Housing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2004.

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Clause 148 - Exceptions to the right to buy: houses due to be demolished

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 445A, in

clause 148, page 100, line 12, at end insert—

'16 The Right to Buy does not apply in a rural area if the area has been exempted by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

The amendment has been suggested by the Local Government Association. The right to acquire—a similar right to that set out in the amendment—is currently exempted in rural areas, a provision that was enacted by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) some time in the past. The loss of social housing stock in rural areas far exceeds the problem in urban areas. In many cases, properties in rural areas are attractive to buy and the rate of the right to buy social housing has been greater in many rural parts of Britain than in urban areas.

As I said, the amendment is similar to that covering the right to acquire and it would ensure that there was parity between the two provisions and that the housing stock in rural areas did not continue to be decimated in the way that it has been. That has led to problems, especially since the Secretary of State or his officials tend to issue low house building quotas in those rural areas. In many cases, they cannot build social properties to replace those that have been lost because they do not have enough permissions to do so—let alone finance, an area into which I will not stray at the moment. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to discuss something that he is concerned about. If the amendment is not the appropriate solution for the problem, perhaps he can find another solution.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Before I deal with the amendment, I should like—with your permission, Mr. Pike—to engage in my now traditional grand tour of the part of the world that we are now visiting. I know that the Committee has found such a device helpful, but it may be even more helpful on this occasion because it will enable me to mention several clauses to which no amendments have been tabled. I shall explain the general purposes of part 6 of the Bill, which deals with the right to buy.

Clauses 147 to 154 introduce several changes to the right-to-buy scheme to tackle exploitation of the rules. The right to buy has extended the housing choices available to people on modest incomes, widened the

distribution of economic assets and assisted in the development of stable mixed-tenure communities. The Government are completely committed to the principle of right to buy. However, time has shown up weaknesses that some are willing to exploit. The right to buy was conceived as a means of helping social tenants to realise their aspiration to own their own home. It was never intended as an opportunity to play the market and make a quick buck. We are aware of increasing concerns among landlords and responsible tenants about early resales of homes sold under the right to buy and about the involvement of companies that exploit such opportunities. Such activities have two effects. They divert resources away from the generation and provision of affordable housing, and into the pockets of individuals and companies. That worsens the plight of many thousands of people who desperately need low-cost housing but have to watch as affordable social homes are sold on and rented out at market rates.

Research published in 2003, carried out by Heriot-Watt university for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, showed that at least 2,000 ex-council homes in inner London are now available only at rents of between £750 and £1,000 a month, compared with council rents of £300 a month. It concluded that such deals account for some 6 per cent. of RTB sales in London. In some cases, ex-council properties were leased back at market rents to councils, housing associations or even Government agencies housing asylum seekers. The measures in part 6 aim to rebalance the right to buy back towards long-term home ownership and the building of stable communities, and to tackle the cynical exploitation of rules by companies. All the changes to the right to buy will automatically be carried across the preserved right to buy and the right to acquire under the Housing Acts of 1985 and 1996, subject to the necessary regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

My right hon. Friend is aware that I have been concerned about the impact of the re-letting of ex-council property to homeless families. Has he made any assessment of the cost to housing benefit of that practice? In my constituency and across London, it is certainly true that homeless families are re-housed in temporary accommodation let back to the local authority through registered social landlords, and that housing benefit is picking up the difference between a rent that would have been £80 for a council property, but is now £300 or £350 a week.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an extremely good point. I do not have that analysis immediately to hand, although I undertake to establish whether we can arrive at some figures. If we can, I shall circulate them to the Committee. The borough that she represents and my own are among the inner-London boroughs most affected. The estimate is that 2000 ex-council properties, 6 per cent. of RTB sales, have gone to companies exploiting that right, on top of which there is that loss to the public

purse through high housing benefit payments. Her intervention reinforces the strength of the case for the measures that the Government are implementing.

Let me describe briefly the purposes of clause 147. Tenants will have to wait five years to buy, instead of the current two years. However, I should stress that they will be eligible for the same level of discount after five years as they are under the current rules. The current two-year period is too short. Tenants can count any periods of tenancy with a wide range of public bodies towards their right to buy. That means that many tenants qualify for the RTB as soon as they move into their council home, which might be in a completely different area from where they lived before. Extending the period to five years will encourage tenants to make a longer-term commitment to a community before they can buy. If we reflect on the history of the right to buy, there was a recognition that tenants who had a perfectly reasonable aspiration to home ownership—which is, after all enjoyed by 70 per cent. of our population—were long-term tenants who had a commitment to remaining in their communities, and who had no desire to move out or make a quick killing through the RTB process.

Let me now turn to clause 149. We will have the opportunity to debate it greater detail, but I thought that it would be helpful to refer to it.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Chair is allowing you to raise these points with the view that it will help the debate, although I am mindful that we are debating one amendment. I hope that it will mean that later debates are briefer. The Minister may therefore continue, but not too lengthily.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I do not intend to proceed too lengthily. I shall address amendment No. 445A in the course of my remarks, but I share your aspiration, Mr. Pike, that the exercise that I am engaged in should facilitate our later discussions.

People who buy will have to wait five years instead of three, as at present, before they can resell without repaying some or all of their discount. Landlords will have discretion not to require the repayment of discount. We are aware of cases where repayment might cause hardship, where owners have suffered bereavement or a sudden disabling illness and need to move but have been prevented from doing so because they could not afford to repay the RTB discount. Such circumstances are fortunately few, but they do occur and need to be addressed sympathetically. We propose to issue guidance on when the discretion might be used. Apart from those examples that I have already mentioned, they might include the need to move to escape harassment or domestic violence or, for unemployed people, to take up employment opportunities elsewhere.

The amount of discount to be repaid will, in future, be based on the resale value of the property. If the discount was equivalent to, say, 30 per cent. of the property's RTB sale price, the amount to be repaid in the event of an early resale will be 30 per cent. of its

resale value. Our aim is to claw back for the taxpayer a fairer proportion of the benefit of a rising market, while allowing people to sell on in areas of declining values. The one-third repayment taper—full discount to be repaid if the property is resold within a year of the RTB sale, two thirds if it is resold within year two, and one third if it is resold within year three—will be changed to one fifth per year.

The amount of discount to be repaid will exclude the value of any improvements made by the owner since buying. If that value is disputed, it will be determined by the district valuer, as long as it is reasonably practicable for him to do so. His reasonable costs, which are £400 in London and £325 elsewhere in the country, are paid by the seller. If the district valuer does not make a determination, the value of improvements will not be excluded from the discount to be repaid.

In clause 153, we are also building on landlords' long-standing duty to provide information about the terms of their secure tenancies. We agree with the LGA that RTB landlords should be under a duty to provide information to their tenants on the implications of home ownership. That was endorsed by the Select Committee, which also recommended that the information should be provided by third parties. We understand that view, but consider it to be difficult to implement fairly.

We envisage the information being provided in the form of a fact sheet, and will prescribe what kinds of information it would be reasonable to require landlords to provide and what would be helpful to tenants, and when it should be provided. The information may well include the costs involved in buying and maintaining a property, such as stamp duty, professional fees and insurance, and the costs of repairs and maintenance including service charges levied on people who have bought flats. It may also include a reminder about the right of first refusal, which is introduced in clause 152, which I will touch on. We will be consulting stakeholders.

We agree with the home ownership taskforce that rent to mortgage should be ended. That will do away with a little-used scheme. That is expressed in clause 154. There have only been about 360 sales in 10 years, and we are looking at other more effective ways of helping tenants who cannot afford the RTB.

We also agree with the suggestion by the LGA and the Select Committee that before selling on the open market, RTB owners should have to offer their homes to social landlords if they wish to resell within 10 years of buying—of course, at market value. That is articulated in clause 152. However, it may not always make sense for the property to be offered back to the original landlord as a council may have since transferred its stock to a registered social landlord. The Bill provides for other local social landlords to be given a chance to buy the property but they will have no more than eight weeks to make up their mind. Thereafter, the owner will be free to resell on the open market. It would be unfair to owners of ex-RTB homes to allow any longer, but we will consult on the ground rules.

The aim is to provide a means by which ex-RTB homes can be returned to the social sector. Such an option has been available to landlords for many years in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. We intend that that should continue, while extending the right of first refusal to all other RTB landlords. I will deal with social housing in rural areas shortly.

Part 6 tackles two long-standing abuses. First, tenants will not be able to buy their home if they have been notified that it is to be demolished in the next 18 months. That appears in clause 148. That provision is intended to stop tenants buying at a discount and then making a windfall profit from compulsory purchase compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has campaigned tirelessly on that. It will be possible to extend the 18-month period, but only with the Government's agreement, and we will not hesitate to revoke demolition notices if it appears to us that there is actually no intention to demolish.

Secondly, agreements by RTB tenants to resell their home to companies after the discount repayment period has ended will in future count as ''a relevant disposal'', so that former landlords can demand the repayment of discount. That appears in clause 151. The liability to repay will be a charge on the property, making policing relatively easy. Such deals, usually involving a lump sum payment to the tenant, are a blatant evasion of the repayment rules, benefiting the company at the expense of the taxpayer. Significant numbers of homes sold under the RTB in inner London have found their way into company ownership and now command market rents, making them unaffordable by people in those areas on average incomes. Advertisements offering such deals have appeared in national and local newspapers in the north and the south-east.

I look forward to discussing these measures in more detail as we progress through part 6. To assist that discussion, I have made available to the Committee drafts of the consultation documents on the new right of first refusal and on the provision of information to tenants.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for your indulgence in allowing me to offer this overview. Without further ado, I turn to amendment No. 445A. The Government's aim, expressed in their rural White Paper, is to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) accused the Government of setting low house building targets in rural areas. We set specific targets for affordable house building in settlements of 3,000 and fewer in our rural Green Paper, and I am delighted to inform the Committee that those targets have been exceeded in each of the past two years. The Government are committed to those targets, but that is not without a certain amount of resistance and contention from organisations that have responsibility for delivering affordable housing in some of our regions.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I did not go too strongly on that point because, as the Minister knows, we have been talking about this matter outside the Committee Room. South Shropshire has fewer than 400 permissions left by 2011, but last year's affordable needs survey showed that there was a need for 1,400 affordable homes between now and 2007. There are not enough permissions to keep the local working population working there, despite the fact that South Shropshire has one of the most radical affordable housing policies in the country—if only his inspectorate will allow it to go through the local planners, as it appears that it is trying to water down the affordable housing policy. I am sure that the Minister cannot comment on that latter point, but I know that he shares the concerns about it. I am just concerned that he is talking about the overall picture in the country or the region as a whole, but that the problem is in specific rural areas. South Shropshire is not alone but it is, perhaps, one of the more blatant cases.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I want to discuss the Liberal Democrat proposal on those matters, which I have examined with interest. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that he is being a little naughty in almost tempting me down the path of commenting on local planning decisions. He knows as well as I do, that whenever the question of planning is mentioned I have to come over all quasi-judicial, and I could not possibly comment on the matter.

Under section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, landlords in areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State, in national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty, may place restrictions on the resale of homes sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Landlords have a choice: they can either require owners to resell only to people who have lived or worked locally for at least three years, or, if they prefer, they can require them to offer the property back to the former landlord.

Clause 152 of the Bill extends a right of first refusal to all other right-to-buy landlords, wherever they are. However, it explicitly retains the current system in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and designated rural areas. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about housing in rural areas and, as I said, I have read with interest his party's policy paper on affordability, which he kindly sent me recently. I note that his party is in favour of increased levels of owner occupation, but not, it appears, in rural areas, if one examines the amendment. The amendment would serve to deny many tenants the chance to become home owners. It would be too inflexible to do that across the board. There is no reason why local tenants should not have the right to become home owners in the areas in which they have lived previously. The existing restrictions on reselling, which are already in place in a significant proportion of our countryside—the seven national parks, the 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty and 26 areas that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have designated as rural—are sufficient. Tenants can choose

to buy or to continue to rent, while landlords can choose to impose one or other of the two resale restrictions, or not to include any restriction. In the light of those most reasonable observations, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for his observations. He is saying that the amendment would overly restrict a tenant's right to buy in certain areas. The problem is, however, that in such areas those houses cannot be replaced at the rate at which they are being lost. Therefore, there will be a diminution of the social market in rented properties, and that is a serious issue.

I know that the Minister has examined the issue of house prices in South Shropshire and he will know that the average property costs nearly £200,000. As hon. Members who might have been present at Tuesday's debate on council tax will know, £15,000 is a reasonable household income in South Shropshire, so it would be almost impossible to buy a property worth £150,000. There is a shortage of rented properties, as there is in much of the country—whether that be in the private or registered social landlord sector. If the Minister was to allow South Shropshire—and other authorities that face that problem—to build sufficient properties and, via the Housing Corporation, allow the funding to help to get those RSL properties built, there would not be the same need to restrict the right to buy.

The Minister must move in one direction or the other. At the moment we are being constrained in both directions and we are losing housing stock. In South Shropshire it is primarily purchased by people—professional couples—who are retiring from London and the south-east. I have no problem with people wanting to come and live in Shropshire; I am delighted that they want to. However, they are pushing up the house prices, which are not related to local incomes. The working population are being driven from the area. The local council has come up with imaginative schemes, as the Minister knows, and those are being put in place, but they are held back by housing numbers. While those housing numbers are so restricted in the area, there is a need to constrain sales.

If the Minister will not accept the blanket amendment, will he at least consider areas such as South Shropshire where there are problems? Will he consider adding the same exclusions on discounts as those added for parts of the country in the home counties? He obviously believes that there is a problem in those areas. However, he has failed to realise that some of the more remote rural areas, such as Cornwall and Shropshire, have considerable attraction for retired professional people, who move to properties there. They sell their property on the edge of London for £350,000 and come up and buy a cottage for £250,000. Those areas are not necessarily covered by the categories that the Minister mentioned.

If the Minister intervenes on me and agrees to consider specific cases in those areas instead of using a blanket rule, I will be only too happy to say that

perhaps the blanket rule might not apply. I am inviting him to intervene on me; after all, I am not committing him to anything. I am asking him to consider specific cases, but he does not seem to want to do even that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not committing me; that is extremely obliging. He makes a strong constituency point, but I certainly cannot accept the blanket amendment. I realise that I am making an intervention, by the way. We recognise that there are hot spots—areas into which a good deal of equity goes—and that that is driving up the house prices. We responded to that in the south-west by increasing funding for social affordable housing by 30 per cent. I recognise that there are hot spots elsewhere, and although I have no intention whatsoever of introducing across-the-board restrictions, which the hon. Gentleman calls for in his amendment, we will continue to monitor the situation.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I suppose that ''monitor the situation'' is about as much as I will get out of the Minister this morning. He is clearly being careful and cautious with his words, and does not want to stray beyond what his officials might want him to say. Sometimes I wish that he would be braver and bolder, and would lead, rather than sticking to his brief with such rigidity. However, I see that I will not win this one. He knows that I will continue to press on the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149 - Repayment of discount: periods and amounts applicable

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 437, in

clause 149, page 100, line 25, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 448, in

clause 149, page 100, line 25, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

No. 438, in

clause 149, page 100, line 31, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.

No. 450, in

clause 149, page 100, line 31, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

No. 451, in

clause 149, page 100, line 34, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

No. 439, in

clause 149, page 101, line 5, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'sixth'.

No. 440, in

clause 149, page 101, line 17, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'sixth'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This is, in a sense, a probing amendment. It would replace ''five years'' with ''six years''. I see that the Conservatives have been even bolder and have gone for 10 years.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

He is a communist.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman says that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is a communist. That was one of the more fascinating and unbelievable of the many interesting things that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has said in Committee.

The amendment aims to probe the Government on why they picked five years. Did it seem like a good period? Why not six or 10 years? There is an issue to do with the repayment of discounts. The proportion of the discount that someone pays back depends on how long they keep the property. I want the Government to explain why the time period is five years; I am not necessarily any more in favour of six or 10 than five, but they need to justify it. I tabled my amendment to seek that justification—and presumably that is why the Conservatives tabled theirs.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Briefly, Mr. Pike, because you will not allow me to go into great detail, it is worth saying in relation to the amendment how shocked I was to hear that the Liberal Democrats want to restrict the right to buy for the millions of people who live in rural Britain. A message should ring out from this Committee that the Liberal Democrats are the enemies of rural people living in social housing who want to fulfil their aspiration to home ownership. I take that very seriously. I shall move swiftly on, Mr. Pike; otherwise, you will say that I am debating a previous amendment. I would never wish you to, even quite properly, criticise me for something that I was saying or doing.

This group of amendments allows us, because of its scope, to reflect on the differences between the parties in this Room. The plain truth is that the Labour party is comprised of recalcitrant converts to the right to buy. It is reluctant about the principle of right to buy, and there can be no better illustration of that than looking at its history. Was not it Aneurin Bevan who said, ''We do not need a crystal ball when we've got the history book''? As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has accused me of having sympathies with the left, perhaps it is appropriate that I quote that distinguished former Labour politician.

At its genesis the right to buy was opposed hook, line and sinker by Labour. I would not mind betting that the Minister as a youth—he can only have been a youth in the 1970s—when he was assiduously studying Belgian politics, may well have been a critic of the right to buy. Incidentally, I want to reveal that the Minister is the only man on this Committee who can name more than half a dozen Belgians and I do not include Hercule Poirot, because he is fictional. I shall give way, because the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) wants to intervene.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

No; we were just saying that we could name more than six Belgians.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We do not want sedentary interventions. If people want to speak, they should stand; they should not make comments while they are seated.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Those very words had sprung to my mind, Mr. Pike, but it would have been inappropriate for me to use them.

The Labour party's record in this field is lamentable. I have a memorandum—[Interruption.] Well, like Neville Chamberlain, I have a piece of paper. We certainly are ranging widely this morning, Mr. Pike, from Aneurin Bevan to Neville Chamberlain!

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Yes, and the Chair wants to see progress made on this paper.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I have a memorandum from no less a person than the current Foreign Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment—a Conservative, of course—which was written when he merely signed his name as a Member of Parliament. It says:

''Labour will continue to oppose the sale of council houses . . . Labour does not oppose the sale of council houses to sitting tenants of two years' standing who want to buy, so long as such sales...do not damage a local authority's ability to meet the demand for decent homes to rent.''

On the surface that may not seem unreasonable, but it conceals a fundamental mistrust of the principle of right to buy, which has run through Labour thinking since those early days. It was impossible for the Labour party to come out hook, line and sinker and say that the right to buy was a bad idea, but it was not prepared to commit to it in anything other than a passive way. That is what we see once again in these measures and changes.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

My hon. Friend may also wish to highlight the actions of many Labour local authorities that deliberately stifle sales under the right to buy, particularly in London, making it increasingly difficult for long-standing tenants to buy their own properties under the provisions brought in by the Conservative Government of 1979.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, there were countless examples after the blessed Margaret Thatcher. It is clear who I think is sainted—a person on a different scale of personality to the Minister.

When the blessed Margaret Thatcher introduced those measures, there were countless examples of Labour local authorities that went out of their way to frustrate them by all kinds of means, such as separating garages from houses and discouraging people through the inadequate provision of information. There were many ways in which they put the frighteners on council tenants to prevent them from exercising their right to buy.

Ms Buck rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I will make some progress and then give way to the hon. Lady, who is as charming as ever in courteously indicating that she wishes to intervene. I anticipate her contribution with enthusiasm.

To address the amendment directly, Mr. Pike—you have been generous with me thus far—the right to buy has come to be abused in certain ways. It would be less

than honest of us not to acknowledge that, and we do so in the amendments under discussion. There is undoubtedly abuse, and that abuse cannot reasonably be tolerated by Committee members. We have moved amendments that would curb that abuse in a more effective way than the Government propose.

Our amendment would extend from five years to 10 the period in which resale is prohibited, although we mitigate its effect on people who in extenuating circumstances—if, for example, they suffer ill health, bereavement or other types of trauma—are obliged to sell their property. We have also tabled balancing amendments that protect people's interests in other ways, but it is important to signal the concern about abuse felt by people across the political spectrum.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's Damascene conversion to tackling abuses of the right to buy. Can he confirm that, when in Government, the Conservatives did very little to deal with the abuse of right to buy in Westminster?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have been told where the Liberals stand: they do not even approve of the principle—except apparently for people who live in cities. Does the hon. Gentleman have a grudge against his constituents and other people in villages and rural towns across Britain, or has he been seduced by metropolitan culture since becoming a Member of Parliament? There must be some reason why he has a down on rural people and communities, and until he apologises for that slur—that proposed restriction on their freedoms—he had better not participate in the debate on the right to buy at all. For he has dropped a major clanger. When the headlines of the journals and newspapers of Ludlow say, ''Green doesn't want you to have the right to own your own home,'' he may come to regret the amendment that he moved earlier.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I will not give way again, because I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is about to suggest a further prohibition affecting the people of the countryside, and as I care about them and am of them, that would cut me to the quick.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Is it about Belgium?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before I call the hon. Lady, let me urge hon. Members to keep to the amendment under debate and not get on to Belgium or revisit the previous amendment. I am sure that you will be in order, Ms Buck.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman is extremely gallant in giving way to me.

While we are discussing the right to buy, will he take the opportunity of which no Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen has ever availed himself to apologise for the abuse that afflicted the innocent residents of the London borough of Westminster under Dame Shirley Porter? She abused the right-to-buy scheme to the

extent that thousands of people in housing need suffered, and the people of Westminster now are owed £40 million by that benighted senior representative of the Conservative party.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Do not be led too far astray.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Seductive though the prospect is, I shall not be led astray by the hon. Lady, who is attempting to take us down a tributary, rather than staying on the main course. Conservative Members remember that it was Herbert Morrison, a Labour Minister, who said he was going to build the Tories out of London by building council houses in this great city, and that it was his miserable progeny who was the founder of new Labour. The link is absolutely clear between the resistance to the freedom and opportunity that right to buy has provided for hundreds of thousands of families in our cities and the countryside and the restrictions—snipping away and trimming the principle—which the Government seek to introduce through parts of the Bill.

Let me say where the Minister is right. I rather like him, and I think that that has become apparent during the Committee. I know that when he speaks of the Government's proper desire to curb the abuse that the hon. Lady also cares about, he does so with a degree of knowledge of the problem and wisdom about the solution. That is why our amendment builds on the point that he has made.

However, we wish also to protect the interests of tenants. When the Minister in his general summary spoke about the right of first refusal—a subject to which I hope he will return to in later amendments—he failed to point out people's concern that it will result in the property not being valued at a market rate. Having first refusal might mean that the council will have tenants over a barrel. I am also worried that councils will drag their feet on the right to buy, which is why we have tabled a new clause that I hope we will have time to debate. The new clause would oblige councils to have a publicly accessible marketing plan on allowing people to exercise the right to buy, and to have related targets for which they are accountable. Those are ways in which we can assist and encourage the right to buy while curbing in a proper way the abuses that the Minister describes.

Let us commit to the right to buy but be realistic about the pitfalls. We must be sure that it is a good and wholesome policy, and is not distorted by a handful of unscrupulous people who take the opportunity to make a fast buck. The vast majority of those who have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced by a reforming and liberating Conservative Government are individuals and families who have, for the first time in many cases, taken the opportunity to own their own homes.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain the reason for amendment No. 449, which worries me.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We are not on amendment No. 449. I would like to make it clear that we are discussing amendments that are important but simple—some of the simplest amendments that we have had. Let us keep to those amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I think amendment No. 449 will be called next.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

It will indeed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

But it is right that the hon. Gentleman raises it, and we will deal with it at the appropriate time.

The real problem, about which I know the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is concerned, is the collapse—the figures make the case for using such a strong term—in the amount of social housing being built under the Labour Government. That was the subject of the question that I put to the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Minister will be aware that fewer social houses are being built by a combination of local authorities and registered social landlords than at any time for more than a decade. What is more, Kate Barker states in her interim report:

''In 2001, around 175,000 dwellings were built in the UK—the lowest level since the Second World War.''

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about 15 minutes and he has not yet mentioned the simple amendments that you pointed out. I have a lot of sympathy with what he is saying, but should he not be guided to talk about the amendments?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That point of order is valid. I have tried to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the group of amendments that we are debating is narrow and simple.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Member for Ludlow has been stung by my attack on him, but I hear what you say, Mr. Pike, and I will be happy to address my remarks specifically to the amendments. Given that the Minister dealt with many of the principles of this part of the Bill in his opening peroration, you have been appropriately generous in allowing me also to address some of those issues of principle.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I think that Mr. Pike is becoming somewhat intolerant—I will not say impatient—of unnecessary interventions. I do not accuse the hon. Lady of being guilty of that, but I do not want even to take the chance.

The group of amendments is indicative of our recognition that changes in law are needed to deal with the abuse that the Minister identified. However, they must be seen in the context of our absolute determination to maintain the principle of the right to buy. Taken in the round with the other amendments that we have tabled to this part and with the new clause

that we have also tabled, the Minister will see that the Conservatives are taking a balanced view of this part of the Bill, and that the amendments reflect that.

It is absolutely right that this part of the Bill deals with abuses, but equally right that we take this opportunity to support the right to buy, to extend it where appropriate, and to inject new life into that important principle. That is precisely what Conservative Members intend to argue. It is what we believe in, and we hope that ultimately, despite the recalcitrance that I described in my opening remarks, the Labour party, the Government and even the Liberal Democrats will move towards it—albeit perhaps by being dragged kicking and screaming.

I hope that the Minister will affirm his enthusiastic commitment to the right to buy and acknowledge that he understands that the Conservative amendments strengthen his argument. I trust that that he and the Committee will therefore support them.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Initially, I will respond to some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He taunted the Government for the figures on the current level of social house building. Although we have doubled investment in housing compared with the level of funding that we inherited in 1997, particularly in key areas of the country, the costs of house building are now so great that that investment does not produce as many houses as we would like—output is not as large as we would desire in return for the input. That is partly why we are introducing proposals to increase competition and to explore new opportunities for increasing the building of new social housing later in the Bill.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North have a thought that she would like to inject into the discussion at this moment? I almost anticipate the genesis of an idea in her mind and I would be delighted to respond to it.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as he so often does, anticipates me. Will he comment on the fact that it is precisely in those areas of highest housing demand in which the right to buy has been most extensive—particularly in inner-city communities, although in some high-demand rural areas as well—that the opportunities for and the cost of new build are greatest? As long as we live in an environment in which local housing decisions are taken by local authorities, we will find that we are in a bind: the greatest need for social housing is in those areas in which opportunities are most limited because of the impact of right to buy. That is not a criticism of right to buy itself, but of that mismatch between need and supply, which would be exacerbated by the Opposition's amendments.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I do hope that the Minister will be brief in his response and then keep to the amendments. I allowed him a lot of latitude on amendment No. 445A, but we must make progress. It is my responsibility to ensure that we reach the end of the Bill when we come back after the recess.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I will say a brief word about the costs as well as the benefits of the right-to-buy system. As for the social house building figures, if the Government had not faced the £19 billion in arrears in the modernisation of social housing, which we are seeking to tackle through very substantial investment through our decent homes programme, that sort of funding would be available to go into a new social house building programme. I say that merely in response to the observation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I had better not allow myself to be sucked down that path.

If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the overall success of the Government's social house building programme, I inform the Committee that today I have announced the latest figures for the quarter ending in December 2003. They show that in England there were 35,700 housing starts and 42,200 completions in that quarter, up 10 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively on the same period in previous years. The latest available UK figures for 2002-03 show 195,000 starts and 183,000 completions. Completions are up on the previous year, reflecting the upturn in England and Northern Ireland.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab) rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend persists on this matter; I had better respond.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend commented on the observation that the availability of land is part of the problem of trying to get more social housing, and more affordable housing generally. The Government's proposals for new growth areas are extremely important if we are to meet some of the housing shortage. The virulent opposition of the Liberal Democrats to any of the new proposals in the Milton Keynes area and the inefficiencies of the Tory councils in that area are major problem as we try to tackle housing shortage.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Chair has to guide the Committee and make clear that the amendments that we are debating would change the wording of the Bill in clause 149(2) from ''five years'' to ''six years'' or ''ten years''. That is what we have to debate at this stage. I do not say that the points being made are not important, but they are not relevant to the amendments before us.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I turn immediately to the amendments before us.

Clause 149 returns the period within which RTB discount or rent to mortgage must be repaid on early disposal to five years, as it was between 1980 and 1987—the period of governance, if that is the correct expression, of the ''blessed'' Margaret Thatcher. The current three-year repayment period encourages tenants in high-demand areas to buy with the intention of selling as soon as possible, to take advantage of

rising prices. In some areas they are encouraged further by companies seeking to buy up properties at a discount to let at market rents.

The Government's intention in clause 149 is to encourage buyers to commit themselves to their local communities in the longer term and, in clause 151, to discourage the involvement of companies. Work by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Institute of Actuaries suggests that in the 1990s the average home buyer tended to stay in the property that they had bought for up to seven years before moving on. It is in view of that finding that the Government consider a five-year discount repayment period to be reasonable.

The hon. Member for Ludlow acknowledged that his was a probing amendment. There is nothing sacrosanct about the five years. The period is a matter of judgment, and our judgment has been informed by the statistical analysis to which I alluded. The point of principle is clear. The Government enthusiastically embrace the principle of right to buy, notwithstanding the Opposition's accusation. It is worth bearing in mind that between 1999 and 2003 there were nearly 250,000 right-to-buy sales in this country—that is hardly evidence of the Government putting obstacles in the way of the right-to-buy process.

Of course we accept that people who live in a community, have done so for a long time, and wish to remain there have the right to aspire to the home ownership enjoyed by 70 per cent. of our population. As a Member representing an inner-London constituency in which I have seen the right to buy exercised extensively, I must observe that, on some estates, mixed tenure confers some benefits on local communities. It is noticeable in the local tenants' and residents' organisations that I strongly encourage in my constituency that it is often leaseholders who are the most active on behalf of the local community. There are clear benefits, and there is a clear leavening.

The Committee will also acknowledge that, as well as benefits, there have been costs as a result of the right-to-buy process. If one looks at the history of right to buy since its introduction in 1980, the fact is that the public sector has forgone £40 billion at current prices in receipts by not charging RTB tenants the full market value of their homes. That is £40 billion that might otherwise have been used for investment in social housing. So of course although there are benefits and opportunities arising from the RTB system, there are costs, too.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

To go back to the figure given by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that seven years was the average tenure for an owner-occupier, is that figure a mean or a median? Therefore, of what quintile is the five years reflective in terms of house ownership?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

For a mediaeval historian, the hon. Gentleman is obviously a statistical whiz kid. I have not got a clue as to whether the figure is a median, a medium or a quintile, for that matter. Personally, I am content to rest on the statistic per se as being perfectly adequate guidance. The hon. Gentleman is being too clever by half. I am reminded of other well known sayings; the hon. Member for South Holland and The

Deepings has already given us a tour through the late Labour greats. Incidentally, the correct Nye Bevan quotation is:

''Why read the crystal when he can read the book?''

As I listened to the familiar refrain of the hon. Member for Ludlow in his attack on the present Government's attitude to RTB, I was reminded of Nye Bevan's near namesake, the late, great Ernie Bevin, who is one of my favourites. In addition to that great phrase ''tour d'horizon'', one of Ernie's favourites was, '''im, 'e's talking clitch after clitch after clitch'', which was all we heard from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on this subject. I had better not recount what Ernie said about another late, great Labour figure, Herbert Morrison, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.] Well, I will. Ernie was in a conversation with somebody who said that the trouble with Herbert was that he was his own worst enemy. Ernie replied, ''Not while I'm alive he ain't.''

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. This is very interesting. Many of those people were still in the Labour party when I first started delivering leaflets. However, we do not really want to go back through what happened in the 1945 to 1951 Labour Governments.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We certainly do not, Mr. Pike. Actually, if we were to rehearse the litany of your own bons mots in this Room, we would be here for a very long time.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Do not lead the Committee astray, Mr. Hill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I hear your words, Mr. Pike. I am determined to get back to the amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will give way in a moment.

Extending the period by one year to six years, as is proposed in amendments Nos. 437 and 440, would not lead to any substantive benefit. Some landlords would no doubt recoup small additional sums in repaid discount. Against that must be weighed the adverse affect on mobility—I have mentioned the seven-year average residence time. I accept that that effect may not be great, but it may just outweigh the benefits. Doubling the period to 10 years, as has been proposed, would clearly be disproportionate. The hon. Gentleman does not specify how the repayments should taper as the years go by.

Amendments Nos. 448, 450 and 451 would leave the reduction at one fifth per year. It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman envisages would happen after year seven. I assume that that is a drafting oversight. Assuming a one-tenth taper, his proposal would leave someone who qualified for a 30 per cent. RTB discount who wished to move on after eight years, and whose home was by then worth £150,000, liable to repay 20 per cent. of £45,000, or £9,000. That is a substantial sum to pay after so long a period, particularly as so many people move on after around seven years. I do not think that imposing as long a lasting tax on mobility as he proposes is justified.

There is a balance to be struck and the present Government, like their predecessors, have concluded that five years is the right period. In light of those reasonable explanations, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As I could not intervene in the course of the Minister's useful summary of our probing amendments, perhaps I could make one or two comments now. The Council of Mortgage Lenders made two things clear, both of which are pertinent to the amendments. First, it says that abuse, where it exists, is highly localised. It claims that that is drawn from research done by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations on that. Secondly, the council says that independent surveys suggest that the impact of the right to buy on the availability of social housing has been patchy and insignificant, so the argument advanced by some Committee members, although not necessarily by the Minister, that the real problem with the availability of social housing is the right to buy, seems not to be supported by lenders based on the survey evidence. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that too, although I do not expect to change him, or for him to be moved at all by our robust defence of the right to buy. He will understand that these were probing amendments.

It is important that we have a proper debate about how best to deal with the abuse that he has highlighted and we have acknowledged. The right to buy is unquestionably the right policy, but it needs to be implemented in a way that is fair and honest. He is right to draw attention to those companies who have sought to exploit people—some of whom are vulnerable—by approaching them with all kinds of dodgy deals to sell their house quickly after they have exercised their right to buy. We are both trying to tackle that problem, the Minister with his original proposals and us with our amendment. However, I do not expect to change his mind, because he will know that:

''The most conservative man in this world is the British trade unionist when you want to change him.''

I think that it was Ernie Bevin who said that, and the Minister, of course, comes from a noble trade union background.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister gave a reasonable explanation, particularly when trouncing the Tories' amendment extending the period to 10 years. The fine balance between five or six years is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. The Minister was slightly wrong to ridicule my question about whether the figure he quoted was a mean or a median. That can make a substantial difference. In future, when the Minister quotes an average figure, he might want to say whether it is a mean or a median.

I asked about which quintile was in question because the Minister wants not to restrict mobility overmuch. A graph could show for how long after buying a house people live in it before they sell it, what proportion will move within five years and what

proportion are being restricted. The answers to those questions are what I wanted from the Minister. My question might have been phrased in such a way that the Minister thought that I was being pedantic, but there was a reason behind it, which was to see what effect there will be on mobility. Do 30 per cent. of people sell within five years, and 70 per cent. after that period? Clearly, the Minister has figures to hand, so it is shame that he did not state them because they would have illuminated our discussion. I am sorry that he took my intervention in the way he did, which was not in the constructive way in which he normally responds.

We have heard a load of tosh from the Conservatives. Their Front Benchers ought to start talking to each other. In a debate on the Floor of the House only a couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon lauded the fact that the Conservatives had restricted the right to acquire in rural areas—the right to acquire is the equivalent of the right to buy. The right hon. Gentleman made a great play of that fact. The Minister might have been on the Government Front Bench at the time, although it might have been one of the his colleagues, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was clearly somewhere else.

I suppose that that is to be expected from the Conservatives, because they have not got a clue what their policy is on so many areas, and it is quite clear that they do not have a clue about this issue. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings had not got a clue that the Government were restoring the situation to what it was in Margaret Thatcher's day. He thinks that she is sacred; other members of the Committee might hold considerably different views.

The Minister has given a plausible explanation for the five years provision, and I will not quibble about whether it should be five or six. It is a shame that the figures were not presented in the detail necessary to justify the provision. However, we have pursued this matter enough, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 449, in

clause 149, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) A buyer will be exempt from the repayment of the discount after the specified period where there is a genuine need to alleviate potential hardship for reasons of severe illness, sudden bereavement or any other extenuating circumstances'.

Judging from his earlier attempted intervention, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is anxious to make a brief contribution about this amendment. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. It is reasonable to say that someone who exercises his right to buy should not immediately sell his house to a company that has been set up specifically for the purposes described by the Minister, and so take advantage of the provision to make a quick buck. None the less, it is important that there are caveats and protection for people who, having bought a house, are obliged to sell it quickly—we can all imagine countless extenuating reasons for doing so. There is a need for

discretion, which is why the amendment includes the words ''other extenuating circumstances'', but the examples that immediately spring to mind are bereavement, severe illness or hardship.

This is a compassionate Conservative amendment and is designed to help people who would otherwise be put in a unacceptable position. It balances our earlier amendments. If the period of restriction is to be extended, we must build in protection for people who find themselves in the circumstances that I have described.

I hope that the Minister will recognise the intent of the amendment. We are not fixed on the precise detail, but are using it to probe the Minister into throwing some light on these matters. The amendment would be helpful and add to the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I support the sentiment behind the amendment. However, it might be unnecessary because the Bill says that the landlord ''may'' demand repayment of discounts. It is necessary that some guidance be given to local authorities about the sensitivity of such action. I would be horrified if a local authority in my area demanded repayment when someone died. Members of the Committee would regard that as an unreasonable request. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the amendment, but it is probably not necessary to draft it in those terms, because such matters are left to the discretion of local authorities, and that discretion could cover a much wider range of circumstances than the hon. Gentleman suggests. We could probably spend a lot of time going through examples, but the decision is probably best left to the individual case, the circumstances at the time and the discretion and understanding of local councillors of all parties.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I was about to make the same point as the hon. Gentleman. The amendment is so loose that it would need a large dose of Imodium to put it right. Extenuating circumstances would have to be tightly described, but my main objection to the amendment is that children sometimes purchase properties for their elderly parents and it would not be right for them to forgo paying the discount.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am interested in my hon. Friend's observation. We may have the opportunity to discuss such matters in later proceedings.

Under section 155 of the Housing Act 1985, right-to-buy sales at a discount are subject to a covenant under which the landlord may require the buyer to repay some or all of his RTB discount if he resells the property within a specified period. Currently, that period is three years, but clause 149 raises that to five years as it was under the previous Administration.

The hon. Member for Ludlow is right in his interpretation of subsection (2), which also confirms that landlords will have discretion not to require the repayment of discount. The Government's intention is to provide for flexibility in circumstances where a mandatory requirement to repay discount might cause hardship. As I mentioned when I introduced the clause, we are aware of cases where people have exercised the right to buy and have then,

unfortunately, suffered bereavement or some disabling illness. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to cases where people have needed to move but have not been able to do so because they could not afford to repay their discount. That does not happen often, but flexibility is needed for when it does.

I have undertaken to issue guidance on when using that flexibility might be appropriate. However, the hon. Gentleman's amendment would go further and specify in the Bill that a buyer will not have to repay any discount in certain circumstances if he could otherwise be required to during the specified five-year period. I note that the amendment says ''after the specified period'', but I assume that that is a drafting error.

I recognise that the amendment is intended to be helpful. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, repayment will not inevitably lead to hardship. Circumstances other than illness or bereavement could justify a landlord exercising discretion: for example, a relationship could break down in circumstances involving unacceptable harassment or violence, or somebody who had been unemployed for some time might have the opportunity to return to work but in another part of the country. There may be other circumstances that are impossible to foresee, and being too specific in the Bill could therefore lead to hard cases.

The essence of clause 149 is that it will be up to the individual landlord to decide what to do. Local authorities are, of course, bound by their fiduciary duties to taxpayers and are subject to audit. They will have to be able to justify the exercise of discretion to forgo money to which they would otherwise be entitled. We will offer guidance to landlords, but at the end of the day it will for them to decide in what circumstances it is right for discretion to be exercised. In light of those explanations, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment, and the Minister has answered well the points that I raised. He has reassured the Committee that guidance will be available. I hope that that guidance will be weighted towards local authorities exercising that discretion with a large measure of compassion. He is right to say that there are extenuating circumstances apart from illness or bereavement, and I emphasised that we worded our amendment to cover precisely the situations that he has described.

My worry is that there may be local authorities that are less than excited about the right to buy and who are therefore not terribly committed to the principle—a principle to which the Minister and I now share a commitment. Local authorities may not want to provide for any circumstances in which they could be seen to be encouraging the process. I am cautious—no more than that—about the measure being applied with a fairness and consistency around the country. I would not want to see local authorities that are cheek by jowl interpreting the Minister's guidance in different ways.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Unusually, I rise to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. The issue of landlords dragging their feet has been raised on more than one occasion during our proceedings. I feel that it would therefore be useful if I set out the position on eventuality.

If a tenant considers that his landlord is delaying the sale of his home, the legislation enables him to serve notices of delay. First, the landlord has at least one month to respond. If he does not, the tenant may serve a second notice, and if the landlord still does not respond, the tenant's rent is deducted from the purchase price. Delay means that the landlord is fined by getting less for the property. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put that on the record.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a useful addition to our considerations.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that some local authorities might not exercise as much discretion as others. However, I thought that the Conservatives—and Labour, following its recent conversion—were now in line with the Liberal Democrats in wanting local authorities to be able to take more decisions for themselves. I wish to alert the hon. Gentleman to a potential conflict so that he does not fall on the wrong side of it; he may be attempting to say that we want an overarching national decision when it is better left to local councillors—in many cases Conservatives—to take those decisions on the basis of local circumstances.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did not make a party point. I was speaking about local authorities more generally.

The hon. Gentleman is right in essence. A balance must be struck between the desires for consistency and local discretion. However, it would be unacceptable for neighbouring local authorities to have very different policies on this kind of hardship, so that where families live on either side of a local authority boundary those who by chance live on one side are treated with an appropriate degree of compassion and those who live on the other are not. Many scenarios spring to mind that the hon. Gentleman and most Committee members are likely to regard as unacceptable.

I have suspicions and fears. Local authorities have approached the right to buy with very different degrees of enthusiasm. I made some points about the differences between the parties, but this has not always been a matter of party political judgment; sometimes it has simply been a matter of efficiency and effectiveness. The Minister is rightly anxious to ensure that those issues are dealt with by the targets that are set for local authorities.

I am also mindful of the fact that despite the continuing popularity of the right to buy—there are about 40,000 sales each year—discounts were reduced in the late 1990s, and in 2003 in 41 local authority areas. There has been a gradual erosion of the principle that we established when we introduced the right to buy under the blessed Margaret Thatcher—as the

Minister rightly described her. Therefore, I am cautious. The amendment is designed to encourage the Government to ensure through the guidance the Minister has been kind enough to say will be issued, that local authorities act with a degree of consistent compassion so that people in the circumstances that have been described are treated fairly and properly.

Because of the Minister's extremely sensitive handling of this matter, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 151 - Deferred resale agreements

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the clause more fully.

It is clear that there are companies—certainly in central London—who arrive at agreements with tenants, allowing them to defer payment until they are outside the repayment period of purchase. The company then rents those properties at a commercial rate to workers in London who are desperate for accommodation.

Clause 151(3) mentions a tenant coming to an agreement with ''any other person''. That person could be a relative. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East pointed out that sometimes the children of tenants—who may be earning significantly more money—purchase properties for their parents. Alternatively, they may lend money to their parents or other relatives in council accommodation so that they can purchase property at a discount. I would like to tease out how that clause would affect a relative of a tenant, as opposed to a company that wishes to buy a flat at a discounted rate in order to let it out to a nurse or someone who has to live in central London.

It is a key issue. People may want to purchase a property for mum and dad, with the expectation that at some point that property will be sold. That will be a good deal for the children. Can the Minister tell us who clause 151 is meant to catch? Is it his intention to crack down on commercial companies that make a lot of money by taking advantage of such practices, and also the relatives of tenants who may want to help their mother or father purchase a property, with the expectation that in the fullness of time they will have an asset to sell?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Clause 151 provides that any agreement entered into by a tenant to dispose of property that he or she is buying or has bought under the right-to-buy scheme will count as a relevant disposal—that is, one

that triggers the repayment of discount—if, first, the agreement is made in contemplation of, or in connection with, the purchase under the right-to-buy scheme, secondly the agreement is made before the end of the discount repayment period, and thirdly, the disposal is to take place after the end of that period. Clause 151 also empowers the Secretary of State to provide by order that agreements of other kinds to that specified in the clause will count as relevant disposals, although agreements of a kind specified in the clause will not count as disposals.

I assure the Committee that it is not the intention of those provisions to catch cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Poole, where relatives or children provide support for the acquisition of a right-to-buy property. The purpose of the clause is to catch cases of abuse. I assure the hon. Gentleman and Committee members that the Secretary of State will be able to exempt by regulation circumstances that would otherwise fall within Clause 151.

We are alert to the possibilities described by the hon. Gentleman. We do not want those circumstances to be caught by the provisions. The aim is to discourage tenants from buying solely for resale to companies or others, and to encourage longer-term commitment to their communities. When kids help their parents to acquire a property it is part of a longer-term commitment to the community. We are fully sympathetic to that objective.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 152 - Right of first refusal for landlord etc.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 446A, in

clause 152, page 104, line 48, after 'by', insert 'an independent valuer or'.

The amendment would bring a degree of independence to the process of valuing properties that are resold to the landlord. There are real concerns about the first refusal enshrined in the Bill, whereby the tenant is obliged to offer their property for sale to the local authority in the first instance. The amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 452, would bring an element of independence to the valuation process in a right-to-buy scenario when the landlord is given first refusal. There are real doubts in our mind, as I have said already, about the determination of all local authorities to deal with enthusiasm with people who exercise the right to buy.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am concerned, because my understanding is that the district valuer is not really part of the council; he or she is, in a sense, already an independent person. My concern about independent valuers is that one can get two such valuers into a property and they will give widely differing values. Indeed, I have known a valuer to ask a householder, ''Do you want this at the low end or the high end of the scale?'' There is a danger that the amendment might let abuses happen. Will he comment on that?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I think that the amendment is more likely to curb abuse. In most circumstances, when someone is valuing a property, they seek more than one opinion. The amendment effectively allows a second opinion to be sought—an opinion independent of those with a vested interest who have the first right to purchase the property. If we introduce the independent element, we at least give the tenant some assurance—I will not say a guarantee, but certainly some confidence—that they will not be presented with a value that is not commensurate with the market price. In that respect, an independent valuation is a desirable means of trying to achieve a fairer settlement instead of, as the hon. Gentleman says, a less fair one.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the district valuer is on the side of the council or the housing body, which I find slightly odd, particularly as councils often, in my experience, get annoyed with district valuers when they place values on things. However, I am more concerned about how the amendment is phrased. It would mean that the Bill read, ''an independent valuer or the district valuer''. The amendment is not about giving the tenant, once they have got an independent value, the right to challenge the value given by a district valuer through, say, a tribunal. The amendment says that the property could be valued by the district valuer, or by an independent valuer who has been brought in. If the amendment was more about, say, the right to appeal about the value, I would have a great deal more

sympathy with it. However, as I see it, it is not; it is about allowing independent valuers to do the work currently done by district valuers.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a good point, but in essence we are trying to ensure that there is opportunity for someone other than the district valuer to be involved in the process. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point about the relationship between that valuation and the rights and entitlements of tenants.

The wording of our amendment may be imperfect in that respect, but in probing the Minister we seek to ensure that there is an opportunity for others to be involved in the process who are not directly associated with those with first refusal on the property. We might have framed the amendment—here I am probing my own probing amendment—to enshrine the sort of right to a second opinion to which the hon. Member for Ludlow alluded.

However, does the Minister feel that giving recourse to an independent valuer is a useful way of ensuring that the price set for the property is not unreasonable from the perspective of the tenant who would be obliged to offer it to the local authority in the first instance? I return to my scepticism about some local authorities' commitment to making the process fair and reasonable. I do not have any particular authority in mind but I am mindful that, as the Minister acknowledged in an intervention, we need to be pretty insistent on consistency between authorities and we should set targets for the way in which local authorities handle such sensitive issues.

We are talking about people's homes—their principal investment and their future. The more protection we can insert into the Bill, the better. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow; perhaps we could have been even more determined to enshrine the rights of tenants in our amendment. However, he will understand the sentiment behind it, as I am sure the Minister will. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I do not support the amendment, because I believe that it is inaccurate in what it seeks to do. It also raises the prospect of the householder paying for the valuation rather than the district valuer, who offers a free service, in effect. Perhaps the amendment imposes a charge on the householder, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman intended.

I have read section 158 of the Housing Act 1985. The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a point. There might be circumstances in which a householder felt that a district valuer's valuation was unfair. That could happen on both sides; the housing authority might think that the district valuer's valuation was unfair. The Minister obviously is not interested in section 157 of the Housing Act.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I had better pay attention then.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Let us not have sedentary interventions; they make it difficult for those recording our proceedings.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister says that I jump up on every single amendment and that he is getting tired of it. Well, in this instance I would like him to explain what right of appeal there is for a housing authority, a registered social landlord or a householder if they believe that a district valuer's valuation is wrong. I cannot find a right of appeal against district valuers in the Housing Act 1985. Their judgment seems absolutely binding.

I believe that district valuers are independent, capable people. I do not doubt their professionalism. In other areas of Government and local government there is usually a right of appeal of some sort. However, in this instance, in some cases, people should appeal to the district valuer, who is being used as the valuing authority. There does not appear to be a stage of appeal if someone believes the value to be wrong.

Although I urge the Minister not to accept the wording of the Conservative amendment, because it has all sorts of connotations that we do not want, he should address the fact that, where something seems wrong with a valuation, from the viewpoint of the housing authority or householder, there needs to be a limited second opinion—at least, something needs to be included. Although I may be wrong, the 1985 Act does not provide for that.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings makes a good point in the amendment. The public perception is that a district valuer is part of the local authority regime. I use that phrase advisedly. It would be helpful if an independent valuer determined the price when the tenant purchaser wished to dispose of, or sell the property. That is also the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I do not know precisely what the procedure should be, but it is important, in the interests of the tenant purchaser, that he should be able to ask for an independent valuation.

I do not dispute that the district valuer will come to a professional conclusion about what the price should be, but there should be some mechanism to protect the interests of the tenant purchaser. That may be difficult to put in legislation and I would, perhaps, accept that it should not be included in the Bill. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on a significant point.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

First, I apologise for my unforgivable lapse of attention during the observations of the hon. Member for Ludlow. He has consistently fascinated me throughout nearly 60 hours of debate. I feel utterly abject in my failure on this occasion.

There is no right of appeal for first-refusal purchases. It is for the parties to agree; if they cannot, the district valuer decides. It is possible to judicially review the district valuer.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the alleged reluctance of some local authorities to proceed with right-to-buy sales. The district valuer is an employee of the Valuation Office Agency—an agency of the Inland Revenue—and has nothing to do with the local authority, which is the landlord. I hope that that reassures the hon.

Gentleman and demonstrates that the district valuer procedure is reasonable in all normal cases, and in the overwhelming majority of cases.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There is no intention to suggest that district valuers are not eminent, highly confident people. I wish to put on the record my acknowledgement of their excellent work. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, some tenants will perceive them as establishment figures—not, perhaps, directly related to the local authority as the Minister described it, but certainly not someone who could be described as independent in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend—has arrived at a valuation with which they do not agree. We are told that such things can be judicially reviewed, but that would be beyond the scope of the vast majority of ordinary citizens. The key point is to have a second opinion.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall deal with precisely that issue in my brief response. Clause 152 gives landlords who have sold homes under the RTB scheme, or other bodies prescribed by the Secretary of State, a right of first refusal. The owner of the property sold under the scheme must offer it to the landlord or other body if he or she wishes to resell it within 10 years of the RTB sale.

As I said, we have consulted on the proposed procedures and the bodies to be prescribed, and the Secretary of State will prescribe in regulations the time limit within which such offers must be accepted. If they are not accepted within that time limit, the owner will be free to resell on the open market. The property will be offered at market value, which will be the value agreed by the parties. If they are unable to agree a value, it will be determined by the district valuer.

The Government intend to replicate the tried and tested arrangements for valuing properties being sold under the RTB scheme, which are covered by sections 127 and 128 of the Conservative Housing Act 1985, as well as the existing right of first refusal in cases where properties are offered back to landlords in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas, which are covered by sections 157 and 158 of the Act.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wants to introduce an element of competition into valuation for first refusal purposes. Superficially, that may appear attractive, but it would have the disadvantage of introducing an element of delay into the offer process. In many cases, the parties will no doubt agree that the valuer suggested by one or the other is competent and trustworthy. However, we must be realistic. The would-be seller will seek the highest price that he can get, while the would-be buyer will want to spend as little as possible; neither will necessarily have full confidence in a valuer nominated by the other, however independent that individual might be in practice.

The district valuer has the advantage of being wholly independent of the parties in any particular case and of any local housing issues that may be relevant to a fair valuation. District valuers have been

involved in RTB valuations since 1980, and the system works well. The suggested alternative would bring no great benefit, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments, but I am not sure whether he answered my points; he certainly did not persuasively answer those raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

If one were to redraft the amendment, one might want to talk about the right of appeal, as has been suggested. In essence, however, the amendment is an attempt to inject the right to obtain a second opinion. If the Minister looks at amendment No. 452, he will see that we specifically argue that there should be an independent valuer, who both parties agree is competent. There would be a level of agreement between both parties to the process that they trusted that person to make a fair and reasonable decision.

I am not saying that the Minister does not have a point or that there might not be some confusion, but the argument is that there should be some protection for tenants in that respect, although it might apply also to landlords. The landlord might regard the district valuer's assessment as unsatisfactory, as the hon. Member for Ludlow suggests. So, the amendment is not exclusively a matter of protecting tenants, although I suspect that in the majority of cases, those who are selling will be more concerned about those matters than those buying.

The amendment would introduce a degree of independence that was not embedded in the original Act and is not in embedded in the Bill. We have the opportunity to improve the law by introducing that extra protection, that safety valve, on valuation. That is particularly important given that the Bill gives local authorities a greater role as the first point of contact for those selling a property within 10 years of buying it. If the local authority is to have first refusal, the balancing aspect of the amendment, which allows people to get a fair price agreed by an independent person, is all the more important.

Although I shall not press the amendment to a Division, I ask the Minister to think about that point. We might return to it or he might want to consider issuing guidance, but it is an important point, as was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Ludlow, and he would do well to cogitate on it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Before my hon. Friend seeks to withdraw the amendment, I wish to point out that we are talking about a situation in which the buyer and seller will normally try to agree a price. The Minister proposes that the matter should be taken to the district valuer only when the price is not agreed. When that happens, I believe that the valuer should be independent. Although I do not impugn the district valuer, he is seen to be part of what we now call ''the establishment''. It would be better if a list were drawn up of approved local independent valuers who could decide the price.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend will know that the establishment in the United Kingdom has now been penetrated—some would say infected—by the liberal bourgeoisie. He is right to be suspicious. Nevertheless, the point is important.

When there is disagreement, there is all the more need to ensure that all parties feel that the matter has been dealt with empirically. I do not want to wax too lyrical about district valuers, or they will become big-headed, but I may say that they do an excellent job. However, most tenants would appreciate the extra assurance of an independent valuation, as my hon. Friend suggests. The situation will be difficult; people will be obliged to sell to one purchaser. That is never a happy situation. Most people selling homes can sell on the open market. The extra protection seems important.

I do not want to labour the point, as it has been well made, and we may return to it. The Minister has heard our arguments. These are sensible, non-partisan issues. As we need to speed on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 400, in

clause 152, page 105, line 2, at end insert—

'(ba) in subsection (2), for ''or surrendered'' substitute '', conveyed, surrendered or assigned'';'.

No. 401, in

clause 152, page 105, line 7, at end insert—

'(3A) In section 162 of that Act (exempted disposals which end liability under covenants), after paragraph (a) insert—

''(aa) the covenant required by section 156A (right of first refusal for landlord etc.)is not binding on the person to whom the disposal is made or any successor in title of his, and that covenant ceases to apply in relation to the property disposed of, and''.'.

—[Keith Hill.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I do not wish to delay the Committee. I understand that the clause contains a requirement for the tenant purchaser to make an offer of first refusal to the former landlord. I understand that it also confers that right on ''such other person'' as the Secretary of State may prescribe. I can understand why the Secretary of State should have powers to prescribe if the former landlord is out of business or no longer exists. However, if that is not the case, I cannot see why the Secretary of State should need that power. The clause should be amended to say ''only when the former landlord no longer exists'', so that it does not give carte blanche to the Secretary of State to prescribe whomever he may like.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I understand the Bill to intend exactly what my hon. Friend suggests, although that is not made clear. I had assumed that the circumstances to which he refers were the kind of circumstances that were envisaged. However, he is right that, if that is the case, the wording is not sufficiently tight and needs to be amended. Perhaps the Minister will comment, as my hon. Friend has highlighted an important point.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am emboldened by the support of my hon. Friend, which has given a tremendous fillip to my political career. I have made my point and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I confess that I did not fully catch the hon. Gentleman's drift. It is common sense that if, during the 10 years, the landlord has switched from the local authority to a registered social landlord as a result of a transfer of some sort, the current landlord in the area should have first refusal. The intention is to prescribe other local social landlords—the point that I was making—but the principle is that the former landlord will always get the first bite of the cherry if he or it is still in situ.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister confirm what will happen in a situation in which transfer has taken place, as happened in my constituency in 1995? In the intervening time, there have been transfers between local registered social landlords—there are some good RSLs in South Shropshire. I understood him to say that it would be open to any of those local social landlords to attempt to acquire the property. For instance, South Shropshire Housing Association and Shropshire Rural Housing Association Ltd. operate in the same area. They occasionally transfer properties to each other. Can he confirm that if one of them purchases the council houses, but in the interim there has been movement between them, it will be open to either RSL to exercise the right of first refusal? That is what I understood, and I should be grateful for clarification. It might be that one RSL is over-committed in other areas, such as new build, and that another local RSL is better placed to bring the house back into the social sector.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is tempting us excessively along the path of what-iffery. When we consult on the bodies to be prescribed, we will consider such situations and the procedures to be adopted. Let us remember that we are talking about an offer within a period of 10 years. On the whole, my expectation is that the line of inheritance, as it were, on the transfers will be reasonably straightforward within such a limited period. He is as right as ever—fascinatingly so—about the need for the Government to think about all the options. That is exactly why we proposed to consult the relevant parties in detail before we write the detailed guidance.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister be absolutely clear about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet? In what specific circumstances will the Secretary of State intervene? Will he do so in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend or, as seems to be emerging as we debate the Bill and from what the Minister is saying, when a broader range of conditions apply?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which enables me to invite the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to remind the Committee of the specific circumstances, as described

by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who leads for the Opposition, that he had in mind when asking about the provisions of clause 152.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I understood the clause to say that, when the tenant purchaser decides to dispose of his interest in the property, he must give first offer of refusal to the previous landlord. I think that he should do so, but the clause also refers to a body or person prescribed by the Secretary of State. I would like an assurance that the Secretary of State would use that power only if the previous landlord did not exist, whether he had gone out of business, left the area or whatever else, after which the offer of refusal can be given to someone else. Personally, unless I could have such a reassurance, I would not like the Secretary of State to have the option. He should exercise his powers under clause 152 only when the previous landlord has gone out of business.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no conspiracy. There is no intention that, by prescription, an owner of an RTB property should be required to sell to a body, which might be a body to which both he and I took exception on the grounds that it was not the appropriate one to receive the first offer.

Let me attempt again to explain the purpose of the clause. Clause 152 requires owners who wish to resell their homes within 10 years of their having been bought under the right-to-buy scheme to offer them at market value to their former landlord or to another body prescribed by the Secretary of State, such as another social landlord. The former landlord may not always be the most appropriate body, as it may have transferred to another body its remaining interest in that property or connected properties. Also, the former landlord may not wish or may be unable to repurchase, in which case other social landlords should be given the chance to repurchase the property. It seems to me that our intentions are clear: we intend to keep the property in the social sector and think that it should continue to be available for the purposes of social and affordable housing if that is the choice of the local authority, a successor body or another relevant social landlord. It seems to me that those purposes are impeccable in these circumstances.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Those purposes may be impeccable, but the wording of the Bill is not impeccable. The intention of the Minister is clear, and there is no suggestion of a conspiracy. We are not trying to be conspiratorial, but trying to be precise. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is saying that this part of the Bill should be amended by the Government to make their purpose absolutely clear.

I have no doubt that the Government intend the Secretary of State to intervene only in extreme cases, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, but the Bill does not state that. The Bill is left open, as it can be broadly interpreted that the Secretary of State may choose whom he wishes. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government's intention, so

would it not be wise for him to think about qualifying the Bill rather than extending the debate, so that it is clear in which circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene? For example, there might be cases in which the previous landlord is, for one reason or another, no longer available for the role described.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I disagree. I have made it clear that the intention is to prescribe other local social landlords. I could not be clearer. I have repeatedly put that on the record. The House will have the opportunity in due course to scrutinise the proposals, and it can take exception to them if it so desires. The Government's intention is to prescribe other local social landlords, and there must be no dubiety about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 152, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 153 - Information to help tenants decide whether to exercise right to buy etc.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I welcome the clause. I notice that the Local Government Association and many other stakeholders have requested that the Government include it in the Bill. I certainly think that it is essential.

In my experience of talking to hundreds of tenants, when they consider buying their council house they look at the rent that they are paying, which they know will rise roughly in line with wages, and they go to a building society to find out what they would pay for a mortgage, which will be relatively constant through time as their wages rise. They make their decision to buy on that basis, and in some cases without taking into account any other considerations. It is right that somebody should advise them on the costs of running a property, including not only the costs of the utilities, insurance and everything else that is rightly included in the document that we received this morning, but the cost of maintenance.

As chairman of a housing committee, I have authorised programmes of maintenance on estates, and when we have finished a programme, many of the right-to-buy properties have stood out like sore thumbs. They have become dilapidated over several years because the tenants have not been able to maintain them. I have been surprised by the naivety of some tenants. When a painting contractor has begun to paint a house that has gone into the owner-occupiership of a previous right-to-buy tenant, the owner-occupier at the time will sometimes merely assume that the local authority is painting their house for nothing.

Right to buy has hidden costs. We could consider a terrace of council properties, between which there may be alleyways, but also a running gutter across the top. A local authority could decide to replace the gutter all the way along the terrace, despite the fact that there

might be several right-to-buy properties within it. It would be easier to do that than to stop and start the gutter every time there was a right-to-buy property. I could wax lyrical about dozens of similar cases of hidden costs.

I wish that clause 153 had been in effect when the Conservatives instigated right to buy in 1980. I remind the Committee of the problems that arose with regard to houses with defects—does anybody remember them? There are all kinds of system-built properties in Bolton, and one kind was Orlits properties—concrete block properties with no cavities that were built with high alumina cement that started to blow inside and outside the properties and exposed all the steel infrastructure to the weather. Many tenants bought such properties.

When the Conservatives were in government, they foisted on local authorities the Housing Defects Act 1984, under which authorities were forced to buy all the properties back again. In Bolton, we bought them all back bar two—there were hundreds of them—and we had to buy them at the market value of the time. What a cost that imposed on all local authorities. In the case of Bolton, it cost millions of pounds, which would have been better spent on maintaining those properties or on repairing other properties in the borough. That could all have been avoided if the clause had been introduced in a previous Act. One strong recommendation would be that the tenant should consult a valuer, or—as in the Bill—that the condition of the house should be stated up front so that they can see it clearly.

It was not only Orlits properties that caused us problems. At least one builder went to the local power station and obtained sulphate-containing ash. The foundations of the property in question were constructed by putting the ash on the ground, as well as a layer of concrete and a layer of asphalt. The sulphate begins to expand as it gets damp—admittedly this occurs over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years—and the floor lifts. Believe it or not, people who bought such properties returned to the local authority. They had assumed that the authority would put right a major structural defect free of charge. The naivety of people who have rented properties from the council all their lives is unbelievable. They do not understand the full consequences of purchasing their council property.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the practices that were common in Westminster city council in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when a package was offered that included surveys and mortgage assistance to encourage people to exercise their right to buy. That was wrapped around what was subsequently found to be an illegal indemnity scheme against major repairs. One consequence was that huge numbers of lessees who bought on the belief that they would have a cost-free property and that their financial commitment would not be great found that through that scheme or subsequently, they were faced with maintenance bills of £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000. A number of those people ended up back in my surgery because they had lost their homes and were homeless.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

That is another example of why the clause has been necessary for a long period, which is why I strongly welcome it. I thank the Government for putting the clause into the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was not going to speak, but the hon. Gentleman reminded me of a different and in some ways less severe situation in my constituency.

Large parts of my constituency are not on mains sewerage. Householders can make an official request, with which Severn Trent has to comply in certain conditions, to bring mains sewerage into a village. In one village, Clumbury, trying to negotiate that process has taken two years. Some of the people who made the request had purchased their properties, but their sewage goes into a joint sewage outlet that is shared with properties that are still owned by the registered social landlord. In this case, the houses were sold off by the council and South Shropshire housing association.

Through no fault of anyone concerned, there is an intractable problem in Clumbury. The local residents, the housing association and Severn Trent are locked in a sort of Gordian knot that I have attempted to cut, although I have not succeeded in doing so. If better information had been available to tenants when they

bought those properties about what their ongoing liabilities were in terms of sewage, many of the problems that have emerged and are affecting other householders in relation to the provision of mains sewerage in the area—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Reluctant though I am to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's travelogue of the sewers and cesspits of Ludlow, is he not implying, rather as our very own Jeremiah from Bolton has, that the information provided to people would deter rather than encourage them from buying houses? Is that not his intent and that of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

No. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. In the circumstances that I described, separate provision for sewerage might have been made. Most of the properties use individual cesspits—I shall not go into too much detail about sewage in my constituency, although I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman speaks enough of it—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, the chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. As a courtesy, I take this opportunity to mention something that Committee members will be glad to hear. In the next few days, we propose to introduce Government amendments to make a limited number of changes to park homes regulation. We expect to table clauses as set out in the private Member's Bill that was not taken up. We are working out the final details, so the amendments will be tabled during the recess.

I undertake to send each Committee member a copy of the amendments on the day of tabling. I will also write to other Members with an interest, including members of the all-party parliamentary group on park home owners, and to those who spoke about the issue on Second Reading, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who has campaigned so indefatigably on the issue.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. The Minister has imparted a very desirable piece of information to the Committee. He will be conscious of the new clause tabled by the Opposition on precisely that subject. I feel confident that that new clause will loom large in the Minister's mind as he goes on to write his own amendments.Clause 153 Right to buy: information

Clause 153 - Right to buy: information

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was talking about sewage when the Committee adjourned this morning.

I welcome what the Minister has said. He may have noticed that my hon. Friends and I have added our names to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I add to the Minister's praise for the work that he has done on the issue. I look forward to some cross-party consensus. It is a shame that the Conservatives have tabled a separate amendment, rather than joining the all-party one.

I was using sewage as an example of why it is important to provide better information to tenants before they take up their right to buy. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr.

Hayes) accused me of trying to discourage people from taking up their right to buy. He fundamentally misunderstands the point. People are taking up the right without understanding that—often because of shared facilities—they have ongoing costs; that in certain circumstances they will have to pay the local authority or the housing association; and that if they try to make changes to their property, such as the sewage change that I outlined, there may well be restrictions on what they can do. Many tenants do not understand the restrictions and would be better placed to make decisions about the viability of taking up the right to buy and the future liabilities that they might have, if such information were up front.

For those reasons, I join the absent hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and warmly support the clause. I hope that the Minister is not discouraged by the Conservatives from ploughing ahead with it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

In no way do I oppose the new clause, which adds a section to the Housing Act 1985. It is a very good addendum to it. However, the precautionary principle comes into play here. To what degree and in what circumstances will the Government use the proposed new section in giving information? How will they apply it, and what is in it?

I want to pick up on comments made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, to whom I always listen with interest. He talked about how people had suffered as a result of systems building and about whether he blamed the landlord, housing association or the council on one hand, or the naivety of tenants on the other. Although I know that he is speaking absolutely sincerely and with integrity on his experiences in Bolton, there are people who have had other experiences—people who wanted to, and did, exercise their right to buy when they had a new system-type building, if I may use that shorthand.

In some cases, the tenant who exercised his right to buy had no idea that the structure of his property could in any way be defective. It could be argued that he should have obtained a detailed survey—and, in my experience, it sometimes requires a detailed survey to show what is going on with the material being used, because it cannot necessarily be seen from the outside. However, someone could buy in good faith, not believing that there was any reason why he would have problems later.

I know of instances, too, in which the local housing authority did not know that there was anything defective, or potentially defective, about some of the types of systems building used, so one cannot level the finger of suspicion, or worse, at the local housing authority. Indeed, the problem has sometimes been manufactured by building societies, which may take it upon themselves to refuse a mortgage on the property, thus making it of much less value, if not worthless. I am not arguing about whether the building societies were right to do so; I am just saying that they did it. If a building society refuses to give a mortgage for a building, other building societies usually follow suit.

My final point, to restore the balance—because those problems would have happened regardless of the right to buy—is that if the tenant had not exercised his right to buy the property, and the property was subsequently found to be defective, the local authority would have been landed with a thundering bill. I am merely trying to take a slightly different approach, instead of repeating the sincere castigations of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East about naive tenants, the original landlord or—I would have mentioned these, because sometimes there is a slight criticism to be made about them—some of the building societies and the systems buildings for which they refuse to lend money.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This apparently anodyne clause has stimulated an interesting debate. Although the clause is bland, inasmuch as it simply talks about information that might be made available, contributions to this short debate have revealed a worrying series of signs that suggest that some see the clause as a vehicle to deter people from exercising their right. People should have good, empirical information at their disposal so that they know about the house that they are planning to buy and the responsibilities that they are taking on.

Given that many who exercise the right to buy are becoming home owners for the first time, it is worrying that some local authorities—and, I say with some sadness, some members of the Committee—are not, in my judgment, fully committed to the right to buy. In them, there is a lurking uncertainty about the policy. They see the clause as a vehicle to provide people with information that might well deter them from exercising that right. We heard the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East drawing on perfectly proper local experiences but sounding—as I said just before we broke for our sumptuous lunches—rather like Jeremiah. We had talk of famine and invasion, perhaps not literally but certainly metaphorically. I worry about the support that he received from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), whose party is not enthusiastic about the right to buy, it must be said; it has a bad track record on the subject, as he knows. [Interruption.] He shrugs his shoulders, but in 2002 the former Liberal Democrat housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), called for no ''more sell offs'', and it is Liberal Democrat policy to limit the maximum discount under the right to buy to 25 per cent. of the value of the property, so we know that the Liberal Democrats are not sympathetic. The support that the hon. Member for Ludlow has given the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East leads me to believe that clause 153, which is apparently helpful, could be used by people who do not want the right to buy to be maintained, to deter people who could be relatively inexperienced in the business of purchasing homes.

I have considerable doubts about the clause. It gives enormous powers not to the Minister, but to his boss, the Secretary of State, to define precisely the

information that will be supplied to tenants; nothing specific is in the Bill. It says that by order of the Secretary of State

''such matters as are specified''

should be made available in the form of information for potential tenants. That gives extraordinary scope to the Secretary of State.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman is getting rather carried away. I wonder whether he can answer the question in reverse. Does he want tenants to buy something without adequate information being made available to them as to the condition and costs that might be attached to purchasing the property? Is he saying that tenants should be kept in the dark? That appears to be his position.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not think that the vast bulk of people who have purchased houses over the past 20-odd years under the right to buy would claim that they had been kept in the dark. Most of them would not say that they had had a disappointing interface with home ownership. For the most part, I do not think that they would argue that they would have been in a better position had the 1985 Act contained this clause.

There are exceptions. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East rightly drew our attention to that small number of cases where there have been significant structural problems; issues might reasonably have been foreseen and people may have purchased homes that have subsequently caused them difficulties, but those homes make up a tiny fraction of those that have been purchased under the right to buy.

My point, which was clearly lost on the hon. Member for Ludlow, who became preoccupied with sewers and cesspits before we broke for lunch, is that if the information that was provided to people about the house was objective, empirical and factual, that might allow them to make a balanced judgment. However, if the information was less than that, it might impact on people's assessment of their purchase and the feelings about whether their purchase was desirable, to such an extent that they would be likely to be deterred.

The matter is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, as the Bill does not specify what should be provided. It does not even say that the information should be fair and balanced; it certainly does not list the facts, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred and about which people should reasonably be informed before they purchase a property. The Bill simply says that all of this will be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. Perhaps that would not have worried us had we not heard from some Committee members, who were less than sympathetic to the principle of right to buy, that they see the clause as a vehicle for making all kinds of information available that would, in practice, deter a number of people. [Interruption.] Again the hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders, but there are real fears that the number of people exercising the right to buy will be detrimentally affected by the Bill. Those fears have been expressed to me, and I am sure that they must have been expressed to him.

The Minister has assured us that that is not his intention. He has clearly said—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ludlow wants to intervene again; perhaps he wants to charm us with another of his exciting anecdotes about Ludlow.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

No.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

He does not. Given that there is no suggestion or detail of what will be included, we need to know what guidance will be given about the information that is to be provided to tenants.

Those are my worries about the clause. I am not planning to oppose it, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want such information to be made clear. I am therefore surprised that he has not risen to support the sensible points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and, I hope, myself. They were made in the fair-minded and even-handed way that one might expect of a responsible Member.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will deal with the extraordinary observations that we have just been treated to by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in a moment. First, I will address the other matters that have been raised.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow down the path of sewage, but his point was well taken. There is an issue about ongoing costs and shared costs, and would-be right-to-buy-ers should be made aware of them.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who is my old jousting companion in these Committees, talked about the problem of tenants buying system-built houses. He made a fair point. However, I emphasise that we do not want to get into a blame culture. I imagined that the hon. Gentleman would be aware of problems with system-built properties. As he was speaking, my mind went to a development in the Arkley estate in his constituency where there were profound problems to do with system building. My recollection is that those blocks were colloquially known locally as Alcatraz.

In case the Committee is somewhat baffled by my intimacy with the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I should explain that I lived there for many years. Indeed, I was the secretary of the Chipping Barnet Labour party, and a candidate in the 1978 local elections for the Arkley ward.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

As the Minister has addressed a constituency matter, I want to put the record straight. The estate was not the Arkley estate but the Dollis Valley estate, and it is colloquially known as Alcatraz not because of the way that it was constructed, but because of its generally unbeautiful appearance in the landscape—it is almost on a flood plain.

We are thrilled that such a distinguished person as the Minister spent some of his life in our constituency. Three other colleagues and myself lived almost within 200 yd of each other—at different times, I hasten to

add. Therefore, I am thinking of getting the name of the road involved changed from Ravenscroft park to either the Sydney Chapman memorial drive or Parliamentarians' leap.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of my fond days in Barnet. As we always say, once a Barnetonian, always a Barnetonian.

I will try to reassure the hon. Gentleman on the issue of tenants' purchase of dwellings in system-built buildings. Under section 125 of the Housing Act 1985, landlords must provide tenants with, among other things, a notice describing the condition of the property and any defects known to the landlord. The Government's excellent booklet for tenants, ''Your Right to Buy Your Home'', published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has since the 1980s recommended them to have a professional survey of the property. Clause 153 builds on those safeguards.

I put that on the record because that point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East in an excellent speech in which he displayed all of his vast authority and expertise on these matters and gave a warm welcome to these provisions. That is more than I can say for the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. To my genuine amazement, he expressed considerable doubts about the purposes of the clause. I emphatically say to him that it is not about deterrence. It is not designed to deter folk from buying their council homes. It is simply to ensure that if and when they do, all relevant information is available to them. I am certain that every Committee member has experience of constituents going down the right-to-buy path and subsequently shouldering large expenses that they had not anticipated. The information that is likely to be provided under these arrangements will include, for example, the costs of buying and maintaining a property, stamp duty, fees and insurance, and repairs and maintenance, including service charges payable by those who have bought their flats. It is not about deterrence; it is about the provision of information. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has doubts about these further consumer protection measures that the Government are advancing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 154 - Termination of rent to mortgage scheme

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The Minister said first thing this morning that the Government wanted to end the rent to mortgage scheme, because it was not a great success and only a limited number of people took it up. Under the clause the termination date falls eight months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Is that to allow those who have set out on that path to convert to a mortgage?

I should like some reassurance from the Minister that if the scheme is to end, those who have already determined that that is the way they want to go will have the opportunity to buy, and the cut-off will not occur before they get to that point.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The grace period of eight months after Royal Assent is designed to allow existing tenants who are eligible to buy under the rent to mortgage scheme to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 158 to 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146 - Extension of introductory tenancies

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 436, in

clause 146, page 97, leave out line 6.

This is a simple probing amendment. Can the Minister explain why the words in subsection (3),

''Nothing in the following provisions affects the generality of this power'',

are included?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendment, proposed so succinctly by the hon. Gentleman, seeks to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to make provision by regulation on the procedures to be followed in connection with the review of the decision to extend an introductory tenancy. That would restrict the provision for the review procedure only to those matters that appear in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman intends to give tenants certainty as to their rights. However, preventing the Secretary of State from setting out procedures in secondary legislation restricts the tenant's rights to those contained in the Bill.

Although specific examples are given in subsection (4), the words that the amendment seeks to remove are included just to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to set out more detailed procedures in secondary legislation. That formulation is consistent with section 129 of the Housing Act 1996, which concerns reviews of the decision to end an introductory tenancy. The purpose of the review procedure is to ensure that the tenant is given a fair hearing before any final decision is made regarding the extension of their introductory tenancy. To restrict the Secretary of State's ability to regulate in that area may hamper the ability of the process to safeguard that outcome.

The procedure for reviewing the extension of an introductory tenancy is likely to be based on the procedure for ending an introductory tenancy. This procedure has recently been upheld as compliant with the European convention on human rights by the Court of Appeal in the case of McLellan and approved by the House of Lords in the case of Begum.

The decision to evict is taken by the landlord following a statutory process. Tenants have the right to request a review of the decision and if still not satisfied the tenant may seek judicial review as to whether the decision to end the tenancy was unreasonable. At the possession hearing the courts only consider whether the appropriate procedure was followed, and do not consider the facts on which the landlord's decision was based, or the merits of its decision.

I hope I have explained the purposes of the clause in those few brief remarks, and I therefore implore the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I will not trouble the Committee with a long explanation of my problems with this approach to dealing with introductory tenancies and other things. I did that when I served on the Committee of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, where we were alone among the parties in worrying about some of the ways in which this power could be used. I will not go over that debate now. I was seeking a clarification from the Minister as to why he had framed it in that way. I find that reasonably satisfactory and it is probably helpful that it is on the record. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 155 - Secure tenancies: withholding of consent to mutual exchange

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I wonder if the Minister might explain a little more fully? The clause affects schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985, but looking at that schedule, the Government's thinking in the proposed changes is not clear. I am not being partisan; I simply wonder why they felt the existing provisions were not sufficient.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Clause 155 introduces a new antisocial behaviour ground on which a landlord of a secure tenant may refuse an application for a mutual exchange. Mutual exchanges occur when two tenants of social landlords swap homes by legally assigning their tenancies to one another. The permission of the landlords of both tenants is required. In the case of secure tenants, that may be refused only if at least one of the grounds set out in schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985—the schedule to which the hon. Gentleman alludes—is met. Clause 155 allows an application to be refused if a relevant injunction against antisocial

behaviour or a suspended possession order on grounds of nuisance is enforced against either of the tenants who wish to exchange, or against a person who resides with either of them. It also allows an application to be refused if court action is pending in respect of a relevant injunction against antisocial behaviour, a possession order on the grounds of nuisance, or a demotion order.

The purpose of the Bill is to allow social landlords better to manage their stock by preventing concentrations of antisocial tenants in particular areas. Problems can be worsened when people who behave antisocially are permitted to move closer to their antisocial friends or relatives. In many cases, those people are already frequent visitors to the area and are known by other tenants and residents to cause problems. Landlord-tenant relationships in the area may be severely undermined when the landlord proves unable to prevent an exchange. We believe also that the measure may be useful in individual cases, for example, where a landlord wants to continue to monitor a tenant's behaviour in their existing property, thereby facilitating the rehabilitation of antisocial tenants—a cause that I suspect is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart.

I should like to mention the city that is so successfully and effectively represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), where there has been good experience of early intervention in cases of antisocial tenants. By dint of that early intervention, working with tenants and engaging them in mentoring exercises, quite extraordinary success has been achieved in limiting antisocial behaviour. The concept is interesting: a social landlord might in certain circumstances wish to retain a troublesome tenant in a locality. That is one of the considerations reflected in the proposals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I see the purpose more clearly now, but I have two queries. First, as I understand the matter, the provisions would allow an exchange to be prevented if a member of the family of the tenant was subject to one of the orders that he listed. If so, I am concerned about the impact of that on the tenant's rights, so perhaps the Minister will flesh out that point. Secondly, I think that the Minister said that the provisions would apply not only to people on whom an order had been served, but to those against whom an action was pending. Is there not a potential problem with people being treated as guilty before that assumption is tested? I am not a big advocate of endless civil liberties, as my hon. Friends know, but that issue is worth closer examination.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, which was about whether the provisions would apply in the event of antisocial behaviour action and conditions having been applied to a member of the family, is that they certainly would apply and would be effected in the manner that I described. His second question was, in a sense, about whether we are proposing through the measure to add a punishment to tenants. That is the wrong approach to the clause.

The power proposed in the clause is not about punishment, but about allowing the landlord to manage his or her stock effectively in the interests of the tenants and the surrounding community. If the tenant's behaviour improves, they can apply again; there is clear provision for that. If the landlord is satisfied that there are no longer any housing management concerns, he or she may be prepared to consent to an exchange.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that the Minister might want to refer the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to what the Conservative spokesperson said in deliberations on the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The Conservatives were desperate for such powers to be granted—they even wanted to go further than the Government were prepared to go. I would have welcomed some support for my cautious approach, and if the hon. Gentleman had been a member of that Committee, I might have received more support than the Conservatives who were gave me. The Minister might want to recommend that the hon. Gentleman read Hansard from that Committee.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I recommend that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings reads the Hansard report of that Committee, especially if it contains the words of the hon. Member for Ludlow, to whom I am grateful for drawing attention to potential inconsistencies in official Opposition policy. However, I certainly do not want to get sucked down that path. We on this side of the House have bucked such petty, partisan strife.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I understand the purpose of clause 155, which is designed not to reward tenants who have behaved antisocially. However, will the Minister comment on the clause's effect on the neighbours of the tenants whom it will prevent from moving? The neighbours may hope that the tenants in question will move out of the area because they are making their lives a misery. Will the Minister comment on the view that the clause cuts both ways?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that action against individuals on antisocial behaviour grounds will almost certainly be taken because of the complaints of their neighbours. We would expect effective sanctions to be applied, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and this Bill contain a range of sanctions to deal with such tenants.

The hon. Gentleman painted a scenario in which neighbours would be only too delighted to see the back of troublesome neighbours, but he will accept that while an authority is in the process of taking action against a group of tenants, a serious effort should be made to mitigate their antisocial behaviour. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the implications for the community that receives the troublesome tenants. It cuts both ways. I remind him that there are many circumstances in which authorities and social

landlords are keen to pursue and complete a process of at least trying to rehabilitate tenants who have behaved badly.

I may be able to answer one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He asked whether action could be taken if action on antisocial grounds was pending. The answer is yes, but if the order is subsequently not granted, the exchange can go ahead. In such a situation, orders would have to be in the process of being obtained and evidence would have to have been granted.

To the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I say that we are discussing a discretionary power. A landlord may want to keep a tenant not for support, but to take eviction action. There is a range of choices, and we do not want to be prescriptive about the course of action that a landlord should take. The Bill offers both powers and discretion to the local authority.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Minister, whose response has been clear and reasonable. The scenario that I imagine might cause problems is one in which middle-aged or elderly parents have a delinquent child. If that child were subject to an antisocial behaviour order, although the parents are the tenants, they would effectively be prevented from making an exchange because of that child. That is not a fanciful or uncommon scenario, as hon. Members will know from local experience. Is that a reasonable restriction on the rights of such parents?

The Minister has made it clear that there is a degree of discretion and that the powers will be used sensitively, which has alleviated some of my concerns. However, considering the scenario that I described, he will understand why I asked the questions. Having looked at the original Housing Act 1985 and at clause 155, I was anxious to discover from the Minister the Government's thinking, but he has made it perfectly clear.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

For once—I do not say it lightly—I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been a Conservative spokesman on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill Committee, because his point was exactly the point made by the Liberal Democrats, who, sadly, had no support from the Conservatives on that Committee. I have the advantage of being the only member of this Committee who served on that Bill. I hope that the Conservatives are not trying to send one message in one set of circumstances and a different one in other circumstances. [Hon. Members: ''What about your party?''] We have genuine concerns about the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and their knock-on effect in other areas. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating when the proposals are implemented and we see how local authorities use them. They could be viewed as draconian powers that, if its mind were set on it, a local authority could use in a pretty unpleasant way and that will affect people who were not themselves a direct cause of antisocial behaviour.

I will not divide the Committee on the clause because I think these battles were fought and lost in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill Committee. However, I welcome the Conservatives' conversion in the intervening six months.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is a narrow but interesting point, but I must prevent the hon. Gentleman from continually ascribing to me the ideas and comments of my colleagues. He is apt to refer to my wide-ranging and benign influence on the Conservative party, but I am not responsible for everything that everyone in the Conservative party says at all times—although, such is my self- confidence, I wish that I were. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I was asking a specific, probing question to induce a particular response from the Minister, which he sensibly gave. Enough has been said; we do not want to go back to Ludlow and those nasty anecdotes.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I had not even begun any nasty anecdotes. I will not pursue the matter further. The fact that the Conservative Front Bench teams do not talk to each other is probably well established, so I do not need to continue that theme.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I think so too.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 155, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 156 - Right to buy: suspension of landlord's obligation to complete

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is another important clause, although it should not detain us for long. The clause suspends the landlord's obligation to complete. It is clear that section 138 of the 1985 Act was included to ensure that recalcitrant landlords who might drag their feet in conveying a freehold or granting a lease would be unable to do so. Clause 156 loosens that constraint upon landlords. My passionate desire to fight for the interests of tenants who wish to take the step of becoming home owners causes me to probe the Minister about precisely why the Government feel that loosening the constraints on landlords is necessary and desirable. I know the Minister will deal with the matter in his usual conscientious and courteous fashion, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ludlow will want to speak, too.

Matthew Green rose—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Mr. Green.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

He does!

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In the last two clauses, I have established the Conservative party's position, which is that antisocial tenants are awful, must be cracked down on, and perhaps evicted under the Anti-social

Behaviour Act 2003. However, if those tenants want to buy their houses, they should not be prevented from so doing. Conservative Members have set out their clear position, but it is not one with which we agree.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am slightly surprised by the tack adopted by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I suppose that it is a reflection not of his compassionate Conservatism, but of his free-market Conservatism. For a change, I shall try to answer him in a fairly spontaneous fashion, although with the usual sources of inspiration solidly behind me. The direction set out in my notes is, ''Why not go further? Why have the Government been so feeble in making such proposals?'', whereas he raised a question mark over whether we should take action at all.

Clause 156 prevents a tenant from being able to compel his landlord to complete a right-to-buy sale if the landlord is taking action against him for antisocial behaviour. It applies if an application is pending for a demotion order or a possession order on grounds of nuisance. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the landlord can already suspend for rent arrears, but a right-to-buy sale can be processed as normal, although it must not be completed if antisocial behaviour proceedings are pending. If those proceedings fail, the RTB sale can proceed at the original valuation. He seems to think that we are going a long way already, but an unintended consequence of the obligation to complete a right-to-buy sale can be that it causes a race between the tenant trying to complete the sale and the landlord attempting to evict the tenant. Often, the right-to-buy purchase is completed more quickly than the possession proceedings and the tenant escapes the consequences of his errant behaviour.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the Minister agree that antisocial behaviour by a tenant is just as antisocial as antisocial behaviour by a home owner? Although I might not agree with the thrust of the Government's Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, I accept that there should be consistency between the two measures. Clearly, Conservative Members do not accept that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will recognise that in both the 2003 Act and the Bill, we are attempting to equalise the terrain between all social landlords so that appropriate action can be taken in respect of tenants who engage in antisocial behaviour.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On the grounds of consistency and of equalising the Government's approach, would the clause apply if the order were served against a member of the tenant's family, as was the case under the previous clause?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No, apparently it would not.

Let me conclude by saying to the hon. Gentleman that, if no order were made, the landlord's obligation to complete the sale would be restored. In some instances, the right-to-buy scheme is giving tenants who behave antisocially a means of escaping the consequences of their action. Our purpose of the provisions is to prevent antisocial tenants from

escaping such consequences because they complete the purchase of their home before the landlord can take effective action against them. That is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

To prevent uncertainty, I wish to return to the point raised in the intervention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Presumably, the clause would apply when the order for possession was based on the antisocial behaviour of a member of the tenant's family and thus put at risk the tenancy.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to him for securing that clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 165 - Succession to certain tenancies by same sex partners

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 441, in

clause 165, page 117, line 10, at end insert—

'(2A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a sibling shall be treated in the same way as the original tenant's spouse if the sibling was living with the original tenant.'.

The amendment seeks to do something that I believe was mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) on Second Reading. He was right to raise the issue with which it deals. In line with other legislation now under consideration, the Bill seeks to include in the terms of tenancies arrangements for the succession rights of unmarried couples, whether they are of the same sex or different sexes.

Another set of circumstances is that of elderly people of the generation that found after the second world war that there were not enough men to go round, and in which unmarried sisters therefore took to living together. This is a generational matter; I know of a number of cases in my constituency of elderly sisters who have lived together for many years. In some cases, they are joint tenants, so the problem will not arise, but in others one of them is the tenant and the other has merely been living with them. There could be brothers in that situation as well, but my experience is that it more often involves sisters.

The object of the amendment is to ensure that there is no discrimination between such relationships and those of a sexual nature. The wording of the Bill seems to suggest that one has rights so long as one is having sex with somebody. The amendment seeks to extend those rights to people who are not in a sexual relationship but have clearly been living together in a sibling relationship for a considerable time. I am glad that the hon. Member for Worthing, West raised the matter; I might not have tabled the amendment if I had not been prompted by his words on Second Reading. I am sure that the Government will consider the issue,

and I suspect that the amendment is not the best way of dealing with it, as the wording is not very good. The Minister will probably tell me—

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not have an expert to advise him on how to draft the amendment, but I am anxious to get at what he is proposing. Would he propose a qualifying period for the sibling who remains when her sister dies, to use his example? Is he saying that so long as the sibling is living in the property at that moment, she should have full rights? Or is he proposing, as I suspect he should, that there should at least be a qualification requiring that the sibling should have been living in the property for a year or some other period?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have not tried to write all the detail into the measure; I am trying to get the Government to do that—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps it could be done through regulations. I agree that the detail needs to be fleshed out, but I am using this opportunity to raise the matter again so that the Minister, who gave a sympathetic response on Second Reading and acknowledged that this was an issue, has the chance to return to it with a properly drafted amendment. Such an amendment might propose enabling regulations to deal with the problem. It would be remiss of the Committee to fail to take the opportunity to deal with it.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

First, may I say that I am very supportive of the clause? I spoke in favour of a similar measure many years ago when I served on another Committee considering a housing Bill. On that occasion, although the issue was raised and an amendment was tabled, the Government of the day unfortunately rejected the proposal.

I also have quite a bit of sympathy with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I have experienced exactly the same situation, again with two sisters, as it happens, who live in a property and feel uncertainty no matter what letters they get from the local authority saying, ''It'll be alright if one of you dies.'' Sometimes, it is not very reassuring if someone does not have the force of law behind them.

I wonder whether the Government might at some point look comprehensively at the issue of succession to see whether it needs sorting out, as anomalies are still around. Another such situation involves the child of a tenant who has lived in the family home all their life and has never moved out. When such a child's parents die, they might suddenly find—by then, they could be in their 50s or 60s—that they do not have a right to succeed. Again, we had a debate on that issue during consideration of a previous housing Bill, and it was clear that there were quite a few anomalies.

As I understand it, if someone has lived with their parents for their whole life, they may have the right to succeed in certain circumstances. It was previously common for only the man to be named on the tenancy agreement, and for the wife not to be named as a tenant. If the wife died first and the man remained a

tenant but then died, the child living with him had a right to succeed, because that would be a first succession. However, if as often happened, the man was a tenant and died first, the first succession went to the wife; that was automatic. When the wife died and left a child, however, the child was in second succession and so did not have the right to succeed in law. That is a complete anomaly.

I know that we can also throw up the issue of under-occupancy. The person in question might well have a three-bedroomed house, and there might be a shortage of such properties. However, it must be anomalous that whether the child can succeed depends on whether their mother or father died first. That is the law as it stands at present, and it is complete nonsense.

I know that, when the matter was previously considered, the then Minister with responsibility for housing, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), issued guidance to local authorities saying that they should exercise discretion in such circumstances and look closely at the possibility of awarding succession. The guidance also advised that that should be made clear to people in advance to relieve any stress that they might feel about the possibility of losing their family home once their parents had died.

However, that was only guidance, and it is not applied in all cases. Many local authorities do not even know that it exists. It has been filed away in some dark corner since the 1960s and forgotten, and it is not applied in practice. Certainly, when people come to inquire at the local housing office desk, the staff look at the rules and see that they do not contain such advice. They decide that the issue is something for the policy wonks up in head office to look at and do not give the correct advice there and then to the people who have come to seek it.

The issue raises many problems. I hope that the Minister will agree at least to conduct a review of the succession issue to see whether we can sort out some of the anomalies, because they are serious problems for people sitting in a home in which they have lived for an awful long time. Such people will regard where they live as their home and worry that it may not remain their home when the tenant dies.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks 100 per cent. I recently had a constituency case in which the ''no two succession'' rule, which is what he is talking about, came into play. The case involved a gentleman in his 50s who had lived for, I think, 40 years in a property with his parents—exactly the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The man's father had been the original tenant. His father died first and his mother succeeded to the tenancy. That was the first succession, so he had no right to stay in the property.

Perhaps the one area that we could look at—the hon. Gentleman also raised it—is cases in which the son or daughter lived in a very large property while there was great housing need in the area. In such cases, perhaps the local housing authority should have discretion to see whether it can find a suitable property

in the same area, but with fewer bedrooms, in order to free up the original property for a family that needs more bedrooms.

None the less, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue. He has done the Committee a service, and I very much hope that the Minister will take the point on board and seriously consider tabling an amendment before the end of our proceedings.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and proposed in the amendment seem well made. The problem with the clause is that it excludes people in partnerships that are not akin to marriage. Indeed, the Bill talks about partnerships in precisely those terms. That not only raises the issue of siblings, as he said, but highlights the real problem with succession in respect of adult children.

Most of us will have experienced constituency cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred. I am not prone to personal anecdotes, although it has become rather common to tell them in this Committee, but during my idyllic childhood growing up on a council estate in the golden age, my neighbours found themselves in precisely the circumstances that my hon. Friend described. A woman who lived with her elderly father until he died could not secure the tenancy of their council house for precisely the reasons described by both hon. Members who have spoken.

The clause is imperfect, and the amendment is not wide enough to deal with all the issues. It goes some way to addressing them by focusing on siblings but, as has been pointed out, the problem goes wider than that. It extends, for example, to elderly people living together as friends in a relationship that is not a marriage. Two elderly gentlemen or ladies who are living together but who do not claim in any sense to be married and do not want to make that claim would be peculiarly disadvantaged. I acknowledge that these are complex and difficult issues, not least of definition, but we deserve some explanation.

The hon. Member for Ludlow usually plays the fuddled fiddle in the muddled middle. I believe that Aneurin Bevan said that of J.B. Priestley, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman is rather less fuddled and muddled than usual, and so, possibly for the first time in all our deliberations, I can say, with appropriate solemnity, that I enthusiastically support his amendment.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): the clause is too narrow. There are many other deserving cases, which is why we have a problem with the provision and why we will vote for the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. Imperfect though it is, we want to make it clear that we believe that there should be a proper review of the way in which tenancies are handled.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendment would extend to siblings who are living together the same succession rights as those reserved for spouses, but only for Rent Act

tenancies. I remind the Committee that, in the case of secure and introductory tenancies, siblings already have succession rights if they resided with the tenant for 12 months preceding the tenant's death. In the case of Rent Act tenancies, siblings have succession rights if they resided with the tenant for two years preceding the tenant's death. The amendment would remove the need for a sibling to establish that they resided with the tenant for a set period before the tenant's death. Going down that path could open the doors to all siblings living with tenants, however transitorily, if they happened to be residing in the property when the tenant died.

Siblings may live with each other for many reasons, whereas spouses and life partners live together because they intend to make their home together. It is right and proper to give succession rights to siblings who have resided in the property for some time, as there is evidence that they have made a home with the tenant. It is difficult to argue the same for siblings who do not meet that test of residence. The problem is that if the net is drawn too widely, or if there are insufficient safeguards, landlords will rarely get their property back after the course of one person's lifetime, and will regularly have to wait for two lifetimes to pass before doing so. In addition, if siblings are given succession rights that are similar to spouses, why not give such rights to cousins, or more distant relatives, or friends, or anyone else who shares accommodation? They may well be dependent on each other and share their home for a lengthy period. Why stop at siblings?

We cannot legislate for every possible permutation of living arrangement. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The most distinctive line is between committed partnerships, where there is a clear intention for the parties to form a home together, and all other relationships.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Although I class myself as being on the socially liberal wing of my party, I acknowledge that there is a measure of logic in saying that the one commitment is the commitment of marriage, and that that is therefore a logical dividing line when dealing with tenancies; there can be no doubt about that relationship. However, Conservative members of the Committee feel that the clause does not go anything like far enough. There might be uncertainty and the amendment would open the way to abuse—the Minister is right about—but I implore him to look further at the clause to try to find some form of words that takes account of the arguments made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ludlow.

I fear that it is not logical to say that the line is drawn where it is for the purposes of certainty. Certainty would suggest either marriage or some other legal contract as the defining point. I would regard that as far too narrow, but so are the current arrangements, and I would like a much broader expansion. I hope that the Minister will give the measure serious consideration, if not necessarily in the course of this debate, at least before Report and Third Reading.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's observations, and I am not unsympathetic to the underlying concern that informs them and which I think is generally shared within the Committee. In this Committee, we have not only the progressive party of politics and the party in the middle, but—with people such as the hon. Gentleman present—a singularly socially liberal group of Conservative Members of Parliament.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let me make clear that I have not got a socially liberal bone in my body. My colleagues can speak for themselves, but I know that at least one or two of them would be close to that position.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Well, four socially liberal Conservatives and one compassionate Conservative.

I understand the argument and I want to say something more about our possible longer-term approach on these matters. I maintain that the line must be drawn somewhere and that the most distinctive line is between committed partnerships, where there is a clear intention for the parties to form a home together, and all other relationships. The Government believe that siblings generally do not have a case for being recognised on the same basis as a couple. They already have a legally recognised relationship and their rights reflect that relationship.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe raised the issue of adult children who may not be able to succeed to the tenancies of their home, even though they have known no other. Each of us, as a constituency MP, has come across those tragic cases on more than one occasion in our advice surgeries. Let me state the Government's stance on the matter, and again, as in my response to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), say something about a longer-term approach.

Children might not be able to succeed to the tenancies of their homes because, as my hon. Friend knows, it is at the landlord's discretion whether to grant further successions than those stipulated in the legislation. The fact is that landlord's stock may be subject to heavy demand, and the surviving child might not have as great a housing need as others. It might be that the child is left as the sole occupant of a family home, which could house another entire family as it once housed the child's. The landlord, although not granting the child a further succession, may offer them alternative, smaller, accommodation.

Such a situation can be a source of enormous upset when it arises, especially when the parents held a joint tenancy, one has died and the child has not realised that the remaining parent had succeeded to the tenancy—thus exhausting the right of succession. My hon. Friend alluded to Government guidance on that area. That recommends that housing authorities consider granting a tenancy to the remaining person or persons either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation, provided that the allocation has no adverse implications for the good use of the housing stock and has sufficient priority under the allocation scheme.

My experience as a Member of Parliament for a constituency covering an extremely hard-pressed inner-London authority is that authorities generally try to act with a degree of sympathy towards the tenant in such a situation. Other offers are made, but the trouble is that if someone has lived in a particular place all their life, they consider it their home and they are understandably reluctant to move to smaller accommodation in a different, perhaps less salubrious, area. However, the authority is between a rock and a hard place. There is desperate housing demand in London and other major cities, and that demand must be addressed. The under-occupancy rate in council housing stock is already sizeable—the figure is about 8 or 9 per cent. in London—so it is clear that there are strong pressures on local authorities.

I agree that inequalities in legislation should be addressed. That is why we are amending the provisions on the rules for succession to tenancies so that they will apply to same-sex couples. I do not want to belittle the work of making further amendments, as the hon. Members for Ludlow and for South-West Bedfordshire suggested, to address inequality, but there is a difference. The provisions on same-sex couples that I mentioned are in direct response to a specific recommendation from the Select Committee and in furtherance of a Government commitment in the housing Green Paper.

The Bill is already very long. Although it could be argued that the amendment falls within its scope, to agree to it would lead to the argument that we should take the opportunity to amend all other housing legislation that contains the same inequality, which would add considerably to the length of the Bill. And why stop here? Why not do something about the inequalities in all other legislation?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister may have a point. The Bill is long, and we hope that it will be made longer by our adding some new clauses. However, the Government have proposed a civil partnerships Bill, which will address one particular area. Will the Minister consult his ministerial colleagues to see whether the issue could be debated and dealt with in the context of that Bill, which is taking in overarching aspects of the rights of same-sex couples?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I appreciate the constructive nature of that proposal, but I doubt whether there will be an opportunity for innovative legislation to be included in a Bill that is about to start its passage through the House. It seems more appropriate to carry out a separate exercise to address all issues of inequality in housing. We are expecting the draft tenure review Bill from the Law Commission later this year, and if we are inclined to follow the legislative route, that might provide such an opportunity.

There is a separate issue of discrimination between the position of spouses and unmarried couples, which occurs throughout the statute book. The difference in treatment is not always consistent and is often the result of historical accident. Given that there are inequalities between same-sex partners, different-sex

partners and married people throughout legislation, the Government may want to consider the appropriateness of a Government-wide equalities Bill to take the issue forward. That would be a large piece of work and something that we would have to consider carefully.

I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee open-mindedness and a recognition of the issues. However, I am not in any position to make commitments at this stage. I have tried to answer all the points made by hon. Members as comprehensively and sympathetically as possible, and I hope that, considering that, the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I rise to make a brief point. I did not intervene on the Minister to make it, as he was making a measured, closely worded and considered response. However, there is a second issue: the clause does not only disadvantage siblings and adult children. I acknowledge what he said about time frames of residence, but the provision also disadvantages same-sex couples who are not

''in a relationship equivalent to that of husband and wife.''

There will be same-sex couples—such as elderly widows or widowers, or elderly spinsters or bachelors—who are not in a relationship equivalent to a marriage. They are of the same sex, but not in that kind of relationship. It would be wrong if two elderly spinsters had to pretend that they were in a kind of marriage in order to benefit from the Bill's provisions. It does not even deal reasonably with same-sex couples. There are even more profound problems with the clause, which the amendment would go some way to address. I am grateful for the Minister's tolerance and open-mindedness, but there are very profound worries about the clause.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The clause does not disadvantage anybody: it removes an anomaly and a piece of discrimination that has existed for too long. What it does not do is remove every other anomaly in the rules on succession. Some of those have been referred to in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response to them. He went through the pros and cons of some of the issues and indicated that he was prepared to have a wider review then the general consideration of tenure that will result from the Law Commission's work. That is the right way forward: we should support the clause, which removes one anomalous piece of discrimination, then look to the review to deal with the others.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I listened to the Minister with some care, and he gave some reassurances, but there are still some questions to be asked. I support clause 165, but its effect is that one group of people will now have fewer rights than others: people who are related to one other closely enough that they cannot by law be in a sexual relationship. After all, cousins—even same-sex cousins—could claim that they were in a sexual relationship.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

They should not have to.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

No, they should not have to, but the legislation would allow them to claim that. However, a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters, cannot; sons and daughters, and grandchildren cannot. They are restricted by law from claiming that right. Everybody else, provided that they are adults, can claim that they fit in to one of those circumstances.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

They have to prove it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

After someone has died, proving anything is difficult. The Minister has unintentionally created another anomaly.

The danger of legislating is that as a loophole is closed, an oddity is created. People who are closely related to one another will now have fewer rights than people in every other set of circumstances. The Minister has acknowledged that difficulty. It would be remiss of the Committee if we passed the clause without taking the opportunity of testing the waters. The amendment is imperfect, because it only covers siblings, not children, or grandchildren, or cousins, for the reasons that I have explained.

This is not a point on which we should simply accept the Minister's assurance that it will all be dealt with. It will be helpful if members of the Committee indicate where they stand on the issue. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I rise to ask for clarification about an issue that has been drawn to my attention primarily by Shelter, which is complicated—at least for me.

Clause 165 gives unmarried and different-sex partners and same-sex partners the same rights, but the kinds of tenants who are referred to in subsections (1) and (3) seem to get different sets of rights, whereas the kinds of tenants referred to in subsections (2) and (4) get an inferior set of rights. Subsection (1) provides that a person will be

''treated as the spouse of the . . . tenant if''

they are living with them as husband or wife, or if they are in a same-sex ''equivalent relationship''. That is a fine and full recognition of the equivalence. The same thing happens in subsection (3), under which someone would be treated as a spouse if they were living as husband or wife, or in a same-sex relationship that is equivalent to that of husband and wife.

Subsection (1) covers a Rent Act tenant and subsection (3) covers an assured tenant. Subsection (2) says that a

'''member of the tenant's family' includes . . . a person who''

is living together as husband and wife with the tenant, or is in an equivalent same-sex relationship. Subsection (2) says that an unmarried partner of either sex is treated as a member of the tenant's family, not as a spouse. Subsection (4) says the same thing. Subsections (2) and (4) cover introductory and secure tenancies. Subsection (4) does not say that ''a person of either sex living together is a spouse'', but that they are just a

'''member of the tenant's family'''.

To succeed in that regard and be treated as a member of the tenant's family, such people must have resided continuously with the tenant for the past 12 months. That puts those who are succeeding under subsections (2) and (4) in a lesser position than that of marrieds and those who succeed under subsections (1) and (3).

To be treated as a

'''member of the tenant's family'''

would also, although I do not know this—I am relying entirely on the briefing—put a deceased partner behind an estranged spouse. That would put the partner on a level with other family members who might have lived there for 12 months, and that might cause difficulties. If there is a clash, the landlord will decide who succeeds, and that might not be satisfactory. Was it the Government's intention to give two categories of rights to the same set of people, contingent on the kind of tenancy that exists?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I wish to support the hon. and learned Lady. As eagled-eyed Committee members will have noticed, I was somewhat slow in tabling a couple of amendments along these lines, and we have made such rapid progress today that we will not be able to discuss them as they were rightly starred. I am glad that the hon. and learned Lady raised exactly the point that my two amendments were designed to prompt. The Minister has some explaining to do.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Ludlow hit upon an important point of consistency. I suspect that, in attempting to introduce a provision, sections have been taken from the original Act that do not marry terribly well. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure us that that will be dealt with during the further passage of the Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar for raising an important matter, which has stimulated an interesting

and energetic—not to say frantic—response on my part. I hope to be able to offer some explanation of the clause's contents.

My hon. and learned Friend raised the point that the civil partnerships Bill will allow same-sex partners to succeed as partners. The issue of tenures and rights is complicated. The existing tenure succession is already different among secure, assured and Rent Act tenancies, and members of families have different rights from spouses in any circumstances. I cannot, of course, pray in aid a visual representation, but I have in my hand a document that sets out succession rights across the three tenancies. There are 14 or 15 variations in tenancy rights within those categories.

There is an argument for regularising the situation. I imagine that that will certainly be one of the purposes of the Law Commission's work on tenure, to which we have referred frequently during our discussions. However, my basic point in connection with same-sex partners, which is the subject and purpose of the clause, is that we have sought to equalise same-sex rights to fit in with the different tenure regimes. That is the clause's purpose, although I fully admit that there may be other issues about wider family rights that have not been addressed in the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was waiting to see whether the hon. and learned Lady wanted to rise, as I am in anticipation of her further comment.

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister. He suggests that the reason for the disparity between subsections (1) and (3) and subsections (2) and (4) is that they apply to different kinds of tenancies. That seemed to be the implication of what he said. He said that the complexities that apply to the different types of tenancies and the different familial relationships in respect of those tenancies explain the apparent discrepancy. I am not sure that that is right. I cannot see that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) clearly delineate different situations, either in terms of the familial relationship or the type of tenancy. The argument that he is spinning seems a bit thin. I do not know what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar thinks, but that is my impression of the case that the Minister has made. Perhaps it is something that we can come back to later.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

As I understand it, they are separated. Subsections (2) and (4) are about different kinds of tenancy from subsections (1) and (3). I think that I am starting to grasp what the Minister is saying about the rationale behind the clause. I see that the primary purpose is to put husband and wife equivalents in the same position—by that, I mean opposite-sex partners and same-sex partners. It still gives a hierarchy of rights to people who should be in the same position. It is unfortunate that someone does not have the same rights to succeed because of what might be just an accident in the nature of the tenancy.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the key point—I do not think that the Minister has quite addressed it—is that although there may be

different rules and law under subsections (2) and (4), surely under the succession arrangements for the types of tenancy to which those subsections apply, a wife or a husband would not be treated as a member of the family; they would be given a different place in terms of succession? If the amendments were accepted, they would not give a same-sex partner a different relationship, in terms of succession, from a member of the family.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Although that is right, it seems to me that it goes a little wider. It does not give a spouse—whether same sex or opposite sex—the same right as a married person in connection with those two tenancies. With the other two kinds of tenancy, it gives them the same rights. It seems odd that although the intent is to give everyone equal rights, the effect is to give two sets of people unequal rights just because of the accident of the kind of tenancy that they have. The long-stop answer that the Law Commission might put it right in a couple of hundred years is not fantastically satisfactory.

Amendments were proposed that appeared in my elementary judgment to be perfectly easy. However, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, they are starred and could not be carried through. I invite the Minister to consider whether amendments Nos. 455 and 456 might not meet the case and ensure what I am sure he set out to do, which is to give everybody the same rights as married people whatever the nature of the tenancy.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I do not have the Rent Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Housing Act 1996 in front of me, but I do have the Housing Act 1985, which is referred to in subsection (2) and is one of these slight aberrations. The more I read it, the more I regret not getting those amendments down on Tuesday, because section 87 of the 1985 Act, entitled ''Succession on death of a tenant'' and referred to by clause 165(2), is actually quite a small clause. If I read it aloud, it will make it clear that subsection (2) could easily have referred to a spouse rather than a member of the family.

''A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy if he occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death and either—(a) is the tenant's spouse, or (b) he is another member of the tenant's family and resided with the tenant throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant's death; unless, in either case, the tenant was himself a successor, as defined in section 88''—

the problem of the second succession. The way that the Government have framed the subsection, it would not make any difference whether they are a member of the family or a spouse. For equal reasons, the Government could have framed it the other way around, which would make more sense in the reading of it for same-sex partners. The Government could easily have framed subsections (2) and (4)—certainly subsection (2); I cannot comment specifically on subsection (4) because I do not have the Act in front of me—in exactly the same way as subsections (1) and (3). That would have made no practical difference at all and would have avoided the problem of appearing to give different treatment to same-sex couples compared with married couples.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That, in a clumsy way, is the point that I was trying to make. In the various Acts referred to, the relationship of either family member or spouse could be applied in any of those circumstances. In two cases the Government have aligned same-sex partners with spouses, and in another two cases—although they could have done the same—they have aligned such partners with family members. I have had two looks at the Acts concerned; I am reading from the same section of the 1985 Act as the hon. Gentleman. His point is well made, and I am sure that the Minister will want to clear that up.

Vera Baird rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I give way.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention on the hon. Member for Ludlow; it is not possible for him to give way to someone else. Before the Committee continues, I remind hon. Members that amendments Nos. 455 and 456, starred on the amendment paper, were not selected. Although I am happy for the debate to cover clause 165 generally, I hope that the Minister will not be tempted into responding as if those amendments were being considered, because they most definitely are not.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was taking great care not to refer to those amendments; I was referring to the fact that the Government could have phrased subsection (2) like subsection (1). The fact that my amendment has not been selected is a different matter.

Did the hon. and learned Member for Redcar want to intervene on me?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

No, I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in case he had the Housing Act 1996 with him as well. Subsection (4) is about the 1996 Act; we need to establish whether the same pattern that the hon. Member for Ludlow has pinpointed in the 1985 Act is replicated there.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall try to get it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that wise intervention; clearly it is not helpful when one gets a clause referring to four different Acts in the space of about 20 sentences.

To satisfy the Committee and to prevent the matter coming back again, the Minister needs to explain how it would have made any difference if subsection (2) had been framed as subsection (1). Reading the 1985 Act, I cannot see that it would have made any difference at all. The whole thrust of the Government's legislation is to treat same-sex couples as though they were spouses; the Government could easily have framed the subsections in that way. The Minister might want to spend a little time exploring why he has ended up with that wording.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I begin to feel that the Committee is losing sight of the very decent purpose, designed to secure the succession rights of same-sex tenancies, that is set out in the Bill. I reiterate that the civil

partnerships Bill will allow same-sex couples to succeed as spouses. We are dealing with an accumulation of legislation, but let me say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that the Government are seized of those tenure issues and of the complexities of legislation that may have been designed at different times to serve different purposes. That is why we look forward to the findings of the Law Commission. I will not be here in 200 years' time, but its findings will be published in the spring. The Government will respond to them with considerable interest.

I must also say that it is difficult for me, as a Minister, to deal with proposed amendments that have not been selected. In those circumstances, the Committee will have to forgive me for not having an obvious answer. I hope that it will satisfy the Committee if I say that I have listened to the debate with great care and that I shall consider these matters and, if necessary, come forward with further proposals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The glint of Mack the Knife's blade is beginning to flash before the Committee again, so I had better keep my remarks brief.

There are real uncertainties about this clause. The specific points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar are important. However, in making our judgment about the clause, we return to the fundamental issues about the unreasonableness of applying certain conditions to certain groups while implicitly excluding other groups that might in some

people's eyes be deemed to be equally deserving. We have had a long debate about that, and I do not want to extend it.

I would have loved to be able to quote from the 1996 Act—which is winging its way towards me, but not fast enough—and all the other legislation that is referred to in detail in this clause. However, on the basis of what I have said, I have to recommend to Conservative Committee members that we vote against this clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.