---

Mr. Simon Thomas: The new clauses that relate to antisocial behaviour and the right to buy are obviously crucial to the Government's antisocial behaviour strategies. In light of the Westminster council homes scandal, can the Minister assure us that the safeguards will be sufficient to prevent disreputable local authorities from socially engineering the tenants who buy properties in particular areas? In that regard, what sort of evidence would be needed to suspend the right to buy in a court case—is it a matter of civil proof or of criminal proof?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to prevent terrible behaviour of the kind that took place in Westminster. We are trying to safeguard the rights of local communities who are struggling with antisocial behaviour. Under the new clause, landlords will need to seek an order to suspend on the ground of antisocial behaviour, for a specified period, the right to buy in respect of the tenancy. The landlord will not be able to do that arbitrarily, but will need to go to court and the court will grant a suspension order only if it is satisfied that antisocial or threatening behaviour is taking place and that the request is reasonable. The court will need to take a series of factors
 
11 May 2004 : Column 241
 
into account, including whether it is desirable for the property to be managed by the landlord during the suspension period.

Some of the other amendments are about suspending the right to buy, or allowing landlords not to complete the right to buy, if other antisocial behaviour measures are already being pursued. Through the new clause, we are trying to ensure that the right to buy does not become a get-out clause that allows antisocial tenants to subvert the other measures that have been introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour. By stipulating that the decision is for the courts, not for local authorities, we have taken care to ensure that, in situations where, in effect, a tenant's property rights are at stake, a fair process is gone through in achieving our aim of dealing with antisocial behaviour.

Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): May I press my hon. Friend on the question that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked about the burden of proof in such cases? Although I strongly support the idea that people who are given the right to buy must be responsible tenants and that we should suspend that right if they are being irresponsible through antisocial behaviour, I also believe that the burden of proof should be the same as it is for antisocial behaviour orders—that is, civil, not criminal.

Yvette Cooper: I can assure my hon. Friend that in such circumstances the right to buy will be suspended only for a specified period. We are not trying arbitrarily to impose an unfair penalty, but to give local authorities more tools to deal with antisocial behaviour. The new clause is very much in line with our approach towards antisocial behaviour throughout the Bill, which is to say that we need to give landlords more opportunities to address the problem while ensuring that people's rights are properly protected, that they get a fair hearing and that they are treated reasonably in the circumstances. That is why the role of the court is an important safeguard.

I turn to amendment No. 70. Under section 119 of the Housing Act 1985, a secure tenant does not qualify for the right to buy until they have spent two years as a public sector tenant. Clause 157 extends that qualifying period to five years. It has been suggested that that will disadvantage tenants who take up a new social tenancy, whether it be a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy—for example, when they move from one social housing property to another. We do not intend to penalise existing social tenants who take up new social tenancies by making them wait longer for the right to buy. This minor and technical amendment is designed to avoid such a situation arising and to ensure that tenancies that began before the day on which clause 157 comes into effect will still be subject to the present two-year qualifying period.

I ask the House to support the Government new clauses and amendments.

Mr. Hayes: We now move to the part of the Bill that deals with the right to buy, a subject that was aired in Committee and which, appropriately, we want to say a few words about today. I particularly want to speak to new clause 18, which is intended to provide a shot in the arm for the important principle of the right to buy. The
 
11 May 2004 : Column 242
 
whole House will be familiar with the famous words of Benjamin Disraeli, when he said that the Conservative party was

"only in its proper position when it represents popular principles. Then it is truly irresistible . . . It necessarily depends upon enlarged sympathies and noble aspirations".

There can be no more noble an aspiration than the desire to own one's home and the right to buy has played an important part in the fulfilment of that aspiration since it was introduced.

In preparing for this debate, I glanced at the figures for right-to-buy sales since 1980, and I was delighted to learn that around 1.6 million properties have been sold under the scheme. None of that would have taken place without the energy and commitment of the Conservative Government who introduced that important legislation.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab) rose—

Mr. Hayes: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but before I do, perhaps I should say that, although she might be a noble exception, most of those on the Labour Benches are typically either reluctant converts to the cause of the right to buy, or nakedly hostile to it. Perhaps she will tell me which she is.

Ms Buck: I was prompted by the hon. Gentleman's statement that there is no nobler aim than that of encouraging home ownership. Will he perhaps revise that opinion and say that we should instead aspire to ensuring a decent home for all? His party's policy comes into conflict with that more noble objective in that it has never addressed the fact that the right to buy can and does conflict with the objective of providing homes for all, in high-demand areas. Will he say something about the unmet housing needs that have been created in part by the pressure from the right to buy?

Mr. Hayes: Home ownership is a noble aspiration not simply because it is a matter of acquiring a piece of property. The home is evocative of security, warmth, certainty and stability. It is the place to which we all return at the end of the day, so one should not be dismissive of the aspiration to own a home. However, the hon. Lady makes a good point when she says that it is important to have a decent social housing stock. That is why I know that she will join me in condemning this Government for their appalling record on social house building. This Government have built only about half the number of social houses that the last Conservative Government built.

The hon. Lady is also right to say that the measures in the Bill do little to address either my concerns about the pace of the right to buy or her more fundamental concerns about the principle itself. She is right that we need a balanced housing programme and that every Briton deserves the right to live in a warm, secure, stable home that is fit for its purpose and part of a strong and
 
11 May 2004 : Column 243
 
sustainable community. I agree with her entirely on that, but I do not believe that such aspirations are incompatible with the right-to-buy policy.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Jim Knight rose—

Mr. Hayes: I will give way, although I do not want to be diverted down a path that you will not let me follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am trying, as ever, to be generous to Labour Members.

Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman did not actually answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Let me ask him a much simpler one: is it still the Opposition's policy to extend the right to buy to the registered social landlord sector, and what implications does he think that that would have for affordable accommodation?

5.15 pm

Mr. Hayes: I tell the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) unequivocally that it is our intention to maintain the policy. There has been no party policy change on the right to buy, but it is important to consider other ways in which to provide high quality social housing. It is also important to create a more fluid system, whereby people move more easily from rented to market housing. One of the problems with the right to buy is that many long-standing council tenants become the long-standing owners of the properties that they purchase and do not move to market housing. That has diminished local authorities' housing stock. That was a fair point, which both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made.

It is not beyond the wit of man to create an environment where people can aspire to ownership and in which a more fluid market can exist. The hon. Gentleman will know about the possibility of transferable discounts, which the previous Government introduced and the current Government maintain. They allow people to fulfil their aspiration to become home owners and lead to a more fluid market. We are disappointed that the Bill gives that no shot in the arm.

From memory, there were approximately 897 cases of people taking up the opportunity through a transferable discount to move from a rented to a market house in 2002. That is a miserable figure when compared with the total number of people who aspire to own their homes. Seventy per cent. currently own their homes and more than 80 per cent. would like to do so. Any responsible Government or party has a duty to ensure that those people have a realistic prospect of achieving that aspiration. Because the hon. Member for Edmonton is
 
11 May 2004 : Column 244
 
a caring and decent man, I know that he would agree with that. On that happy note, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

---