10.15 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, after "submit" to insert:
In this Amendment, we are trying to be helpful to the new housing associations. We axe not asking the Under-Secretary to give the local authority the right to veto any scheme submitted by a housing association. What we are insisting upon is that a scheme of this nature which has been vetoed by the Secretary of State should proceed on the basis of co-operation. Local authorities which have the responsibility of building houses will be glad to see some of these new housing associations helping them to solve the problem of bad housing in Scotland. One of the reasons why we suggest that these housing associations should consult the local authority about such projects is that, on the question of the sites that will be available, the local authority will surely be in the best position to advise any new housing association where the best sites are, and, by co-operation with that association, help it to get on with the job of building the houses which it intends to build. Then, there is the question of the cost of the servicing of the sites. Here, again, the local authority can be of immense help to any new housing association by pin-pointing exactly Where the services are, and, in all probability, helping the association to save money. There is also the question of planning, because the association must have planning permission before it can go on with the job. The large burghs and the county councils are the planning authorities, and if the new housing associations were to cooperate and consult with them, the advice which they could get would be invaluable. In regard to the small burghs, which are not the planning authorities, no doubt they could be of immense assistance by suggesting to the planning authority that assistance should be given, and, if possible, planning permission also given to the new association. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary has no intention of by-passing the planning authorities and giving us another dose of the bad planning which we have had in Scotland for some considerable time. We have a precedent for this Amendment. The Scottish Special Housing Association has been working in close co-operation with the local authorities in Scotland for years, and the local authorities are very glad to have its help. In fact, some of the local authorities have even applied for an extra allocation of Housing Association houses to assist them in trying to remove bad housing conditions. I cannot see any reason at all why any of the new housing associations should not co-operate and follow the example of the Scottish Special Housing Association. I am quite sure that the local authorities will be only too glad to help the new associations, no matter where they are going to build the houses that are so badly needed. In the end, of course, co-operation is necessary in any case, so why not let us start at the beginning and cooperate from the start? It would be more sensible and reasonable. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who has given the Opposition nothing so far tonight, will be able to accept this Amendment."after consultation with the local authority in whose area they intend to build".
I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) that I shall not be able to say "yes".
The effect of the Amendment would be to place upon a housing association proposing to build houses for economic letting—that is the point which I wish to stress—with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 a statutory obligation to consult the local authority in whose area it intends to build. In Committee, an Amendment was tabled which would have had the effect of requiring a housing association operating under Clause 11 to submit its schemes to the local authority first instead of directly to the Secretary of State; it would have made further progress dependent upon whether the local authority recommended the scheme to the Secretary of State. The Amendment was discussed at the eighteenth and nineteenth sittings of the Committee and was withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would give some further thought to the matter before Report. The present Amendment does not go quite as far as that in Committee, because whereas that in Committee would have given the local authority a power of veto on any scheme under Clause 11 which it chose not to recommend to the Secretary of State, the present Amendment would require merely consultation and would not give a power of veto. To that extent the hon. Member might presumably expect that the Amendment would be more acceptable to the Government. It is perfectly true that in Committee I said that I would again look at this matter of consultation between the housing association and the local authority. But I also indicated, I think in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), that I thought it most unlikely that I would be able to find some suitable provision, because I was reluctant to have any extra stage imposed by Statute. I have examined this matter very carefully in the light of the Committee discussions, but I regret that I have to tell the hon. Member and other hon. Members that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment or to table a Government Amendment to the same or somewhat similar effect. The main reason for that decision is simple. As I explained, a housing association operating with the aid of an Exchequer advance under Clause 11 will normally—except where it is building for old people, of course—be building without subsidy and the houses will either be let at economic rents or occupied on some form of joint ownership basis, again at the full economic cost. In other words, housing associations operating under Clause 11 will be catering for a housing need different from that for which a local authority normally caters. The people who occupy the houses will be those who are earning enough to pay the full economic cost of a modern house and not needing any subsidy from the rates or from the Exchequer. In the normal case, those will be people for whom local authorities do not cater. Local authorities rightly regard their primary duty as being towards those people who are not able to provide satisfactory housing for themselves. There is, therefore, no question of conflict between the local authority and the housing association building under Clause 11. There is no question of overlap. It therefore seems wrong in principle that when a housing association is operating in this way and is in a position no different from that of any other private builder who has decided to build unsubsidised houses, there should be any statutory obligation on the housing association to consult the local authority as housing authority. Certainly private builders must obtain planning permission—that is obvious—and must co-operate with the local authority in the layout of streets, sewerage and such other matters—that is only common sense. But they have no duty to consult the housing authority as such because there is no reason for them to do so. Precisely the same consideration applies when a housing association proposes to build under Clause 11, because it is building houses for economic letting. If it is right for an ordinary individual building for economic letting not to have to consult the housing authority, that should also apply to housing associations building under Clause 11. For those reasons, therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.We are surprised that the Under-Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, particularly in view of the helpful way in which it was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill). My hon. Friend showed clearly that, far from resenting houses being built by housing associations which are not out to make profit, we welcome this move forward.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want anything to come between the decision of a housing association to build in a certain area and its representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland for part of the £3 million that are to be allocated. We are as keen as the right hon. Gentleman that as little time as possible should be wasted in the provision of houses. What about local authorities who are now building houses to let at economic rents? The hon. Gentleman suggested that there would be no overlapping and no competition. How wrong he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made it clear during our discussions in Committee that Kilmarnock Council was building this type of house for owner-occupation. Further, the hon. Gentleman should note that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) only this week tenants have moved into houses built by the local authority and are paying economic rents. I imagine that this is the kind of thing that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to encourage, because he will not get many houses built out of this £3 million that he proposes to allocate, and if local authorities are willing to do this kind of work there will be competition and overlapping. We want local authorities, housing associations and the S.S.H.A. to build houses in Scotland, and it seems to me that if the Amendment were accepted the first thing that a housing association would do would be to go to the local authority and have discussions with it on the many points mentioned by my hon. Friend. It would have discussion about planning, about siting, and it would, I hope, discuss what the local authority had in mind with regard to the building of houses. It seems to me that, from the point of view of the associations, there is everything to be said for accepting the Amendment. I again plead with the hon. Gentleman to accept it and not regard with suspicion everything that is put forward, no matter how well, from this side of the House.I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this matter again. We all wish to get the best results in the local authority areas. Obviously many advantages are to be gained from consultation. Certainly no harm can be done by it. Only good can ensue from consultation.
Why should the hon. Gentleman be so doctrinaire about this and simply turn down the Amendment? I would have thought that anything which contributed to the building of houses was a good thing. I would also have thought that it would be a good thing if it were done with the knowledge and co-operation of the local authority.It being half-past Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.