LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 14 November 1989)

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof. At the same time I should like to speak to consequential Amendment No. 16; Lords Amendment No. 17 and the Commons reason numbered 18 for disagreeing to it; Lords Amendment No. 19 and Commons Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof, and Lords Amendment No. 26 and the Commons reason numbered 27.
This group of amendments is about the right to buy as it concerns dwellings particularly suitable for elderly people. The Commons amendment proposed as an alternative to Lords Amendment No. 14 fulfils the commitment that I gave at Third Reading to bring forward amendments reflecting the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report and carried against the Government.
1244 Amendment No. 15 would give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the task of making determinations to exclude from the right to buy individual dwellings which are not sheltered housing but which are particularly suitable for people of pensionable age. Such determinations could only be made, however, in respect of existing housing. Housing for elderly people which was first let on or after 1st January 1990 would be within the right to buy unless it was part of a sheltered scheme with special facilities. I believe that we have arrived at a reasonable compromise on the basis of the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report.
The Secretary of State's jurisdiction to make determinations excluding existing properties from the right to buy will extend to elderly persons' housing in small communities which has been provided with some form of call system but does not fit the definition of sheltered housing. If an existing dwelling is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people, and has been so let, the Secretary of State will be required to exclude it from the right to buy. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about housing in rural areas which is almost sheltered housing.
Amendment No. 15 brings within the right to buy dwellings which are suitable for elderly people but have been let for occupation by a disabled person. Amendment No. 15 thus supersedes Lords Amendment No. 17, which derives from an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, at Third Reading. The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also drew the attention of the House to the position of disabled people who are not of pensionable age but have been denied the right to buy on the ground that their homes are particularly suitable for elderly people. Amendment No. 15 meets the point, because the Secretary of State will only be able to determine that a property should be excluded from the right to buy if it is particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age and has been let for occupation by an elderly person.
The consequential government amendment, Amendment No. 16, provides for the new provisions to come into force on a day appointed by statutory instrument. As the Bill stands they would come into operation on Royal Assent, which would not allow enough time to set up arrrangements for landlords to apply for determinations.
Commons Amendment No. 20, in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 19, provides that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, housing for elderly persons other than sheltered housing first let before 1st January 1990 should not be sold if the Secretary of State so determines in respect of a particular dwelling. I should explain that there is no reference to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill because, in relation to Scotland, he already has the function of making determinations under Section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Amendment No. 26 was consequential on the original proposal to repeal Section 69, and is therefore no longer necessary.
1245 The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented at Third Reading: I think that we have reached a satisfactory result of quite complex negotiations and a complex debate on the Floor of the House." —[Official Report, 1/11/89; col 317.] I believe that the House as a whole will share his view, and I commend Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 20 to the House.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, the situation is now far better than it was when we debated the Bill and the right to sell applied to houses that had been adapted for the elderly. That was a point about which many of us felt very strongly.
I have only one regret and that is that Section 11(5) of Amendment No. 15 does not apply unless the dwelling-house was first let before 1st January 1990. That means that the number of houses covered by the exemption is limited. After January 1990 houses that are built or specially adapted for the elderly, involving a great deal of investment by the local authorities, will be available for sale like any other housing.
Although I accept that in the circumstances my noble friend Lord McIntosh obtained the best compromise, I cannot let the amendment go by without saying that I feel that it is a great pity. It means that there will be a severely limited and reducing number of houses designed specifically for the elderly which can be passed on to others without passing out of the system entirely, as will happen if they are allowed to be sold. That will be the situation after January 1990.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, I am delighted to see that the Government, in Commons Amendment No. 15, have removed all reference to dwellings particularly suitable for disabled people, because by the removal of my Amendment No. 17 disabled people would still have had considerable difficulty.
I am delighted by the assurance of my noble friend that from now on disabled people will have the right to buy.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the House will appreciate the depth of interest and concern which my noble friend Lady Birk has expressed. She has been involved in the frequent debates on the issue which have taken place over the past decade. She was involved on the first occasion on which the Government were defeated on this matter in a Division in your Lordships' House. But she confirmed what I confirmed; namely, that, as the Minister reported in his speech, it is not perfect. There are still things which we should like to have done, but we believe that we have come to a conclusion of the matter which is substantially better than that originally proposed by the Government. In those circumstances, I shall not oppose the 1246 amendments that the Commons have proposed to our amendments.