would not be surrendering the final right of decision, because explicit in the new clause is an acceptance that they would have to make that judgment.

Mr. Maxton

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that island authorities have exactly that right on teachers' houses. The Government have introduced an amendment to the 1980 Act which established that right, because they saw the anomalies that they were creating. In Committee I moved an amendment that would have allowed the system to operate in all regional authorities, and I do not understand even now why the Minister would not accept it.

Mr. Kennedy

The hon. Gentleman puts his point fairly and with great force. It is a common-sense solution to a problem which we can all see coming, and witch those in the area identified as soon as the Bill was published. Therefore, I hope that, if not tonight, in the other place, the Government will take steps to act positively to clear up what will soon be a genuine problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, there are also the problems of the Highlands and Islands fire board. I shall not repeat all of his points, with which I concur. The fire board owns five houses, in Kirkwall, Lerwick, Stornoway and Fort William and, my particular concern, in Invergordon.

A letter from the clerk to the board said: If the Board are required to sell these houses they would no longer be available for incoming Officers in the event that new appointments were necessary. It is anticipated that it would be extremely difficult to purchase suitable replacement housing, particularly in the Islands areas and in Fort William. Further, in the absence of available accommodation it would be difficult to attract applicants for the positions in question. The threat posed by the terms of the Bill as presently drafted to the operational needs of the Brigade is therefore regarded as a serious one which, I would suggest, merits consideration of possible amendment of the relevant terms of the Bill. That puts the position fairly and sensibly, and underlines the purpose of the new clause.

We support the right of teachers, and all those in other categories, to own their homes. However, as the Minister would no doubt agree, any right in society has always to be tempered by a sense of responsibility to the wider public interest. There may be occasions when, in my two examples of teachers and fire brigade officers, the local authorities involved should have the right of appeal to the Scottish Office, so that ultimately the Secretary of state and his Ministers will decide. Our approach is wholly sensible, and I hope that the Minister can respond in the constructive fashion in which the new clause has been moved.

Mr. Ancram

The new clause provides that regional councils may appeal to the Secretary of State, presumably for permission to refuse to sell a particular house, where they feel that the house has to be retained so that they can effectively fulfil their statutory functions. The amendment appears to be defective, although I shall not labour that point. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, we discussed this matter in Committee. Therefore I am sure that the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that I find the amendment misguided and unnecessary.

The Government fully accept that, in extending security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants of houses owned by regional councils, it is necessary to ensure that regional councils are able to retain those houses that they genuinely need to fulfil their statutory functions. However, it is better for the tenants and for the regional council landlords to provide for such houses to be excluded on the face of the legislation. This means that the tenants and their landlords will know clearly where they stand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the importance of that.

I say this in the belief that is possible to specify in the legislation those categories of houses that regional councils and other public authorities need to retain such properties. These are listed in schedule 1 to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. They include houses let to an employee of the landlord as a condition of his contract of employment and houses let temporarily pending development — for example, a region might need to acquire land to build a road.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber used the example of the teacher, already used by the hon.

Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in Committee. I am sorry if I did not respond then, but I had many points to which I had to respond. However, schedule 1(2)(2) to the 1980 Act says that a contract of employment means a contract "whether express or implied". Therefore, the provision does not have to be written into the employee's contract for a house so to be exempt. The problem raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart is therefore resolved.

7.30 pm
Sir Russell Johnston

That is a new argument. Is the Minister saying that, even if a teacher does not consent to stay in a particular house as part of his contract of employment, such an undertaking may be imposed on him by the regional authority?

Mr. Ancram

That depends whether it is implicit in the work that the teacher does. The advice that I have is that the condition of residence in the house would not have to be written into an employee's contract for a house to be exempt under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

Mr. Maxton

What would happen when a teacher from one school takes a school house attached to another school because at that point the teacher from the other school —say, a single-teacher school in a rural area—has no wish to have that house but the authority wishes to keep the house available to employ another teacher when the present teacher retires? I know that that is complicated but I know that such situations apply in rural areas.

Mr. Ancram

I am not quite sure that I followed all the parts of the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis and I would not therefore wish to give a categorical answer. However, I think that what I have said about the implicit nature which is allowed for under the 1980 Act—the problem which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber raised—would not arise.

As a consequence of extending security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants in dwellings owned by regional councils, we felt that it was necessary to add two further categories to the list of excluded houses in schedule 1. These appear in the new paragraphs added to that schedule by paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the Bill.

The lists include houses let to serving members of a police or fire authority. That is why I was a little surprised by the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I have not previously received representations about the difficulties that the hon. Gentlemen alleged over the position of rural fire service houses. We are proposing under the provision to exclude service houses. I stress that I have not received representations that this provision was deficient but I shall look into the point and write to the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I must tell the Minister that I have received representations from the Highlands and Islands fire brigade. The clerk of the brigade said, in terms, that the Bill does not contain adequate protection for the fire board and it does not appear that there are any grounds on which the board may resist the demands by an officer to purchase his house in locations where it is not possible to make available suitable replacement housing when the need arises. Is the Minister saying that that is wrong and that the schedule specifically deals with the problem?

Mr. Ancram

I understand from the way that the Bill has been drafted that houses let to serving members of the police or a fire authority would be exempt from the right to buy. Again, these representations have been made to hon. Members and unfortunately as far as I am aware, such representations have not been made to me. I will look into the matter and if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland so wishes, I will add him to my correspondence list.

The provisions do all that is necessary to exclude from the right to buy those houses that regional authorities need to retain to fulfil their statutory functions. I know that the hon. Member for Cathcart, has not discussed amendment No. 25. The hon. Gentleman's amendment removes a provision which is a good one and one which, as far as I know, has been welcomed by COSLA. That is a useful provision and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take me by surprise by pressing his amendment.

Sir Russell Johnston

Before we approach the question whether we vote, I should like to say a few words. The Minister appears to be saying that the new clause is unnecessary. However, it is a fact that education authorities— not just in the Highlands but throughout Scotland—are mindful that the new clause is necessary. I admit that I have not had representations from any fire authority other than the Highlands and Islands authority but, as my hon. Friends have said, the board is sure that the provision that the Minister has set out is not correct. I hope that the Minister will make an undertaking to look into the matter and I also hope that the Minister will examine the education aspect.

Mr. Ancram

I have dealt with the education matter. I believe that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. was not sustained in the light of the provisions in the Bill, and not only in this Bill hut in previous legislation. I therefore rejected the hon. Gentleman's argument.

In connection with the fire houses, I said that while I thought that the Bill as it stood provided the protection for which the hon. Gentleman's constituents were looking, I had not received the representations that he had received. I said that I would examine those representations and would write to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends once I had had a chance to do that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will withdraw the new clause.

Sir Russell Johnston

I should like to make one last point in respect of the education authorities. It is passing strange—no stronger than that—that the argument has been produced late in the day that somehow or other, even if teachers are not likely to agree to occupancy of a particular house being a condition of employment, in some way that is not clearly defined if that is implied by the regional authority, it becomes the case. That is a very unsatisfactory argument which has not appeared before, even when the Minister has been subjected to representations from local authorities. That has been discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. That is very odd indeed.

However, as the Minister is willing to examine the matters again — I take it from that that there is an implication that should he find anything wrong he will introduce amending legislation in another place—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to