---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already thanked me for my generosity. May I tell him that it is not limitless?

Mr. Hayes: I wondered at what point your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might begin to come to an end. We have now reached that important point.

The intention of the new clause is to assist local authorities in the pursuit of a proper purpose. The Government have properly introduced a series of measures in Committee and today aim to curb the abuses of right to buy, with which we have no problem. In that spirit, I hope that they will support the new clause and so provide the balance that is absolutely necessary if the great success of the right to buy is to continue into the future.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I want to speak to amendment No. 94, which I tabled, and to make some points as an antidote to the contribution of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

I was a member of a Labour authority in the early 1980s that pre-empted the Conservative party in terms of the right to buy. The one difference was that for every council house that was sold, we built another one to replace it. That must be the only way in which a sensible right to buy can ever be afforded.

We have had a useful debate already in terms of the implications of the right to buy. In Committee, an attempt was made to consider further exemption on the right to buy where there were rural populations of less than 3,000. I make no apology for reintroducing that issue, because the Government must recognise that the problem of housing is not just an urban one but very much a rural one.

5.30 pm

Over the last five years alone, we have sold off some 40,000 council properties. That has happened at a cost. Yes, the right to buy is about giving the individual choice and the opportunity to buy the home in which he or she lives, but we also know of the damage done to others whom it prevents from living in rural areas. It is pleasing that amendment No. 94, which has been floating around for some time, is supported by both the Local Government Association and Shelter. They feel strongly that something must be done about the growing problem of not just homelessness but lack of accessibility. Our rural communities are being socially cleansed, in the sense that people on lower incomes can no longer afford to live in those areas.

Ms Buck : Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was wrong in his analysis of the problems connected with the right to buy? My hon. Friend is right about what is happening in rural areas, and indeed in urban areas such as mine. When properties have been sold and then sold on, those in a position to buy them
 
11 May 2004 : Column 248
 
are in a different category in terms of purchasing power and housing need. That leaves a much larger pool of people in true housing need. Properties in my constituency that were originally sold under the right to buy are now being sold for £350,000, and are thus completely beyond the reach of people who need affordable homes.

Mr. Drew: I agree, and the problems affecting London also affect the more expensive parts of the south. On-selling often moves properties completely out of the affordable housing bracket—properties that have already been moved out of the social housing bracket.

The amendment happens to chime with a recommendation in the report produced by the rural group of Labour Members, which I am proud to chair. The report, which was well received by the Front Bench, made a number of suggestions that I feel should be pursued. We said, for instance,

"The right to buy from councils or RSLs should not be available to tenants in settlements of below 3,000. They concede that this 'may cause difficulties for those who already have this right', but argue that, 'as people realise the effect of the right to buy on their own families, they will understand why it may be withdrawn'."

We were quite cheered by the thought that, as the Government recognised, there were places in which—on a purely local, discretionary basis—the right to buy had reached its natural conclusion. Surprisingly, however, few of the 26 areas that were given an opportunity to consider how they might restrict the right were deemed to be rural. We want to extend the recognition that we now live in very different times.

As I have said, there is one thing worse than the removal of people's ability to buy their existing homes: the fact that they are no longer able to live in many rural areas. This is all about priorities, and about ensuring that we have a mixed rural population. That population is already under great strain in the south, and unless we do something dramatic the situation will worsen.

There are alternatives, and the Government are considering them. One option is Homebuy; another is the system of community land trusts, which I favour. We will be creative, and we will be innovative. The simple fact, however, is that such schemes take time to bring about, whereas the crisis is real and happening now. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider carefully what we are suggesting. We are not saying that the right to buy should go; we in rural areas are not unreconstructed Stalinists, we are just people who deal with our constituents.

The issue is no longer one on which the Labour party stands in isolation. I gather that the Liberal Democrats moved an amendment on this point in Committee, and there are many Conservatives who are now beginning to consider a similar position because of the way in which we have seen our communities change as a result of the right to buy—and in this case, change for the worse. I should make it very clear that this is a matter that should be left, with the support of the ministerial team, to local discretion. If local authorities feel that the right to buy has a rightful place in their housing policy, then let it continue, but if they have seen the problems of right to buy and feel strongly about them, it is only right and proper that they should be included in the group of 26 existing areas where the right to buy is further restricted.
 
11 May 2004 : Column 249
 

I hope that Ministers are listening and that this debate will be continued not only here but in the other place when the Bill is considered there. The issue will not go away, and I make no apology for raising it. It is crucial. Anyone who knows anything about rural Britain at the moment knows that when Labour came to power, the No. 1 issue, without any doubt, was transport. Now that that issue has been addressed—not completely, but there are some improvements in transport—it has been overtaken, unfortunately, by housing. Anyone who does any research, or talks to lower-income constituents, will without doubt identify housing as the highest priority. I hope that Ministers take note, and that we can ensure that something is done on this vital issue.

Matthew Green: I shall attempt to be brief, because I know that we want to turn to other matters, but I cannot resist making a quick comment on the Conservatives' new clause 18, which is the "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" clause. It is an attempt to get councils to force through right-to-buy sales, and it is quite frankly barmy. Right to buy is right in some areas, but it works to the detriment of others. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that it should be left to local discretion, and that is exactly what should be done. No amendment has been tabled that makes that point, but it should really be up to a local authority to decide whether there should be any discount up to £36,000, in any area. That would solve many of the issues with which we are dealing.

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 116 and 117. The Government have rightly acted to prevent people from using right to buy just before a regeneration scheme or demolition goes ahead, which they know is going to happen, so that they can receive compensation money. The Government are right to take that action, but they have specified a period of 18 months. My understanding, from talking to people who work on such schemes, is that the common lead-in time from the point at which a scheme is announced to the point at which it goes ahead is much nearer to three years. There is quite a lot of concern in the industry, for want of a better word—it is not really an industry—and from people who work in the field that an 18-month period is insufficient. We have suggested a period of 36 months, which would be the three years that those people have mentioned. I ask the Minister to look closely at that time period, because the professionals who work in the field say that it is insufficient and that there will be problems as a result. The action is absolutely right, but the Government need to consider the time frame.

I firmly endorse amendment No. 94, ably moved by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Right to buy has decimated the housing stock in rural areas. In my constituency, it has caused tremendous problems of loss of social housing stock that cannot be easily replaced, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I raised that point in Committee, and I hope that the Lords will look at it in detail and that the Government will act on it.

Perhaps the best route forward is to leave to local authority discretion whether or not there is a discount. That would be a simple way of dealing with the situation, rather than the current approach of central Government's deciding which are the deserving rural
 
11 May 2004 : Column 250
 
areas. The centre does not always know best; in fact, it rarely knows best. The matter should be left to local discretion. That is new localism, and it is in chime with what the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about.

I hope that the Government respond positively to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, and I also hope that they extend the time period relating to demolition notices to 36 months.

---