My Lords, Amendment 81 is about the exclusion of some rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy. Quite a few tenants who were previously in the public sector have become tenants of a housing association, through large-scale voluntary transfers. Those tenants, and indeed others in social housing, have the preserved right to buy: the opportunity, if they move around, to buy the place to which they move if it is another social housing home. However, if they wish to move into a home that falls under a Section 106 planning agreement, which provides that the property must be retained in perpetuity as a rented social housing home—that is; it is a condition of planning that a certain number of homes are for renting—they will be unable to do so because the landlord would be in breach of the Section 106 agreement. The preserved right to buy is rather paradoxically preventing people moving out of the council house that they are in at the time and into a new property that has been built under a Section 106 agreement.
This amendment excludes certain rural dwellings from the preserved right to buy, allowing the people to move in and not then be able to exercise the right to buy that property because of the Section 106 agreement and the restrictions on that property. This amendment would be helpful to people moving around—to tenants. It is unfair at the moment that they have to be turned away, even though the case is good, because the properties are restricted and cannot be sold into home ownership on a permanent basis.
During the summer, I received a lot of helpful correspondence from Ministers and the civil servants have been very helpful. On this matter, I had a reply which I think indicated that the point had not been fully understood by the civil servants. They have been marvellous in every other respect, but with this one aberration I did not get a satisfactory response. I am not entirely sure that the point was fully understood, which must have been my fault when making it in the first place. If this small, unintended consequence of legislation could be cleared up in the Bill, it would be helpful to the mobility of people in rural areas and in places where there are restrictions in the properties that have been built, thus helping mobility. I beg to move.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Best
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c342 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:48:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767023
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767023
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_767023