LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 7 August 1980)

§ Lord BELLWIN
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6.
Amendment No. 29, which is now numbered 5, would allow local authorities to make orders designating areas, in addition to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, within which the restrictions on resale provided in Clause 19 of the Bill would apply. Previously, the Bill was drafted to allow the Secretary of State to designate such additional areas by order, though, in practice, if a local authority feels that an order should be made in respect of all or part of its area, the Government expect it to take the initiative, and tell my right honourable friend why.
The amendment would not add significantly to the Bill, since the order of the local authority would still be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Further, it would have a detrimental effect, because 1614 it would complicate administrative procedures and blur lines of responsibility for the operation of the safeguards provided for rural areas by the clause. First, while an order made by a local authority was being put to the Secretary of State, tenants who wished to buy in the area affected would not know whether they were to be able to buy on normal terms or on the special terms provided in the clause. This could deter tenants from applying, or even cast doubt on the status of the applications of those who did apply. To complicate matters yet further, it would still be for the Secretary of State, rather than the landlord, to designate the regions from which future purchasers must come where a locality covenant was to be imposed on right to buy sales. He would also still have to give or withhold consent, where a landlord wished to impose a pre-emption condition rather than a locality covenant.
The amendment would also give rise to confusion, because the orders made by local authorities would not, of course, be statutory instruments, as they would be if they were made by the Secretary of State. This raises a constitutional point, which I do not propose to stress, but it would also mean that there would be no authoritative source readily available outside the local authority, in which an interested third party could check precise boundaries within which a restriction on resale could be imposed.
This clause gives no genuine new element of discretion to local authorities, and I submit succeeds rather in muddying the waters. I would suggest, on administrative grounds alone, that the other place was right in disagreeing with it. I hope your Lordships will accept this explanation, and I beg to move.

§ Baroness BIRK
My Lords, I personally disagree with it enormously, but again I am not going to press my disagreement. I disagree with the reason: that it would be inappropriate for orders to be made by local authorities rather than by the Secretary of State. Our amendment, however, says "the local 1615 authority with the consent of the Secretary of State". Therefore, the local authority would not make an order on its own.
I will not rehearse all the arguments which have been used before—that again this is taking away the autonomy of local authorities, and that the Secretary of State would have the last word on it. In fact, if the amendment were accepted, a local authority would be in the same position as in the amendment which the Government have put forward on housing for the elderly, where the local authority takes the initiative and the Secretary of State determines. That is exactly what should happen here. It should not be, as the Government keep on talking about, a question of the local authority being able to take the initiative. But that initiative should be written into the Bill, so that the local authority can have very much more of a say and be very much more of an equal partner with the Secretary of State than it is. However, we have been through this many times before, so I shall not delay the House any further.

§ Lord HYLTON
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said about the technical considerations. I suppose that these may explain the single word "inappropriate" in Reason No. 6. By itself, it looks hardly adequate to have just one adjective as the reason for refusing an amendment. I should like to ask when the Secretary of State will publish criteria by which special rural areas are to be defined. Will these criteria be circulated in draft for comment by interested parties? And when do the Government expect that everybody will know where the areas are and what is to happen? This is going to have quite a considerable effect on the rights of individual, would-be purchasers.

§ Lord HATCH of LUSBY
My Lords, I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am somewhat puzzled by the Minister's speech in support of the rejection of this amendment, because it is quite different from the reasons which he gave in speaking against the amendment when we were debating it. This amendment was carried by this House because there are many Members of this House who are desperately anxious about 1616 the preservation of the rural areas of this country and the facilities within those areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has pointed out, just to say that our amendment is inappropriate is almost contemptuous of the debate which took place in this House. It is very weak to suggest that the reason for it being inappropriate is that orders should be made by the Secretary of State rather than by local authorities. Nobody has questioned this. The orders will, according to the amendment, be made by the Secretary of State, but on the advice of and at the request of the local authorities, who surely know more about their own areas and their own needs than does the Secretary of State.
As one who has been fighting, all the way through the Bill, for the rights of rural areas, may I ask the Minister once again a question which he has never answered, right from Second Reading onwards: What are the criteria that are going to be used to define a rural area as distinct from a place of natural beauty and the national parks? I hope that since our last encounter the noble Lord has taken the opportunity to visit the Worth Valley which I mentioned to him and which is only 10 miles away from Leeds, where he would have seen exactly what I have been trying to impress upon him: that there are very many areas in this country which could be defined by one person as rural and by another person as urban. May I ask the noble Lord to respond to the request of his noble friend Lord Hylton and to say how the criteria are going to be settled and when they are going to be published.

§ Lord BELLWIN
My Lords, could I say, first, that I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, thinks I have been doing since we had the debate to which he refers. If I had had the opportunity to visit my own home or the areas surrounding it I should have been pleased indeed, and I look forward to that pleasure before too long. So I have to tell the noble Lord that I have been unable to take advantage of the suggestion which he made, but that I certainly undertake so to do. I am sure that I shall then concur with him about the pleasantness which I shall see there.
Other than that, I feel as unable to answer some of the other observations 1617 which the noble Lord has made as I am to answer my noble friend Lord Hylton. However, I will certainly write to my noble friend and, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is interested, I will gladly send a copy to him. I have to say, however, that I understand that it is not for me in this House, at least on this occasion, even were I able—which I have said I am not—to go behind the reasons produced by the Committee which deals with reasons in another place, or even to try to give details of their arguments. Certainly at this stage I am in no position to do so. Having said that, I will try to get all the information I can and to send it both to my noble friend and to the noble Lord.
Before I sit down—I do not think we want a long debate—may I say that I understand entirely that this, like other points which have been made, is one of the areas where we disagree. However, as I said earlier and repeat again, we have accepted a great number of amendments. The ones which we did not accept we fought over and then came to a conclusion upon. What we are now dealing with is the residue of that which went to the other place. I hope that in the interests of moving on with the business and knowing that many of these matters were pretty tightly decided at the end of the day—I am not sure that this was one of them; I suspect that it was not—your Lordships will not insist on the amendment.