HL Deb 13 March 1984 vol 449 cc682-701

6.2 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill extends the rights of council tenants in Scotland. It increases the discounts available to tenants wishing to buy their own houses who have lived in public housing for more than 20 years. It makes further changes to the right to buy, and it introduces a right to repair for those tenants who continue renting.

It is clear that the Government's policy on council house sales has been closely in tune with the wishes of Scottish tenants. Since 1979, more than 85,000 public sector tenants in Scotland have expressed an interest in buying their homes. Over 46,000 sales have been completed, and over 1.000 new applications are being received every month. In broad terms, we will shortly reach the stage where one in every 20 eligible tenants will have bought their homes. There are, however, some groups of tenants who merit more generous help towards buying their homes, and some areas of the existing legislation which have led to unnecessary difficulties. The present Bill deals with these matters as well as extending the rights of those who remain renting. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to turn now to consider its detailed provisions.

Clause 1 increases the maximum discount available when a tenant exercises his right to buy from 50 per cent. after 20 years' tenancy to a new ceiling of 60 per cent. after 30 or more years' tenancy. We believe that this change will be of particular benefit to older tenants wishing to buy, for whom the additional entitlement could be crucial to their decision. We believe that there are some 350,000 tenants in Scotland who stand to benefit from the extra discount. Secondly, Clause 1 reduces from three years to two the length of tenancy which qualities a tenant to exercise the right to buy, and in consequence adjusts the discount scale to start at 32 per cent. after two years rather than 33 per cent. after three years. This change will extend the right to buy to a further 30,000 tenants.

Finally, Clause 1 replaces local authorities' discretion to count time spent living in a house as a child of a tenant towards the qualifying period for the right to buy with a requirement to do so. Some authorities have made clear that because of their general opposition to the right to buy they have no intention of exercising this discretion, even in the most deserving cases. This is clearly contrary to the spirit in which your Lordships endorsed the earlier legislation, and it gives rise to very real inequities. We have concluded that it would be fairer to the tenants concerned to replace the present discretion by a requirement that in all cases councils must count time spent as child of a tenant.

Clause 2 is concerned with the tenancies which may be counted towards the right to buy and discount. Section 1(10) of the 1980 Act lists a number of Government bodies whose former tenants may count their tenancy towards their entitlement, including the armed forces, the Forestry Commission and the health boards. We have received a number of representations that periods spent as tenants of other Government bodies should also qualify, and Clause 2 extends the list to include the coastguard service, the lighthouse service, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Ministry of Defence and a state hospital. The clause also empowers my right honourable friend to add further bodies to the list by order should this prove desirable.

Clause 3 was introduced in response to representations in another place. It repeals the present restriction on submitting second applications to buy one's council house within 12 months of withdrawing an earlier application. This ban on re-applications was designed to deter frivolous applications. There is no corresponding ban under the English legislation, and this does not appear to have caused them any problems. We believe that the time has now come when the ban on re-applications in Scotland can be repealed. Taken with the transitional provisions in Clause 1, this means that tenants who stand to benefit from the changes in the Bill, and who, when the Bill takes effect, have not yet accepted an offer from their landlord to sell the house at a certain discount, or who have withdrawn their application in anticipation of the legislation, may submit a fresh application straightaway. Those who have submitted an application but not yet received an offer when the Bill takes effect will, of course, be entitled to an offer on the basis of the new arrangements.

Clauses 4 and 6 were introduced following representations made by the islands councils which received widespread support in another place. Islands councils, unlike the district councils, are both housing and education authorities, and teachers who rent houses from the islands councils therefore have the right to buy or to continue renting once their employment as a teacher has come to an end, even though their house is provided specifically for a teacher in a particular school.

This has caused problems in remote areas for the islands authorities; and Clause 4 empowers islands councils to apply to my right honourable friend for consent to refuse an application to buy if the house concerned is required by the council in connection with its functions as an education authority. Clause 6 deals with the related problem and provides that an islands council may apply to the sheriff court for recovery of possession of a teacher's house once his employment has ended. The islands council would, of course, need to satisfy the court that it required the house for the accommodation of another teacher and that suitable alternative accommodation had been offered to the present tenant.

I should now like to turn to our proposals for strengthening the rights of the many tenants who will continue to rent their homes. Clause 7 proposes a significant new addition to the rights which we introduced in 1980, which have become known as the tenants' charter. It enables my right honourable friend to introduce a scheme, to be detailed in regulations, giving public sector tenants a right to carry out repairs which would otherwise be the responsibility of their landlord, and to be reimbursed. Clause 5, which was introduced following representations in another place, extends the right to public sector tenants of tied housing who are excluded from security of tenure but who enjoy a number of the other rights of the tenants' charter. We believe that the introduction of the right to repair, which is a manifesto commitment, will help to alleviate the widespread dissatisfaction with local authority repair services and will give redress to those tenants who have to wait an inordinate length of time for even routine and relatively minor repairs.

My department has consulted a range of interested organisations about the detailed operation of the scheme, and there have also been very full discussions on these proposals in another place. As a result, many useful and constructive suggestions have been made for the working of the scheme, and the Government have already accepted some changes to the proposals. For example, the Bill has been amended in another place to provide that disputes arising under the right to repair scheme might be referred to independent arbitration, as an alternative to the sheriff court.

Most of the responses received on the department's consultation paper have related to matters such as the time limits and procedures to be observed under the scheme, the repairs which would be excluded from the scheme and the appropriate levels and methods of payment. We are still considering these comments, the last of which were only received last month, prior to drafting the necessary regulations. Indeed, your Lordships' own views will be an important stage in the process of reaching final decisions on the scope of the scheme. We have undertaken to make the regulations setting up the scheme available in draft in due course, and we will provide a further opportunity for interested organisations to comment before they are laid before Parliament.

This Bill makes a number of useful changes to the right to buy and the tenants' charter. I believe that these changes are in tune with the wishes of tenants in Scotland for greater freedom and choice in housing matters. There is considerable evidence that there is a much stronger preference for owner-occupation in Scotland than is reflected in the existing tenure pattern. The right to buy gives many people currently living in council houses what is probably their only practical chance to become home owners, and the majority of the provisions in this Bill are intended to improve and extend the application of that right. We are equally concerned, however, to extend the rights and freedom of tenants who do not wish to buy. For these tenants, the proposed new right to repair would be a significant and welcome addition to the provisions of the tenants' charter.

I commend this Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will give it your support. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)

6.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, this Bill is really a very small thing in relation to Scotland's housing needs: in fact, in Scotland the Government have such a poor record in housing that one could be forgiven for harbouring the thought that the highly controversial subject of council house sales was being specially introduced to divert attention from their failure in the whole field of house building. The Government keep stressing the importance they give to house ownership. I believe it is one of the great myths that this Government and the party opposite have been perpetrating on the people of Scotland for a long time. The figures are that in 1978–79, under a Labour Government, in the private sector in Scotland 16,600 houses were built. In 1979 there were 15.400 and in 1980, with the present Government in power, the figure had fallen to 9,700. That was after the promises made by the party opposite during the 1979 election.

There has been some improvement since then, but the figures for public and private house building in Scotland are still well below the figure inherited by the present Government from the Labour Government in 1979, and we thought that our figures then were very inadequate in many cases to meet Scotland's problems. Perhaps the cruellest blow of all, in terms of housing in the private sector, was the way in which the Government abruptly cut the improvement and repairs grants, leaving very many people not knowing where they stood and leaving many local authorities with real problems in terms of legal commitments to contractors and house owners.

In the area of Glasgow which I represented and where I still live, the great improvements to properties, largely because of the far-sightedness of the Labour Government and that of the Scottish Office under my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, meant that many families are able to live in the inner cities again; and had those improvements not been made, houses would certainly have been demolished. They were able to improve some of our oldest and what we now see as some of our best tenement property, which allows families to live in decent conditions. New roofs, new windows and guttering have given all those houses and flats a new lease of life and made decent homes for people to live in.

I am aware that we are not discussing improvement or repair grants on that scale today, and particularly in the second part of the Bill dealing with house repairs. But I believe that it is important to put this Bill into perspective and to point out that we as a party have always been conscious of the importance of housing, whether public or private. We have done a great deal in both sectors—much more, I would suggest, than the party represented by the noble Lord who introduced this debate. The increase in the rebate from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. maximum may be seen by some people as another attempt to divert attention from the real problem of housing by dealing with what is undoubtedly a controversial matter, particularly in Scotland.

I should like to make it absolutely clear that we have never opposed the right of local authorities or public bodies to sell houses or other property that were surplus to requirements. The real objection we have always had in respect of the selling of council houses was that it was not the local authorities which were able to make a decision on the basis of the needs of their electors and citizens: the decision as to whether it was right or not to sell certain properties was taken away from them and given to individual tenants, without any thought of waiting-lists which the councils still had the problem of dealing with. The arguments have all been put so often that I am sure the Minister will be well briefed for his replies. But perhaps he will be good enough to bring up-to-date some of the figures which we have been given on the sale of council houses.

When the original decision was made to permit tenants to purchase houses at these high discounts, we on this side said that the best houses would be snapped up and that very few flats or even houses in the less desirable areas would be sold. We believed that the best of our houses were being removed from the rented sector, and that the opportunity of people to transfer out of less desirable areas would be greatly reduced. We have had very few figures from the Government to show whether or not that is true. We still suspect that it is true and that very few houses in less desirable areas have been bought by their tenants.

I know that the Scottish Office monitors all the facts about the sale of houses, and I wonder whether the Minister could write to me or could give me some answers tonight about some of the points which people in Scotland would like to know about. For example, I do not know—and I doubt whether anyone outside the Government knows—the precise details of how figures are kept. But I am sure that we could easily be told how many sales inquiries for houses and flats have been made in Scotland: how many flats and terraced houses have been sold; how many two in a block or semidetached houses have been sold; what is the breakdown between post-war and pre-war houses—because, by and large, pre-war houses were built on estates that are considered more desirable than the others—and what are the proportions, as well as how many system-built houses, both pre-war and post-war, have been sold.

These are important figures for us to know. I have never seen them published, but they would give us some measure as to whether our criticisms that the Government were doing great damage to the housing situation in Scotland were true. It would also be interesting to have the figures broken down into the 56 housing authorities in Scotland. I should also like to know—I did not see it in the report of the Committee stage in the other place—whether there is any estimate of the additional purchases that are likely to be made because of the increase in the discount from 50 to 60 per cent.

I was very interested to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, of the next part of the Bill dealing with the tenants' rights of repair, particularly when he said that great attention was paid to this aspect during Committee stage in another place. I read the report of that Committee stage with great interest, as well as Circular 268 which was issued by the Scottish Development Department. I was very glad that we had a circular from the SDD which was truly and genuinely consultative.

But having read it, and having looked at the report of some of the proceedings in Committee in the other place, I was left with the strong feeling that the people who drew up Circular 268 were shouting "Help", because there is very little in the circular that gives us any assurance—I say this with sadness—that this scheme will really work. I do not blame those people and I think that they have tried very hard. They have tried to put together a scheme that was thought of by Ministers as a sensible, reasonable and genuine attempt to find a way to get modest repairs done quickly and inexpensively. But I am sure that the actual working out of any such scheme has been a bit of a nightmare.

The truth is that repairs in the rented sector, whether the property is owned by private or public landlords, have never been easily organised. I am sure that the Minister, with his experience of surgeries when he was in another place, knows that a very high proportion of the people who went to see him were concerned about the difficulty of getting repairs done in both public and private housing. The whole question of timely repairs is so important. Over many decades, the problem has been ignored by landlords—public and private, but mainly private—and, if they had been done at the proper time, much of the rehabilitation of which I spoke earlier would not have been necessary. Expensive repairs would not have been needed, if some of the basic repairs had been carried out when they should have been.

The Minister referred to the fact that there are already common law rights for the ordinary tenant to have his repairs carried out. He indicated that the Government are looking at some way of making an appeal rather than going to the sheriff, which is a recognition of the difficulties that there are for ordinary people in fighting any sort of bureaucracy. Despite having the right to have repairs done, they are frequently ignored and only the most tenacious and self-confident tenants, with the stamina, the money and the expertise, will pursue and, if necessary, prosecute their landlords, whether in the public or the private sector.

I am aware of the experiment in Havering. I do not know of any experiments of a like nature that are taking place in any other part of the country. Perhaps the Minister will be able to let us know about this scheme before the Committee stage, because I should certainly like to discuss with the people of Havering their experience of the repair system that is operating there. I understand that it is very much a curate's egg and good in parts, but I should like to find out what their experience has been. If the Minister knows of any other examples that I could follow up. I should be delighted to hear about them, because I believe that there is very little experience in this field.

I know that Shelter, Age Concern, the Scottish Consumers' Council and other groups have all expressed real fears and reservations about this Bill. I am sure that they will all be consulted again by the Minister and by the SDD before any final decisions are taken. Also, I hope that we in this House will be given an opportunity of discussing these reservations fairly exhaustively. Jobbing work in the building industry, which is the type of repair that we are talking about, is notoriously difficult to monitor. It is particularly difficult to see whether a job is done properly and at the correct time, but is the best insurance against heavy maintenance, and perhaps even the total loss of a property.

I do not believe that the scheme put forward in this Bill is a workable solution, and I would have been much happier if a scheme had been put forward by the Government which was totally separate from the whole question of the purchase of municipally and publicly owned housing. Housing repairs are a major problem and they should be dealt with on a cross-party basis. By tacking this on to a Bill about the purchase of houses, the Government have not done a service to the idea and to a very good intention.

The controversial question of selling houses which have been built at public expense has damaged what could have been at least part of the solution to housing repairs. At least it would have been a start. Something needs to be done about housing repairs in both sectors of housing. I hope that the Bill will bring that about, but I very much doubt whether it will. We shall put down amendments for the Committee stage. By then, because of what happened in another place, the Minister will have a great deal more information to give to the Committee. Therefore, I hope that by cooperation and consultation this part of the Bill will be improved and made to work, otherwise many houses in Scotland will be lost altogether. In order to save them we need to do something very soon.

6.31 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, we on these Benches can back the idea of the ownership and sale of houses to tenants with perhaps more fervour than can those who sit on the Benches of the Labour Party. However, the Government have an extraordinary facility for upsetting those who are sympathetic to their ideas by producing extraordinary legislation. When we dealt with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which we are now amending, all sorts of practical objections were raised not only by the Labour Party but by those in local authorities up and down the land who support the Government, but for extraordinarily doctrinaire reasons the Government paid no attention to them.

My party supported the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place in the hope that the Government would pay some attention to them. One or two good features were incorporated in the Bill during the Committee stage, and the three clauses which the Bill originally contained when it arrived in the other place have been expanded to seven. Nevertheless, despite the figure which the Minister gave to us, I do not understand why the bribe, the incentive to buy, has been increased to 60 per cent. Since the Minister is very delighted with the progress being made in Scotland, with 1,000 new applications being received every month, it is most extraordinary that the incentive has to be increased. It does not appear to me to be logical for the party of sensible business and hard thinking to adopt such a course. One wonders why the Government are doing it. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government are not doing it to raise as much money as possible and then to spend it as ordinary income in order to keep down their contribution. I hope it does not mean that we are selling off capital assets at a cheaper and cheaper rate in order to support current expenditure. However, that is what this kind of action appears to be.

If the Government are serious about the provision of houses, the money they receive should go towards supporting a capital account—which the Government should support even further—in order to build new houses for sale to tenants on a co-operative basis. The Government cannot say that the sole objective is to sell houses. I am in favour of people owning their own homes. They look after them far better, because of the pride of ownership. Ownership is excellent. However, the other factors appear to have been totally ignored by the Government. One has only to look at the building industry to see the enormous amount of unemployment which exists. Nearly half a million construction workers are unemployed in Great Britain. They are each being supported at a cost of well over 100 a week. Scottish firms are working at 70 per cent., and under, of their capacity. In view of the need to revive the economy in a sensible way, the Government ought to be allying their sale of houses to the provision of capital to increase the stock of houses for private sale, if necessary, and councils ought to be encouraged to provide houses for those on the appallingly long housing lists which still exist in Scotland. Very little in the Bill will achieve that result.

The Bill contains one or two sensible features. One clause will allow the islands, in particular the Orkney and Shetland region, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission not to sell tied housing to teachers. It is extraordinary that this power cannot be granted to the islands councils. It is being dealt with the wrong way round. The Government are going the right way about making local councils far less responsible than the councils at which they are now aiming. The Orkney and Shetland Islands are not the only places where teachers are provided with council housing. They may not necessarily be provided with their accommodation by the local authority, but there are plenty of places where this happens.

There are many other factors of rural life for which the Bill makes no provision. An example is the provision of retirement houses for farm workers. The tied house system, in my experience, and probably in the experience of many other people who might oppose it in principle, works very well in practice if there is a retirement house for the agricultural worker to go to when he retires. In Angus and a number of other counties, such provision has been made and it is of immense value to the community. If a farm worker has provided his own accommodation—which is what he has been doing by means of his service—for 40 years at no cost to the community, he deserves to have a retirement house in his own area to which he may go.

The Government have made it very difficult for councils to retain the small houses which they have built for retirement. They cannot be bought by the people who live in them. If they are sold, they are nearly always bought by the family because they know that it is a good investment. However, it is not a right which the people who live in those houses particularly want, nor is it one that they can really take advantage of; and it is of considerable embarrassment to the local councils.

I am glad that the Government have recognised in the Bill that Orkney is a special case. If, however, they look around the countryside of Scotland they will see that there are many other special cases. It is a great pity that the Bill does not contain a number of other clauses—though I hope we may be able to add them during the Committee stage—which would benefit the rural community and do a great deal of good for the people of this country.

Turning to repairs, we all know of councils whose record is quite appalling. No council's record is very good, particularly those of the large councils. We know of many instances where people can wait for repairs until they die without those repairs being carried out. We know also that repairs cost a great deal of money in many cases. But when the Government are framing the regulations they will need to pay attention to the difficulties which may arise. Quite competent people looking at this clause have said that it might end up creating bigger delays in repairs and much more paperwork and expense than a much simpler system of forcing councils to pay more attention to this matter might do. We will await the regulations when they come before Parliament, but I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister say that there was to be time for a great deal of consultation all round the place with people who know. I see from the Minister's nodding that he does confirm that.

I will say little more. This is not one of the great, stirring Bills. Your Lordships are not present here in large numbers and I dare say that a great deal more interest has been roused by what has been going on in another place today than by this Bill. But this Bill is important to a lot of people in Scotland and we shall have to work hard in Committee to improve it still further.

6.41 p.m.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, this Bill, albeit simple, is of some importance to the people of Scotland. I would express the hope—and if I were a praying man, I would pray—that the Minister and the Government will give the fullest and most careful consideration to what my noble friend said, particularly in the opening part of his speech, which surely went to the crux of the Scottish housing problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, dwelt on this point also in his opening remarks. He asked some very pertinent, sensible and useful questions—which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. But listening to the noble Lord's opening remarks, it seemed that he was tending to paint a picture of only the Labour Party being truly concerned with the Scottish housing problem, glossing over the circumstance that perhaps the Labour Party have had their fair share, in both national and local government, of dealing with that problem. They must accordingly share the blame with other governments who have not dealt with the problem as radically and effectively as they should have done. This little Bill comes to us from another place at least better than when it first went there. We shall wish to consider a number of matters in Committee which will further improve the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said that his party had never opposed the sale of houses. He was referring to the provisions in the 1980 Act which preceded this Bill. I am not sure that this is a crucial matter which we need to dwell upon at any length. It has been argued over by the dogmatists of both parties, and perhaps of all parties, ad nauseam and I do not wish to add to that. But there is some evidence of Labour councils—and I live in the district of one of them—dragging their feet over this matter. If this evidence is well-founded, I wonder whether the Government have applied their minds to putting the matter right; to putting right the anxiety that some of the dogmatists in local government—particularly in Scotland—aim to frustrate, in this context, the will of Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government have given any thought to corrective action that might be taken in this area.

This is the kind of Bill upon which it is immensely difficult to make a Second Reading speech and I am sure that everything that can be said has been said. I would give a reserved welcome to the Bill. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, in introducing this Bill, made the best of it—as he always does. Much of what is in the Bill is welcome and no doubt, after your Lordships have considered the Bill in Committee, it will be in even better shape.

6.46 p.m.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, I welcome this Bill for two reasons. First, it is infinitely better drafted than the English Bill; one can read it very nearly with pleasure, which one certainly cannot do with the English Bill. Secondly, one of the gravest weaknesses in Scotland is the very low percentage of owner-occupation. It must be one of the lowest percentages in Western civilised countries. The general feeling in this country is that something of the order of 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the population want to own their houses. In Scotland, the figure today is something in the region of 38 per cent. or 40 per cent.—which is not very much more than half the level existing in England at the present time.

This Bill will be a great step forward and I hope it will be taken advantage of to the full. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said that the position is very serious in Scotland. We must think of this: for half a century, Parliament, on all sides, has sought earnestly to improve housing conditions. It is sad that it has not been more successful. This is not a party matter. I believe that almost all of us have the same picture of what we want to see in housing, but no doubt we want to apply different methods. I must say that the results today are unsatisfactory. This is a small but important measure which I believe will be of value and I hope it will be extensively used. The figures which my noble friend has given are encouraging.

I was interested in the special position of educational housing. Is my noble friend sure that education is the only type of occupational housing which may cause difficulties? There are many other types, such as those for coastguards and lighthouse keepers. Incidentally, a much wider range of people comes within the scope of this Bill: for example, the Atomic Energy Authority and defence—which are not, I think, in the English Bill—and certainly I do not remember coastguards or lighthouse keepers being in the English Bill. That is an admirable thing. I want to ask my noble friend, how does Trinity House come into all this? I was not aware that Trinity House had any property in Scotland; I am only interested to know.

Finally, may we please have an assurance that this Bill with the 1980 Bill be consolidated at an early date? It is not good practice to have two Bills affecting land tenure within four years of each other. That is not fair on those who have to make developments. Can my noble friend the Minister give some assurance that he is thinking benevolently about trying to get this Bill consolidated as early as possible?

6.49 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having given us the benefit of his wisdom in respect of the Bill and told us what it contains. It is true that when it first saw the light of day it effectively had only two clauses and an introduction clause, Clause 3. It now has nine clauses, so let us congratulate the Government on their fertility in spawning legislation.

Even at Second Reading we were told about a very important forthcoming amendment. At Second Reading we were told about one of the new rights, but the Minister did not go too far on this. I think that about the only thing the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, welcomed were the new clauses relating to education. He gave a very gloomy speech for an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's right to buy. He touched on many of the things which we dealt with in the 1980 Act and which the Government would not listen to. I am surprised at even his memory of enthusiasm at that time. It should have been damped by now.

The most important thing right away is the fact that the Government have decided to extend the discount from 50 to 60 per cent. The upper limit was 20 years' occupation and the discount was 50 per cent; now it will be 30 years and over and up to 60 per cent. We are talking about a considerable sum of money. We should remember that these are not the Government's but local authorities' assets. On the simple matter of discretion, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, wanted, it is a denial of discretion to local government when authorities are told that they must sell off their assets if somebody who qualifies wants to buy them.

I believe that there has been a great rush in Scotland to buy houses. I think the number is about 40,000 out of 1 million. That was the figure quoted by the Secretary of State at Second Reading. He says that with the extension in the Bill 350,000 will now be able to buy. I should like what I am about to say to be confirmed by the Government. We have had very few statistics as to how the proposal will work out. Forty-one per cent. of those who have bought their houses have done so at the upper limit—20 years or more. Many people who would have been entitled to the extension in the Bill have already bought their houses. If only they had waited, they would have had another bonus.

I do not know the reason for or the logic behind this legislation, unless the Government merely want to get rid of the burden of supporting local authority housing through the housing support grant. If we look at the figures, we find that Government support for housing has been decimated. It is just not the case that local authorities will be able to build on the basis of what they will get from this. They are not building and the Government are refusing the capital to build. The story that my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove told about the Government's attitude to housing is true. It never was worse. Over 155,000 people in Scotland are waiting for housing. They cannot get it. There are no new houses because so few are being built. That is the local authority side of the problem. My noble friend Lord Carmichael also spoke about the inadequacy of private building. I do not think that today's news will help in any way over modernisation if it is to become more costly.

Let us look at this business. The legislation makes two changes. What a change of heart for the Conservatives! This may have happened when the noble Lord was in another place. I remember what two noble Lords said. One of them has now departed this world. In those days council tenants were shiftless. The one who is still with us described them as second-class citizens. I remember how they used to photograph their cars and say their rents were far too low.

Why is the Secretary of State doing this? Why is he giving them the benefit of this 60 per cent.? The words that he used are interesting. He said that the change would be: of particular benefit to older tenants wishing to buy"— the Minister also said that— and recognises the additional years that they have been contributing"— at one time they were sponging but now they are contributing— through rents, to the maintenance of their homes".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/83; col. 183.] The Government recognise that after all these years: for 30 years these tenants have been supporting housing. That is not what the Conservatives have been saying for the past 50 years. They are doing this because it suits them.

I admit that people are getting benefit. What has been happening though? What was the average cost of a house in Scotland? I think that I have the figures here. They were worked out by the Scottish Consumer Council and not by the Government. The average selling price was £15,227. The average discount was 45 per cent., so in other words the price was £8,375. That is almost £7,000 given away. Under this legislation anyone buying will get an extra £1,500. What is the justification for that, unless it is just a mad scramble to up the number of those who own their own houses?

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, deplored the lack of owner-occupation in Scotland, but the whole thing is historical. There was a mobile population. Scots people went about looking for work. The Scots moved from one place to another. They moved to England and back to Scotland. No one took exception to the fact that there were houses available for them to rent. Many a good Scottish laird lived long enough off the rents that he got for tenement property in Glasgow until we decided, through legislation, that they were unfit for human occupation. Governments were left with this legacy of poor housing in Scotland, which is one of the worst situations in Europe. It was not the local authorities which put up the slums or made money from them. It was the people supported by noble Lords opposite. The cry was mobility of labour. When owner-occupation became the thing between the wars, what was happening in Scotland? There was unemployment. People who are unemployed do not buy houses. I remember in the town in which I live that many a person got a house on a council estate (and was proud of it) because the person already there could not pay the rent. There is a whole history to the Scottish attitude to housing. This is why I deplore what the Government are doing.

We are to have the 60 per cent. because it was introduced in England. We have the sudden change in the reduction of the qualifying period from three to two years because that was done in England. There is no independent thought. Do not tell us about manifestos. If anyone should know that the Tory Party manifesto in Scotland was discarded, it is the noble Lord the Minister. Had people liked that manifesto, he might still be in another place.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, in Ross and Cromarty they did not like that of the party of the noble Lord either!

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the fact that we have 42 Members in the other place and the Government have only 21 means that they are in a permanent minority in Scotland, and will remain so. But let us get back to this matter. What justification is there for someone moving into a house, paying rent for two years and then being eligible for a discount of 32 per cent.? Is there any businessman on the other side of the House who can justify that? You get into a house, you pay the rent for two years and then you are entitled to a 32 per cent. discount on the value of that house if you purchase it. This is a give-away, an absolute give-away.

I am not going to claim to be able to justify this or support it; but we do not vote against such Bills on Second Reading in this House. It is a great pity we do not, because the generosity of this Government in respect of public property—be it Hamilton College or be it somebody else's property, council property—is really astounding from the point of view of people who claim to be businessmen.

I am not going to speak very long on the repair side. My noble friend has said more or less what I should have liked to say. I should like people to have the right to have repairs done. Some local authorities are good, some are bad. I can tell your Lordships of some private landlords who are good and some who are bad. I wish we could apply this to private tenanted property as well, but I suppose that will come later, this great right to buy and right to repair.

I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was delighted about this Bill, and the way it was written. What comfort can we take from these words: The Secretary of State may"— and no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will change this when we come to Committee, because, if they really mean it, it is "he 'shall' do it"— by regulations make a scheme entitling a tenant, and so on. We are not going to see it; we do not know it. They have put out a circular at the moment and are asking for comments. They do not yet know what they are going to do. I have heard various suggestions: that the repairs are not to be minor repairs; that they are to cost at least £20, and the upper limit is going to be £200.

May I again remind the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that this has nothing to do with the major things that may be required, and many of these houses will need structural repairs. How much will it take to repair a house in, say, the Gorbals, for which there is this pervasive, insoluble problem of dampness? Is that going to be dealt with under this provision? Of course it is not. So let us not kid people about what is going to be done here, and let us not kid people about how easy it is gong to be. If you are going to employ somebody to do a thing, you have got to be covered by insurance for that person doing it.

Furthermore, the local authority must be assured that what is being done is right in respect of them, because thereafter they have got to bear the responsibility for it. No private landlord will accept repairs simply because they have been done. If he did not do them, if he did not authorise them, he will not accept liability for what happens thereafter. When you take into account the delays, the notices, the counter-notices, the number of days given for this, the number of days given for that, bureaucracy will run riot over this thing.

What about the old lady who wants something done to her house that may cost £25,000 or £30,000? The suggestion has been made in the Bill that eventually she will go to the sheriff. There is no old lady living in a local authority house who will go to the sheriff over this or anything else if she can help it; and yet she has to spend the money before she is reimbursed.

I hope the Members who receive the Age Concern (Scotland) leaflet will be assured about this one, because they think that the majority of old people in receipt of housing benefit will not be able to afford to carry out a repair and then wait for the landlord to reimburse them. So we are talking now about a repair benefit to a minority of people. Do not discount the number of old people who are in local authority housing. There are 264,000 pensioners in Scotland who live alone, the majority on housing benefit, and the majority of them live in local authority houses. Do not talk about these people buying their own homes and weaving their way through all the regulations, which even we have not seen yet.

The noble Lord did say he was going to produce them. Is he going to produce them before we have finished? I have not seen them; no one has sent me this particular paper. I believe it is in the Library, where I will get a copy; but this is not the final paper. So do not let the noble Lord under-estimate the difficulties. We all want the repairs done, and we want them to be done speedily; but the local authority should be given the money to do them. That is what is holding them back in many cases just now.

This is a Bill of very limited ambitions, and will not achieve what the Government suggest. They say that 350,000 people will benefit. They will only benefit if they can use the right. Many of them will not want to use the right, many of them will not be able to use the right; so please do not give us this maximising of figures that do not mean a thing in this respect.

I am delighted that we are going to have the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, at the Committee stage with amendments to this Bill. I certainly look very kindly and carefully towards them in view of the kind of things they have said. The same goes, too, in respect of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I am perfectly sure he will, as he has done before, try and make this Bill a little more readily understandable; but let him look again at Clause 7 with these regulations. The intention is there, but it has got to be translated into regulations, which we have not seen—and when we see them I bet most of the old-age pensioners in Scotland, for whose benefit this is going to be done, will not be able to understand a word.

7.5 p.m.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, we have had a useful if short, debate, giving this Bill a welcome to this House—if not on all sides, a welcome for what it contains. But I have no doubt that by the time we have gone through our usual processes we will, as always, have discussed the Bill in detail and perhaps we may all be a little better disposed towards it.

May I first of all deal with some of the particular points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, when he opened for the official Opposition? Lord Carmichael asked me about an estimate of additional sales as a result of the increase in discount. Perhaps I could say to him that our estimate is that, with the discount being increased from 50 to 60 per cent., between 350,000 and 400,000 local authority tenants will have the opportunity of perhaps benefiting in that way. I would perhaps elaborate a little more on that. He also asked me how many of these tenants will be encouraged to buy by the increased discount. Of course, it is speculative, obviously, but we think the additional figure might be around perhaps 4,000, subject to considerable variations. But there is little doubt that the number which I originally quoted, between 350,000 and 400.000, is the number of those who conceivably could benefit.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, could the Minister expand on that? He says now getting away from the 350,000 and is coming down to something like 4,000. Is that 4,000 annually or over a period?

Lord Gray of Contin

No, my Lords; it is 4,000 over a period, not 4,000 annually. I gave a number of figures in my opening remarks which dealt with the number of houses which have been sold, the number of transactions which had taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to 40,000. In fact, the figure is 46,000 at the present moment, and there are a great many inquiries, at the rate of about 1,000 a month, which is interesting.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also asked me about figures on sales. My department published a statistical bulletin in February this year giving details of sales completed, including size, type of dwelling sold, year of construction and the age of the houses sold, the average selling price, the average discount and the source of finance. I shall ensure that a copy of this bulletin is made available to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also suggested that it was the best houses which were being sold. The situation is that, perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of sales have been of semi-detached and terraced houses with gardens, and that sales have tended to be higher in the more popular areas. This is as one might expect. But under local authority allocation policies it tends to be the older tenants who are probably at the peak of their earning powers and most interested in buying who qualify for the more desirable houses. However, sales are taking place across the board and across the middle range of the housing stock. Indeed, the initiatives that have taken place in Glasgow and Edinburgh have shown that even when the most unpopular houses (for example, multi-storey flats) are offered, it is not right to assume that no tenant will be interested in purchasing. Such houses can attract strong interest from people who wish to buy.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me some idea of how the sales in the rural areas compare with those in the urban areas? I understand that for perhaps obvious reasons the sales are very much higher in the rural areas—maybe even double. Can the noble Lord confirm whether that is the case?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, I do not have the exact figures before me, but I shall certainly endeavour to make them available to him. As one might expect, in the rural areas generally there is perhaps a greater desire to own one's home than there has so far been in the cities. This is a policy which we initiated and which is now catching on very well. People are seeing the benefits of home ownership and I believe that as time goes on we shall find that in the cities of Scotland more and more people will wish to own their own homes. Certainly it is our intention to give them every encouragement.

The noble Lord also asked about cuts in improvement grants. Here I would make the point that we have set aside £160 million for local authorities to spend next year under their Block B allocation, which is largely devoted to improvement and repairs grants. Glasgow will receive about half of that sum. We have ensured that authorities will have cover for commitments which they had entered into before we announced that the present arrangements would come to an end. We have always made it absolutely clear that the present arrangements were temporary. They have indeed made a significant contribution to the improvement of the private sector stock. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that next year's figure of £160 million compares with expenditure of £39 million in 1978–79 and £51 million in 1979–80. So I do not think that he is on particularly strong ground when he criticises the present Government's performance regarding improvement grants. The Government have a very proud record on improvement grants, and very many properties have been improved as a result. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether or not the figures that he has given are adjusted to take account of inflation?

Lord Gray of Contin

No, my Lords, they are the actual figures of what is spent. But notwithstanding the inflation which has taken place, I think that the money which has been spent this year is very substantially ahead of inflation-adjusted figures.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked me what was the case for increasing discount to 60 per cent.; and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, also raised this question with me. We took the view that the present discount did not adequately recognise the position of people who had more than 20 years' tenancy. They have been contributing to their homes through rents for many years and for them the extra discount could be crucial to their decision to buy. That was the reason why we decided to offer the additional incentive to those with the extra years of tenancy.

The noble Lord also asked me about sales of council houses to reduce current expenditure. The sale of council houses is releasing resources which may be used for capital programmes, in the form of either new building (where the requirements are largely to meet special need) or modernisation and sustenance of the stock. I can assure the noble Lord that the resources are not applied to support revenue expenditure.

There is one further query which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised with me which I think I should answer. It concerned the financial effect for local authorities of changes in discount. In broad terms we expect any reduction in receipts because of the extra discount to be offset by additional receipts from sales which would not otherwise have taken place.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, raised the question of councils dragging their feet over sales. The position on this is that the Scottish Development Department monitors the situation as it affects different local authorities, and it wrote to local authorities which were failing to make offers within two months of inquiries or failing to complete sales within 12 months of inquiries. As a result of the action which the department has taken, most authorities, I am glad to say, are now making satisfactory progress as well as every effort to try to co-operate with tenants who seek to purchase.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, the noble Lord implies that a number of authorities are not making progress. Is that so? If it is, which are those authorities?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to give him that information now, but I shall certainly write to him to let him know. However, I am happy to say that the vast majority of local authorities are now cooperating.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk welcomed the inclusion in the Bill of the lighthouse service, the Atomic Energy Authority, and other bodies, but he wanted to know how Trinity House fits in. Perhaps I should explain to my noble friend that Clause 2 does not in fact extend the right to buy to tenants of the lighthouse service, the Atomic Energy Authority, and such bodies. Those bodies let houses only in connection with employment with them and obviously it is important to the carrying out of their functions that they should be able to retain such houses. Clause 2 extends the list of bodies former tenancy of whose houses can be counted by tenants of council houses towards the qualifying period for the right to buy and towards discount. Therefore, the reference to Trinity House will enable a council tenant in Scotland, who was previously a tenant of the lighthouse service in England or Wales, to count that tenancy towards the qualifying period for the right to buy.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk also said that he hoped that before too long steps would be taken regarding the consolidation of legislation. He will appreciate that that is not directly a matter for me, but I take note of what he said and I shall make sure that it is passed on.

As on a number of previous occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, spoke last in the debate and he will appreciate that therefore a number of points which he raised have already been dealt with by me as a result of other speakers having raised them, too. The noble Lord asked what was the justification for giving tenants with two years' tenancy a 32 per cent. discount. Sales under the right to buy are sales of occupied dwellings where the tenants have full security of tenure. Any house sold on the open market to a sitting tenant commands a price substantially lower by 30 to 40 per cent. than its value with vacant possession. That is the answer.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that the Bill seeks to extend and to enhance the rights of public sector tenants in Scotland. It is, as I indicated earlier, concerned with freedom of choice. The proposed right to repair will give tenants the freedom that owner-occupiers have always taken for granted to put their own skills to use in carrying out repairs to their home or to engage a contractor to undertake necessary repairs in a way and at a time convenient to them. The improvements being made in the terms of the right to buy will extend real choice over housing tenure to an even larger number of tenants in Scotland, giving many what will probably be their only opportunity to satisfy their desire to become home owners.

I was disappointed that certain noble Lords opposite should seek to limit tenants' freedom and to restrict their choice. The benefits of the existing legislation are already plain to see. Instead of the drab conformity of soulless municipal housing, a welcome diversity is starting to break out in many areas. People, both owners and tenants, are starting to take a new pride and new interest in their homes. The Bill will keep up that momentum. The changes that the Bill makes in the existing tenants' rights legislation are, we believe, not only desirable in themselves but are necessary to keep pace with the changing aspirations of public sector tenants in Scotland. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it is rather important to know whether the noble Lord will endeavour to give us the regulations so far as they have been evolved before the Bill goes into Committee so that we shall have something to work on and perhaps improve.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, before the noble Lord gets up, will he take another question? Will he comment on the point that I was trying to make, but obviously did not make very clearly? If Orkney has problems about teachers' houses, cannot this apply to other rural authorities?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I cannot give the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seeks. I can assure him that the regulations in their final form will not be decided until further consultation has taken place with the local authorities and other interested parties. We shall be deciding on what should go into the regulations as a result, among other things, of deliberations within this House. Therefore, the suggestions that may be put forward by noble Lords opposite will play a useful part in influencing the Government over what might be included in the regulations. It would not be appropriate for me to say that regulations will be completed before the Committee stage because the result of the deliberations of the Committee stage may well be a part of the final composition of the regulations.

So far as the difficulties mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, are concerned, where a mainland education authority lets a schoolhouse to a teacher, the teacher does not have security of tenure or the right to buy under the 1980 Act because the regional council is not a housing authority. This is why the situation is different for the island authorities, where they are both the education authority and the housing authority. So identical problems would not arise on the mainland and in the islands. With those few words, I am sure that we look forward to the other stages of the Bill and to its passage through your Lordships' House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.