TRANSFER OF EXISTING TENANCIES (Hansard, 26 October 1988)

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 37.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
This group of amendments may look a little odd, but I can assure hon. Members that they are necessary.
The original need to amend the clause arose because we did not extend the provisions of clause 42 to Crown tenancies. Amendment No. 37 puts it right. However, that amendment makes amendments Nos. 29 to 36 necessary to maintain the grammatical integrity of the Bill. Without them, the new paragraph we are adding would not make sense.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
Not much of the Bill makes sense, but at least there will be some grammatical integrity, if nothing else. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about the impact of the extended scope of the clause to Crown tenants and Government Departments.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 33, which refers to whether a house belongs to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I do not know whether hon. Members read The Scotsman on Monday, which referred to 1,700 SSHA houses in the Borders that apparently are to be transferred to a new trust, Waverley Housing, set up by, of all people the Earl of Ancram—that old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
There has been much jumping of guns in anticipation of the passing of this squalid little Bill but, quite frankly, that one takes the biscuit. The Scotsman states that the object of Waverley Housing will be to protect Borders tenants from profiteering private landlords who might snap up properties in a free-for-all when the SSHA ceases to exist. The Government are legislating for that free-for-all. Indeed, it can take place only if Scottish Homes, acting as the agent for the Secretary of State, allows it. Interestingly enough, in between his excursions to such places as Richmond and Epping Forest, Michael Ancram will be one of the Secretary of State's creatures on the board of Scottish Homes as well as undertaking the Waverley Housing set-up in the Borders.
The significance of all that is that those tenants will lose their status as secure tenants as soon as ownership of their properties is transferred to Ancram Homes, Waverley Homes, or whatever it wants to call itself. That is inevitable. I understand that there will be a temporary holding operation and that a management trust will run matters, but the ownership of the houses will remain with Scottish Homes.

§ Mr. Hood
Will my hon. Friend recall the Tory Members of Parliament who were defeated in the last general election in Scotland, and name one who has not been found a job by the Tory Government?

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I am a little worried about Alex Pollock. He is the one who has been passed over. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) must feel a deep sense of guilt about that. My hon. Friend is quite right. There have been many jobs for the lads.

Dr. Norman A. Goodman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
What about the lasses?

§ Mr. Home Robertson
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is quite right. Anna McCurley has landed a job on the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Yes, there are plenty of jobs. Michael Ancram has so many jobs that there are none left for poor old Alex Pollock.
Much more seriously, what will happen to tenants when their houses are transferred from the ownership of Scottish Homes in due course and are taken over by Ancram Homes or whatever it will be called? They will lose their security as secure tenants, they will lose their protection against excessive rents, and they will lose a range of vital rights. It is a matter of acute concern. Frankly, all the assurances about the future of SSHA tenants will not even last until the Bill gets Royal Assent.
Several of my hon. Friends may remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland actually criticised Opposition Members for scaremongering when we said that SSHA tenants would be sold down the river. But, already, he and his cronies are at it. Tenants and local authorities in the Borders have not been consulted. There has just been a sordid little carve-up, agreed in the Tory central bunker in Chester street, Edinburgh. The 1,700 tenants will be transferred from the SSHA in anticipation of transferring Scottish Homes to the new private trust orchestrated by Michael Ancram. That is a shameful manipulation by this minority Government, and I have no hesitation in pledging to restore proper protection to tenants at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the amendment to highlight the despicable action taking place in the Borders.

§ Mr. McAllion
I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to ask what has happened in the Borders with the Waverley housing association. I remember the hours that we spent in Committee debating the rights of Scottish Homes tenants and whether they were threatened by the legislation. We were given repeated assurances by the Minister that there would be no element of compulsion on Scottish Homes tenants, that they could remain Scottish Homes tenants as long as they wished to do so, and that they would keep all the public sector tenants' rights that they had previously.
The Minister came to Dundee, East, along with Mr. Derek Mason, who at that time was responsible for the SSHA, but he has also now landed a plum job with Scottish Homes. The two of them took the opportunity to blazon out to the press in Dundee that no Scottish Homes tenant's position was threatened and that, as long as that tenant wishes to remain a tenant of the new housing agency, nobody will interfere. Of course, the new agency has not even been set up, and already 1,700 houses have been taken out of the control of Scottish Homes. Scottish Homes' ownership of the 1,700 houses on the Borders is a technical matter.
From a report in The Scotsman, I understand that the new Waverley housing association will act on behalf of Scottish Homes. It will manage houses, control rents, be responsible for maintenance, and negotiate house sales with tenants. For every possible purpose that can be conceived, the Waverley housing association, not Scottish Homes, will be the new landlord. Has any one tenant been consulted? Not in the least. They had to read about it in 370 The Scotsman. The House was not told about it. The Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill was given no warning. We were led to believe entirely the opposite.
The Minister assured us that every tenant would be consulted and that nothing would be done to take them out of the control of Scottish Homes unless they so wished. The rights of 1,700 tenants have been ignored by the Minister. Will he have the courage to go to the Dispatch Box, in a place where he is accountable, and explain to the House and to the people in the Borders why it is happening and why they and other people in Scotland have not been consulted? It is an arrogant abuse of power by the Government. I know that the Minister is a nice man who will probably sit on his bum and say nothing, but he should try to defend what the Government are doing in Scotland. There is no defence.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
I shall speak briefly, following the lurid comments from the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Anyone reading their comments would think that nobody should have anything to do with any housing association in Scotland. However, such bodies have a good record. They have shown themselves to be good, caring landlords and have acted on behalf of tenants.

§ Mr. McAllion
rose—

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak. He has made his lurid comments.
These measures are bound to be beneficial. They take decision-making nearer the people who matter—the tenants.
The individual whom Opposition Members have mentioned is doing the job free. He is not getting any fee for it. I should have thought that all of us would commend people who are prepared to do things in their own time and at no charge to tenants or the public purse. Opposition Members think that everything should be run by nanny state.

§ Mr. McAllion
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Walker
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Conservative Members believe that it is better for things to be run by individuals.

§ Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Walker
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, as I said I would when I finish my sentence, and I shall.
Opposition Members have overlooked the importance of this matter, which is a method of bringing decision-making nearer to tenants.

§ Mr. McAllion
The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Ancram is doing the job out of the goodness of his heart. As I understand it, Mr. Ancram has been offered a position on the board of Scottish Homes. In return for accepting that position, he will be given a substantial payment of £3,000 to £4,000 for his expenses. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the case? Will he accept also that Mr. Ancram, as an ex-politician, may be seen to benefit from legislation that he helped to draft? In the 371 circumstances, should not Mr. Ancram donate his fee of £4,000 to the defence committee for those people in Scotland who cannot pay the poll tax?

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting observation. Scottish Homes is a large organisation dealing with tenants in properties throughout Scotland. It is quite right and proper that people who give their time should receive some reimbursement. The amount of reimbursement is quite trivial, considering what one might expect if one does a job conscientiously. That is true of many other public positions. I do not make that comment purely in respect of this narrow matter. We ask too many people to give too much time to public matters. We do not take into account the impingement on their time. Councillors and others are within that category.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned that Mr. Ancram will be paid. It is a big job for Scottish Homes. He accepted the chairmanship of the much smaller body near where he lives. He is a local person giving time to a local interest, and that must surely be to the benefit of the local community.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman calls £3,000 to £4,000 trivial. Does he not realise that there are millions of pensioner couples in this country who, because the pension has been depressed by the Government, are restricted to that very sum? Millions of people are on income support because of the unemployment levels that the Government have generated, and they have to live on £60 to £70 per week. The hon. Gentleman calls that sort of sum trivial, but it is not trivial for the millions of people who must live on it.

§ Mr. Walker
I make no apology for the words that I used. We want people to give of their time in the public domain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think carefully about what I am saying. The sums that we pay busy professional people for being councillors or the like does not reflect the level of input that we expect of them, especially considering the substantial sums that they are paid outside the public sphere.

§ Mr. Darling
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are dealing, not with an ordinary person but with somebody who was a Minister, who lost his seat and was given a job by the Secretary of State? Does he not think that there is something deplorable and even sick about what is happening in Scotland when defeated Tory candidates are found jobs here, there and everywhere? In this particular case the person is presiding over thousands of people who have been transferred like sheep, with no choice in the matter. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that this man is giving of his time freely. That is not normal. It is a new departure and offensive to most decent people.

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member to the House and I shall forgive him for not knowing that successive Labour Governments have found work for competent people who, for whatever reason, have lost their seats. I do not object to that.

§ Mr. Hood
List them.

§ Mr. Walker
I could list names, but I shall not do so this evening. The Labour Government were right to do that.
372 We are touching on a principle, but confusing it by introducing personalities. That is a great mistake which the Labour party frequently makes. We should surely be able to agree that if there are people in any of the parties who have given good service to the nation, are competent and still have years of good service ahead of them, we would be foolish not to make use of them. It would be a mistake for the nation.
If we were talking about paying someone £50,000 or £100,000 a year, I could understand the objection, but we are talking, not of enormous sums but relatively small sums compared with the input that we expect. The nation gets a bargain from many people in public service. I am sorry to hear the Opposition argue in this way. I would have expected support for what I am saying. We should look much more carefully at how we reward people who give of their time for public service.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are getting away from the amendment and I am sure that we shall return to it now.

§ Mrs. Fyfe
We are talking not about an able, competent person but about the Earl of Ancram. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about giving due reward for public service, does he support the Government's continued determination not to award councillors a decent rate for their efforts?

§ Mr. Walker
I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have been clear about what I said. The recompense that we give councillors is unsuitable for people of a high calibre whom we expect to give a lot of time. Successive Governments have been mistaken on that for many years. I would have thought that that came over loud and clear from my remarks. That is my view and I have held it for many years.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I invite the House to come back to the amendment.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I should like to respond briefly to the questions on the Waverley housing trust. I understand that it is proposed that the trust will take over the management of the SSHA stock in the Borders. It will be for the SSHA to decide on Waverley's housing proposals since management issues are for the association. The association has raised certain consequential matters with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and it has yet to take a final decision on new management arrangements, so the whole matter is under consideration.
The objective will be to improve the standards of service offered to tenants and the objectives of the trust are wholly concerned with benefiting the local community. Therefore, it is most encouraging that somebody of the calibre of Michael Ancram who has expertise in housing and is well known for his interest has been sufficiently public-spirited to offer himself—

§ Mr. Home Robertson
Keep a straight face.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I am keeping a straight face—for the unpaid post of chairman of the charitable trust. The same qualifications will enable him to perform an extremely valuable role as a member of the new board of Scottish Homes. I endorse the Secretary of State's decision to offer him an appointment. Any conflict of interest would be unlikely, and in any case there are 373 well-established rules and procedures for board members to declare such an interest and avoid participating in discussions.
So far as political considerations are relevant, Mr. Charles Sneddon, who was appointed for his personal contribution, as were the others, based on his background of involvement with the council of management of the SSHA and his local authority, will be particularly helpful to Scottish Homes. He is a prominent member of a party other than the Conservative party, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) well knows.

§ Dr. Godman
This is a serious matter. Surely it is in the interests of natural justice for tenants or their representatives to be involved in management, consultations and negotiations?

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I understand that the trust also raised the possibility of acquiring the stock that it manages at the end of three years. At that stage the Government and Scottish Homes are committed to ensuring that the tenants are fully consulted, certainly before any purchase proceeds. We shall consider voluntary disposals in the context of another Bill.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
Will the Minister explain what will happen to those tenants? Will there be a ballot or will each individual tenant be able to exercise the option to remain in the public sector or transfer to an insecure tenancy?

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The hon. Gentleman is taking me well outside the terms of the amendment. That will be discussed in the context of the other Bill under voluntary disposals. The same conditions and considerations would apply to the SSHA and Scottish Homes as have been set out for local authorities. We shall return to that subject.
The amendments are required because of the drafting and grammatical rule which requires that the contents of a tabulated list in the Bill do not go beyond the words which govern each and every item in the list. In other words, if the phrase had not been moved by means of the amendments it would have been held to apply to both parts of the new paragraph which would not then make sense since it would begin : it belongs to … is held in trust for Her Majesty. For that reason, the matter had to be clarified and tidied up.