New Clause 20
Housing and Regeneration Bill
6:45 pm

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the proposal, on the basis of his response to the last amendment. We are back to the territory of political tribalism, which the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield enjoyed so much in an earlier debate on the right to buy, and I am sure many more colourful adjectives and accusations will fly as the debate proceeds. The purpose of the new clause was in part addressed during that debate, as it relates to the difficulties in rural areas where the sell-back clause in respect of the right to buy does not apply.

Rural homelessness and housing need are widely recognised as key factors that undermine the sustainability of rural communities. The loss of council properties through the right to buy has a direct impact on the number of re-lettings becoming available. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to exempt local authority housing in designated areas with populations of 3,000 or below. The existing rural exemptions under the right to acquire—the scheme available to housing association tenants—should also apply to council tenants under the right to buy.

As background to the proposal, the Minister should be aware that in 2003 the rural group of Labour MPs said:

“The right to buy from councils or registered social landlords should not be available to tenants in settlements of below 3,000.”

They conceded that that may cause difficulties for those who already have that right, but they argued that as people realised the effect of the right to buy on their own families, they would understand why it might be withdrawn.

In its 2004 report on the draft Housing Bill, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee recommended that the Government should seriously consider extending the Bill with regard to exclusions in rural areas. The home ownership taskforce recommended that restrictions on the right to buy and right to acquire in rural areas be aligned.

The Minister must bear in mind that the way in which housing is structured is differentiated between rural areas and urban areas: 86 per cent. of rural housing is owner-occupied or privately rented compared with 77 per cent. in urban areas. Social rented housing accounts for 13.4 per cent. of the total housing in rural areas, compared with 22.4 per cent. in urban areas. In my part of the world, social housing represents less than 10 per cent., which is about the same proportion as second homes in a constituency such as mine. Average house prices rose faster in rural areas between 2000 and 2006 than in urban areas, which has significant implications for broader housing availability in the countryside.

Housing affordability, based on the relationship between average wages and average house prices, is far worse in many rural areas. The scarce council housing and housing association housing in rural areas is often occupied for long periods by the same families, and it becomes available only in very limited circumstances. The cost of developing new social housing makes it difficult to develop a new supply of affordable housing in rural areas.

The homes in the private rented sector are few and far between, and where they exist, they are extremely expensive. In its report, “Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future”, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that

“The availability of housing, especially social and other affordable housing, is a critical issue in many rural areas...Rural housing is often in high demand from in-comers, long distance commuters, people moving in to retire, and owners of second homes and holiday homes. This can squeeze out local people on lower incomes.”

According to the Countryside Agency,

“people on modest incomes, including young and pensioner households and local first-time buyers, are being priced out of many rural districts. This has implications for the maintenance of viable, inclusive rural communities, with some areas becoming increasingly exclusive, comprising only wealthy households. The balance of communities is disrupted, families are separated, increased pressure is placed on many rural services, and the local economy may be forced into decline.”

I hope that the Minister will take into account the difficult circumstances in which people in many rural areas find themselves. The right to buy has a disproportionate impact on many rural areas. That was recognised by the Conservative Government, who recognised that there were some communities—26 designated rural areas, I think—where there are restrictions on the resale of properties available under the right-to-buy scheme.

There are many parts of the country, including my constituency, where former council houses are now second homes. That highly prized, expensive accommodation has simply not been replaced in areas where housing waiting lists are long and the prospect of local people ever being able to get a house of their own is remote. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and accept the new clause in the form in which it is drafted. If not, I hope that he will recognise that the issue needs to be addressed and that it should be addressed in the Bill.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

We have discussed the right to buy at some length already this afternoon. That important issue affects a lot of people, but I do not want to detain the Committee for too long in that regard. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about housing in rural areas. To get quickly to the crux of my argument, however, it seems that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire want to tackle that in a rather blunt way by depriving tenants who live in rural areas of the right to buy. In practice, the new clause would deny rural tenants the chance to become home owners unless they are wealthy, which seems rather harsh. Those people will have a strong connection with the locality and, without the right-to-buy facility, would have to move away to become home owners, which is not appropriate.

The Government are well aware that there are significant housing issues in rural areas. Our aim is to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. We have had a great debate today on new clauses 24 and 25, in which hopefully we have teased out that there will be help to ensure that shared ownership properties are retained for future purchases in areas were replacement would be difficult. However—this is the crucial point—it is important to  note that people will not be prevented from buying homes in rural areas, but just prevented from buying them outright, which will allow us to retain affordable housing in perpetuity.

The right-to-buy scheme has always sought to balance the benefits of helping social tenants into home ownership with the need for affordable rural housing. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has mentioned, tenants who buy their homes in areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty may not resell them to whomever they wish.

The Government’s view is that the new clause as currently drafted would be too inflexible and would take away a long-standing right, thereby taking away the chance for rural tenants to become home owners in the areas where they might have lived for many years. On that basis, I cannot accept the new clause and hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Of course, I fully understand that the new clause is effectively a blunt instrument that would remove in total the right to buy from many tenants. However, I hope that the Minister recognises the difficulties in many rural areas, because I did not entirely detect that in his response.

For rural families, the association with a particular parish or village is extremely strong. Moving many miles away to find accommodation can uproot a family,  who may have had local associations for many years, if not for many generations. I hope that the Minister will recognise the problems of small rural communities, and even small towns, where the stock of affordable accommodation is extremely small. A magic circle is needed so that every property that is sold is replaced. Because affordable properties are so highly valued by the community as a whole, and because they are often the only route for local families on local incomes to ever get any kind of home of their own, a mechanism is required to protect that stock. If it is not protected by this admittedly blunt measure, we need to find a more sophisticated measure that enables those communities to replace the stock that is lost.

Just as on the previous new clause, I hope that the Minister will take away the matter, consider it and introduce his own amendment on Report. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. In the present circumstances, it is not being addressed in many rural areas, which is something that the Government will have to deal with. On the basis that we have had the opportunity to debate that substantial issue and that we will have an opportunity to return to it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.