---

Mr. Gill: If my memory serves me right, this is where we were last time the question was debated. I am sure that the Minister acknowledged then that definitions would need to be made, so it is sad that we are here discussing the same measure again while the lists are still not available. When does he propose to publish them?

Mr. Curry: We gave members of the Committee some illustrative examples of how we intended to proceed. We shall issue lists once the Bill has completed its passage; they will be subject to consultation. We do not intend to come up with a definition that is so hard and fast that settlements of 2,999 will be included but those of 3,001 will not. Equally, we want to avoid accidents of birth and death sending settlements in and out of designation.

Once we have designated the settlements for the first time, we expect the designations to remain in force for10 years, or at least between censuses. It is not in anyone's interest that settlements should not know what status they enjoy. Obviously, there will have to be revisions from time to time--say, when a major settlement is developed, since that will alter the social and economic nature of an area. We are approaching the matter flexibly, therefore, but with a clear set of rules that will not, I hope, be confusing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised some questions about his own part of the world, mentioning the national parks in particular. There are only 17 settlements of more than 3,000 people in all our national parks. In the Lake district they are Keswick, which is not in my right hon. Friend's constituency, and Windermere, which is, and which has a population of roughly 70,000. In the Yorkshire dales and Northumberland parks, no settlements fall within the designation. In Exmoor, there would be two, in the north Yorkshire moors, three, and in Dartmoor, four. There would be rather more in the Peak district, but we shall need to discuss the detail to determine exactly which ones will be designated.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has explained that he cannot be here owing to the need to attend a Select Committee this afternoon, but I might

29 Apr 1996 : Column 789

point out that, with areas close to major conurbations, we would need to be sensitive to the situation and to recognise that differing circumstances probably apply as compared with more far-flung communities.

I should at this point remark that in rural areas, for existing properties, whether or not covered by section 106, the scheme is entirely voluntary. Properties are covered only if the housing association opts into the scheme, because it is entirely discretionary. The element of requirement impinges only on properties built with public funds after this legislation becomes law. The hon. Member for Attercliffe cited the example of a housing association that wanted to develop affordable homes using only money raised privately. In that case, there would be no right to buy. The simple formula in that case is: no housing association grant, no sale. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

We have just circulated a consultation paper, and replies have been received. The proposals recognise the need for replacement properties, which is why we recycle receipts into the scheme. That is an essential element of the whole idea. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) correctly said, under current legislation if a housing association sells properties--quite a number do; it is well established--the receipts go back to the Housing Corporation. The money is recycled into general funding, not specifically to the housing association. Under this scheme, when a housing association sells a property, the receipts are retained by the association and must be used to provide new social housing. That means that if the association is using land donated, or given at very low cost, the sale takes place at market value and there will be no discount for the housing association. The tenant gets a discount, as with the local authority scheme--although perhaps not on the same scale. The point is that the housing association receives a market price for the property, and all the money goes into the provision of new accommodation. That is how any donation is recycled for future tenants.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) mentioned Hanson Land Ltd. The Labour party rides with strange bedfellows these days, it would seem. One day Hanson--the next, who knows? The answer to the hon. Member's point is that if those properties are sold at market value, the housing association will use the whole of that value for recycling into new properties. So Hanson's fear of a bonus for the tenants is misplaced. There is no bonus for them from the point of view of the housing association.

Mrs. Maddock: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I believe that there is evidence that in the process of buying and selling there will not be enough money left at the end of the system to replace all the properties. I cannot quote the figures, but I know that people are very worried about this. In practice it sounds fine: the money will be returned and will be available for future use. But we all know from buying our own homes that it costs money to make financial deals, so some money is lost to the system.

Mr. Curry: Under the legislation, when a housing association receives money it will all go into the provision of new accommodation--and it does not have to be newly

29 Apr 1996 : Column 790

built. It can be acquired in other ways, which may enable the association, in fact, to invest in more houses than it has sold.

We want to be flexible, as I have said. We shall keep all the mechanisms under review. I am anxious that the scheme should work. As I said often in Committee, I am not in receipt of biblical certitude; we need to keep an eye on developments. I would not hesitate to amend the scheme if that appeared necessary. But I do not want to make the scheme so complicated that its very complexity constitutes a deterrent. Our twin purpose is to encourage home ownership and to put housing association tenants on a more equal footing with local authority tenants. At the same time, we have to recognise that there are circumstances in which that would not be--to use a word beloved of my officials--appropriate.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has presented the case for the recycling of capital receipts as the solution to the problem, but it is not an adequate solution. First, there will be places where it is impossible to replace properties, especially in communities where there is strong pressure on development and where, once a development is complete, people do not want further development. If the housing that is developed goes out of social use, therefore, it will be lost for ever.

Secondly, the crucial point about Hanson which the Minister overlooked is that no developer or landowner will make land available for social needs at low market price if he then sees that the resulting windfall accrues not to him but to the housing association and the tenant, because the tenant can buy at a discount and the housing association gets the capital receipt. Many landowners say that they are prepared to part with land for less than the market price, but they will not do so if, as a result of the right to buy, that land is built on with houses that are then sold at market rates. That will act as a deterrent to future development in Peterborough and elsewhere.

Mr. Curry: There is no windfall gain for the tenant. The tenant pays a market price, but he is given help in paying the market price by the grant. The tenant does not get a discount, irrespective of whether the land was given by the Church Commissioners, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale or anyone else. The price that the tenant pays is exactly the same as the price that the market requires, but he gets assistance from the grant that is given to help him to pay that price. The tenant pays a percentage and the remainder is made up by the grant.

If the housing association sells a property that has been built on land that has been donated, it will make a bigger profit from the sale of that land and that profit will then be recycled into the provision of new accommodation. The value of the gift is transmitted forward into the new sales. That is my point. But I am willing to reply to other points.

5 pm

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend the Minister has not answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). We all accept, on both sides of the House, that there is no gain or benefit to the tenant. We accept that such gain as there is will go to the housing association and will therefore, as my hon. Friend points

29 Apr 1996 : Column 791

out, be recycled. But will he put himself in the shoes of the landowner who either has sold or might in future be prepared to sell land for the purpose of social housing? If the landowner provides land for that purpose, is there any certainty that that land and that housing will remain in use for the purpose for which he has made it available at less than the market price? If there is no certainty, why should the landowner provide any land? More to the point, why should any landowner make additional land available in the future if the original housing on the original land is disposed of? My hon. Friend must consider the issue from the point of view of the landowner, who may be very reluctant to let any land go. In many instances, there will be opposition in the villages to any land being allowed for that sort of housing and it will be extraordinarily difficult for any landowner to countenance making land available unless there is a guarantee that the land and the houses built on it will remain used for the purpose for which he made it available in the first place.

---