HL Deb 20 October 1994 vol 558 cc324-6

3.17 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:

What change has occurred since 20th July (when they answered a question on this subject) to cause them to withdraw consent to certain sales of council housing by Wandsworth Borough Council.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)

My Lords, no consent has been withdrawn specifically from Wandsworth Borough Council. On 12th September 1994 the general consents, issued in 1981, under which local authorities in England may voluntarily sell housing for owner occupation were replaced by fresh consents.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am sorry to say that on this occasion I do not think that the Minister has answered the Question. I asked what had caused the Government to change their mind because, as stated in a previous edition of Hansard of July, the Government were forcefully in favour of this situation. I made the point that, according to the figures issued in an Institute of Housing magazine of July, some £5 million had been lost in rent by Wandsworth since the introduction of this policy in 1990. If the Government have withdrawn permission now, there must be something wrong. Should not the district auditor be brought in to determine whether the law has been broken?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I said that the consents had been replaced by other consents. It is up to the local council if it feels that it should suspend its sates schemes. It will be for individual local authorities to consider whether they need to make any changes to their sales schemes in order to conform with the new consents.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some feeling that Wandsworth is following in the steps of Westminster in arranging its housing affairs so as to preserve its political existence? Will the Minister see that this matter is looked into by the district auditor?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, if there are any objectors to the policy of the local council, then it is right that the district auditor should be involved, but it is a matter for the district auditor.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the granting of consents to the sale of council houses—I was a Minister when the first one was introduced—has been beneficial to the inhabitants of Wandsworth, whose citizens have constantly re-elected a Conservative council in that borough?

Viscount Ullswater

Yes, my Lords. I believe that the council tax payers are best placed to judge the situation. In municipal elections earlier this year they showed that they were well pleased with the council's overall performance.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, on a matter of information, is it not the case that there has been a new notice from the Department of the Environment specifically revoking the previous government consents under which Wandsworth operated its priority group sales scheme, voluntary sales to sitting tenants and sales on the open market? If that is the case, and I believe it to be the case, how can the Minister justify the first reply to the Question on 20th July that the policies and decisions of Wandsworth Borough Council are a matter for council tax payers? The Government have intervened.

Can the noble Viscount confirm that my understanding is right? Secondly, are the council tax payers in charge in Wandsworth, or are the Government?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I thought that I had made clear that the consents which have been issued since 1952 and were updated in 1981 needed technical update. They were all withdrawn and replaced by new consents to every local authority, not only Wandsworth, on 12th September. It is up to the councillors to decide whether the policy that the council is following is the right one.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, in that case why is a Wandsworth "spokesperson"—a word which I do not like—quoted in the journal which my noble friend mentioned as saying: Our way of doing things surely meets the objectives of the government better than the one the DoE is proposing"?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the council has made representations to the DoE, and obviously we are considering them. As I have already indicated, the council thought it appropriate at the moment to suspend its sales scheme. It is up to the council to make certain that any sales will be compatible with the authority's statutory duties to other people in housing need.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is this not obviously a matter which should be considered by the district auditor?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, of course the district auditor would be involved if there were any objectors.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in contrast to what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney said, it was not Wandsworth which was studying what Westminster did in this disgraceful affair but Westminster which sent officials to Wandsworth to see how it could be done?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, that is way outside the scope of this Question.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in the article which was printed in Inside Housing, the magazine of the Institute of Housing, on 23rd September it is stated clearly that: Wandsworth LBC has been forced to abandon its priority group sales scheme by the DoE because people who do not live in the borough are buying homes which could be sold to tenants under the right to buy"? Is that not the reason why the scheme has been stopped? Why does the Minister not admit it instead of skirting round the question?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, many councils use general consents to make these voluntary sales, including Camden, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, and many other urban areas.