HL Deb 03 May 1984 vol 451 cc633-9

3.32 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 4 [Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain dewlling-houses required for educational purposes]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1: Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("later") to ("serve") in line 25.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, I should like to speak also to the remaining amendments which deal with the same matter and are consequential.

Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 27, leave out line 27 and insert ("A refusal by the landlord under"). Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 29, leave out from first ("to") to ("the") and insert ("demonstrate that"). Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 4.

The amendment deals with a particular problem that arises in the islands of Scotland which are all-purpose authorities. I refer to the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland. Under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, teachers' houses on the mainland of Scotland are normally owned by the regional councils and not by the district councils which are the housing authority. The result is that there is no question of the teachers being allowed to purchase the houses. The reasons are fairly obvious. The houses are needed for the school to which they are attached. When it comes to the islands, however, one discovers that as all-purpose authorities they are also the housing authority. As a result, these teachers, unless the original Act had been amended, would have the right to purchase houses. In the remote parts of the mainland and in the islands, it is not possible to get a teacher unless there is a house available.

This is generally recognised. The Government recognised it and therefore amended Clause 4 and gave the right to the local authority, the islands authority, to refuse the purchase of a house provided that they obtained the agreement of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That does not apply to the law in respect of teachers' houses on the mainland. One can imagine how the local authorities feel about not being allowed to judge this matter on their own. They know the situation. They know when a house is needed, and they do not press the matter. There is very little difficulty about it. There are only perhaps one or two towns within the area of the authority, and the matter is settled quite easily. However, to give the right in this way and then to say that the Secretary of State must have the deciding voice is the sticking point.

At one stage I suggested it should not be the Secretary of State but the Lands Tribunal. That did not suit the Government. I then asked what was wrong in allowing the sheriff to decide. He is much more local. He is there and knows the situation. The Government said, "Oh no, we cannot have that". They argued that it would mean another tier. I do not know how the Government regard the Secretary of State; whether or not he is another tier. He seems to be above all things. This time therefore I have proposed that the matter should be left entirely to the islands authority. I have support for that in respect of the law relating to houses of a similar kind on the mainland. The Government carried out an inquiry into the islands authorities. It was conducted by a well known Scot, Sir David Montgomery, who addressed himself to this point. It is interesting to see what he said. I shall not give a long quotation but the Montgomery report states on page 77: It is our view that the cuncils should not be subject to such a control.

That is the Secretary of State. They should instead be allowed to designate certain houses as essential for maintaining education in remote areas. In this way, it would be clearly understood by all concerned that these houses are not available for sale. Other education authorities are not obliged to sell houses in similar circumstances, and our solution would put the islands councils in the same position.… we recommend that the legislation should be further amended to put the islands councils in the same position as other education authorities in Scotland".

That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I think that we might be forgiven if we felt that we had been here before. This is the third occasion during our deliberations when noble Lords opposite have tabled an amendment similar to this. Clause 4 contains the requirement that an islands council must obtain the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before it can issue a notice of refusal to a tenant who wishes to purchase a house which the council needs to retain for educational purposes. Perhaps noble Lords are hoping that on this occasion it may be third time lucky. If that is their hope, I am extremely sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that he is going to be disappointed.

As I explained during our earlier debates in Committee and on Report, the Government accept that the islands councils should not be required to sell houses in remote areas which they require to retain for educational purposes in order to attract another teacher to that area. The difficulty arises, however, over how best to achieve this since the islands authorities are both education and housing authorities. Their tenants are therefore secure tenants and the houses in question do not have any easily distinguishable characteristics which mark them out from the general housing stock.

To leave the islands councils sole judge in their own case would have no precedent in the 1980 tenants rights' legislation, and the Government do not believe that it would be fair to the tenants. While we accept that the islands councils would act responsibly, a discretion to allow a council to refuse the sale of a house which it believed that it might require for housing a teacher at some time in the future is a wide one. It is without precedent in the tenants' rights legislation and it is potentially open to abuse. The noble Lord argued that only the islands councils have the local knowledge to decide whether or not they intend to retain a house. We might as well say that local authorities generally should be given a discretion to sell or refuse to sell any house and that the decision should always be taken locally. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with that.

That was the situation which existed before we introduced the right to buy. The result was that very few houses were sold. At previous stages of the Bill the noble Lord said to me that his party were never at any time against the principle of tenants being able to buy their houses. I reminded him—I think justifiably—that he and his party had paid lip service to the principle of selling council houses while at the same time doing everything in their power to try to make sure that it never actually took place. His attitude and that of his noble friends has not changed as far as that is concerned.

Quite fairly, the noble Lord mentioned the recommendations of the Montgomery Committee. He has drawn attention to the fact that, when it looked into the functions and powers of the islands councils, it suggested that in this matter they should be put into exactly the same position as other education authorities. I have noted the committee's recommendation but I have to say that I do not think it is a practical proposition. The fact is that the other education authorities are regional councils, and regional councils do not have any houses to which the right to buy applies.

The islands councils combine both education and housing authority functions. But because there is no way to distinguish those houses which the islands councils require to retain for educational purposes from other houses in the stock, the only way to put the islands councils on the same footing as other education authorities, as the Montgomery Committee recommends, would be by taking the whole of the islands councils' stock outside the right to buy and removing security of tenure from all of their tenants. This is a proposition which I would find it very difficult to accept.

I must ask noble Lords to accept that we have considered this matter very carefully. We and the islands councils are agreed in our objective; it is that the islands councils should not be required to sell teachers' houses in remote areas. Our only difference is how this can best be achieved, given the multi-purpose functions of the islands councils, without impairing the rights of a substantial group of tenants and without creating major anomalies in the tenants' rights legislation.

I believe that we have gone a very substantial way to meet the islands councils' concerns, as they themselves well know. The present solution is a compromise, but it is workable and it has proved successful in relation to other groups of houses. I have explained why the Government do not feel it would be acceptable to leave the islands councils complete discretion in this matter.

In correspondence and negotiation with the islands councils we have gone almost all the way that they asked us to go in order to meet what they wanted to achieve in this legislation, with the exception of this one point. We have not taken lightly the suggestions which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others. We have considered them very carefully indeed, but regrettably we cannot find a practical way of achieving what they seek to do. We do not accept what the noble Lord has suggested and I regret very much that I am not able to accept these amendments.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I do not want to delay these proceedings too much. We have argued a great deal about this matter but I am bound to say that I regard the Minister's arguments as bureaucracy of the worst order. The whole difficulty arises not from any reality but from the technical point that islands councils are both housing authorities and education authorities. It has nothing to do with the realities of the world. It has to do with what goes on in the Scottish Office. The argument over these houses is that many of them are on separate islands. It is not a question of remote areas; they are divided by the sea, and the Scottish Office cannot ignore the sea. It cannot pretend that separate islands are exactly the same as Edinburgh or Glasgow, because they are not. God made them differently and not even the noble Lord can put that right.

The Government have gone a long way to meet the point, and we are grateful to them, but it is ludicrous to say that the compromise must be that the Secretary of State will decide. On what evidence is he going to decide which is not put forward by the islands councils? The islands councils know far more at first hand about the matter than the Scottish Office is likely to do. The idea that they will refuse to sell houses which they do not want for education, apparently with the object of. keeping them empty because they cannot put anyone else into them, is absurd and treats the islands councils as totally irresponsible bodies.

It is very strange that a Government who in theory wish to reduce bureaucracy and bring decisions more to the local level should strain at this gnat. Having agreed the principle that there is a difference between these houses and that the difficulty is a technical difficulty about the status of the authorities, they should go the whole hog and say, "We will leave it to the authorities who, after all, are sensible people, to decide when a house is needed for a teacher and when it is not".

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, it is very disappointing that we should get the kind of answer we have had from the Minister of State. I should like to tell him that this is not a political matter. We are not dealing with the principle of whether or not the houses should be sold; we are accepting that. All that is beside the point. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, the Government themselves seized on the lightness of the claim that was being made by the islands councils. That is why the clause was put in the Bill. Our complaint is about how they are doing it. It is rather silly to use this factor that because they are all-purpose authorities they would not deal fairly with the matter. Up to now, that has not been the case.

We are not dealing with a great many houses, although the Minister referred to a great many houses. I do not think anyone knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, the nature of the problem in small islands off the west coast of Scotland or parts of Shetland or Orkney, where probably there are only two or three families and only one teacher. If that teacher occupies and insists on occupying that school, one will not get another teacher there.

With all due respect, I was Secretary of State for quite a long time, probably too long. But I did get to know the islands. I would not have presumed to say that the Secretatry of State is the person who should make a decision of this kind. I am disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I thought he would bring some fresh Highland air into the Scottish Office, but not so. The "Boy George" reigns supreme. I do not think we should carry on this argument; we should settle it with a Division.

I raised the matter again because of the Montgomery Report, which was received only last week by the Scottish Office. I mentioned this at the last stage of the Bill but I got no answer about it. The report is there and I have quoted what they said. Sir David Montgomery is a pretty well-known Scotsman. I think most of your Lordships on the other side of the Committee know him very well and trust his judgement. That is what he said—leave it to the good sense of the islands councils. I think we shall need to move to a Division.

3.49 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Amherst, E. Ilchester, E.
Ardwick, L. Jacques, L.
Aylestone, L. Jeger, B.
Banks, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Kennet, L.
Beswick, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Birk, B. Kirkhill, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Leatherland, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Listowel, E.
Bruce of Donington, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Buckmaster, V. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Caradon, L. Lockwood, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Longford, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. McNair, L.
Cromartie, E. Mais, L.
Crook, L. Mar, C.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Milverton, L.
David, B. Minto, E.
Diamond, L. Mishcon, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Molloy, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Mulley, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Munster, E.
Ennals, L. Nicol, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Oram, L.
Gaitskell, B. Parry, L.
Gallacher, L. Perth, E.
Glenkinglas, L. Phillips, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
[Teller.] [Teller.]
Grey, E. Rathcreedan, L.
Grimond, L. Rea, L.
Hale, L. Roberthall, L.
Halsbury, E, Ross of Marnock, L.
Hampton, L. Sainsbury, L.
Hanworth, V. Saltoun, Ly.
Harris of Greeenwich, L. Seear, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Hayter, L. Somers, L.
Hooson, L. Stallard, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stamp, L.
Hughes, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L. Whaddon, L.
Stone, L. White, B.
Strabolgi, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L. Winstanley, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L. Winterbottom, L.
Wells-Pestell, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Lane-Fox, B.
Ampthill, L. Lauderdale, E.
Auckland, L. Long, V.
Avon, E. Lothian, M.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Lovat, L.
Belstead, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Bessborough, E. Lyell, L.
Blanch, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Brookes, L. Margadale, L.
Broxbourne, L. Marley, L.
Caccia, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-
Carnegy of Lour, B. Avon, L.
Chelmer, L. Merrivale, L.
Clancarty, E. Mersey, V.
Cockfield, L. Molson, L.
Coleraine, L. Mottistone, L.
Cottesloe, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Northchurch, B.
Daventry, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Davidson, V. Onslow, E.
De Freyne, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Pender, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Porritt, L.
Dundee, E. Rankeillour, L.
Ebbisham, L. Renton, L.
Eccles, V. Renwick, L.
Effingham, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Ellenborough, L. Sandford, L.
Elton, L. Sandys, L.
Faithfull, B. Selkirk, E.
Ferrier, L. Sempill, Ly.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gainford, L. Spens, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Strathspey, L.
Gormanston, V. Suffield, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Gridley, L. Terrington, L.
Hailsham of Saint Thorneycroft, L.
Marylebone, L. Trenchard, V.
Harvey of Prestbury, L. Vaizey, L.
Henley, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Kintore, E. Vickers, B.
Kitchener, E. Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.57 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:

[Printed earlier: col. 633.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:

[Printed earlier: col. 633.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:

[Printed earlier: col. 633.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.