HL Deb 15 June 1972 vol 331 cc1203-39

8.2 p.m.

House again in Committee.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GRENFELL)

I understand that Amendments 99B to 99D are not being moved. There is a mistake in the Marshalled List, and Amendment No. 100 should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 100: Page 134, line 46, after ("been") insert ("or may be").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 together. These Amendments are consequential on a similar Amendment made in the House of Commons. Some of the directions which it is intended to make under paragraph 16 of this Schedule will deal with circumstances where the tenant might be entitled both to supplementary benefit and also to a rebate or allowance, and it is intended that he should have the option, if this is to his advantage, to receive a rebate or allowance on the basis that he is not receiving supplementary benefit, in preference to receiving supplementary benefit plus a rebate or allowance under the normal arrangements for long-term supplementary benefit tenants under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 135, line 2. after ("been") insert ("or may be").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 102: Page 135, line 45, leave out ("make") and insert ("grant").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 102, 103, 104 and 105 at the same time. These Amendments are all helpful to the exercise of this Bill. The first two are drafting Amendments, and Amendments 104 and 105 are purely administration details. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

These look fairly substantial Amendments, but the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, passes them off and says they are administration details. He might give a little further explanation to the Committee.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

The first two are purely drafting Amendments. Which Amendments does the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, want me to explain?

LORD SHEPHERD

Amendments Nos. 104 and 105.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 135, line 47, leave out ("make, or refrain from making"), and insert ("grant, or refrain from granting").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 104: Page 136, line 12, at end insert— ("(4A) Without prejudice to paragraph 16 above, the Secretary of State may give directions to authorities in general or any individual authority or description of authority requiring them in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the direction to grant a rebate or allowance greater than, or less than, the amount required by or under their scheme, or to grant, or refrain from granting, a rebate or allowance where the provisions of the scheme provide otherwise, and to pay to the Secretary of State such amount, to be estimated in such manner as may be so specified, as reflects any liability to give relief to the authority's tenants which is transferred in accordance with the directions from the authority to the Secretary of State.")

The noble Lord said: The new paragraph 17(4A) and the Amendment to paragraph 17(5) are inter-related and are intended to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements for granting rebates and allowances to persons receiving supplementary benefit under Part II of Schedules 3 and 4 respectively. When an authority first introduces its rebate or allowance scheme under the new legislation, the transitional arrangements envisaged in the existing paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 4 will be essential, as otherwise severe administrative difficulty will be caused to the local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security in attempting to transfer many thousands of cases to an authority in a single operation when the authority's rebate and allowance schemes come into force.

Accordingly, unless there are transitional arrangements for a gradual handover of cases, there is a danger that there will be overpayments from public funds towards help with rent—for example, the authority might be granting a rebate to a tenant who was still receiving supplementary benefit in respect of his full rent. Most authorities are expected to cooperate in (his matter with the Department of Health and Social Security under the provisions for making voluntary arrangements in paragraph 17(4), and, indeed, authorities can be expected to find such arrangements beneficial to themselves by spreading the administrative load of many new rebate or allowance assessments over a reasonable period. A small number of authorities are showing reluctance to enter into voluntary arrangements—that is, they propose to grant the appropriate rebate under Part II of Schedule 3 to all supplementary benefit tenants immediately, with effect from the coming into operation of their scheme. The Department of Health and Social Security is extremely concerned that such a course, particularly if adopted by many authorities, could result in disruption of its local offices and overpayment of supplementary benefit to tenants who receive their rebate before the Department of Health and Social Security has had a chance to adjust the supplementary benefit. The new paragraph 17(4A) will ensure that such disruption does not occur by providing that the Secretary of State may direct that authorities are not to grant rebates or allowances to tenants to whom Part II of Schedule 3 applies until they are notified by the Department of Health and Social Security that the latter is ready to adjust supplementary benefit to reflect the new rebate or allowance from an agreed date. The Amendments to the existing paragraph 17(5) are mainly consequential on the new paragraph 17(4A).

In practice, transitional arrangements with the Department of Health and Social Security, whether under paragraph 17(4) or 17(4A), will take the same form. The authority will refrain from granting a new rebate or allowance or from altering an existing one for a tenant to whom Part II of Schedule 3 applies. It will instead continue to grant any existing rebate or allowance, or none at all, as the case may be. The Department of Health and Social Security will continue to base supplementary benefit assessment on the rent in payment until it is in a position to amend the assessment, usually at the time when the supplementary benefit order book is due for renewal. The authority will then pay the Department of Health and Social Security a lump sum calculated on a formula basis in respect of the rebates or allowances withheld under the arrangements. Any sums paid under such arrangements to the Department of Health and Social Security will be taken into account in determining the authority's entitlement to rebate or allowance subsidy. The amount of help received by a supplementary benefit tenant towards his rent will not be affected in any way by these arrangements. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that explanation about the administrative problem. I beg to move.

LORD SHEPHERD

I can now understand why the noble Lord sought to move this Amendment with so few words by saying that it is an administrative arrangement. I sought to take in what he said. I am afraid that I did not, but I will certainly not embarrass the noble Lord by asking for further explanation. But it is really extraordinary that the Bill has been through another place, which is responsible for seeing that public money is not lost or abused in any way, and the Government have only now discovered the need for this Amendment and have brought it before this House which has no power or responsibility in regard to finance. As I said, that is extraordinary, although perhaps it is not, in view of the ineptitude not of the noble Lord but of the Government in general. I shall look at the report of what he said and will see whether it is necessary to come back to it at a later stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 105.

Amendment moved— Page 136, line 14, leave out from ("allowances") to ("above") in line 18 and insert ("granted by an authority for a year or other period shall include an amount which in the opinion of the Secretary of State represents the rebates or allowances which would have been granted but for any arrangements under sub-paragraph (4) or directions under sub-paragraph (4A)").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4,, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 [Extent to which authorities may depart from model schemes]:

8.13 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 105A: Page 26, line 17, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Lord said: When we were discussing the last Amendment before we adjourned, I hazarded the guess, which proved correct, that we should be "clobbered", to use a crude and un-Parliamentary word, by the influx of noble Lords who had not participated in or listened to any part of the debate. That was an Amendment of very considerable principle and I was very unhappy. My guess is that the number of noble Lords opposite who were present in that debate was less than 20, and yet there were 73 in the Division Lobby. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will also remember that I was bitterly critical of the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the one Minister in this House who has departmental responsibility for this Bill. But the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was able to enter this Chamber and vote.

LORD DIAMOND

Which way?

LORD SHEPHERD

It is obvious. The noble Lord opposite may laugh, but the Amendment which we were then considering was of great importance to a vast number of people who may be affected by this Bill. It was concerned with the normal right of a man or woman in this country to have some system of appeal when he or she is in conflict with an authority. If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had been present, he might have been impressed by the argument but he was absent, as he is now absent. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that, despite all the respect which I have for him, since he does not belong to the Department concerned, since he may not have the ear of the Secretary of State to the same extent as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and since the Chamber is again nearly empty, I do not intend to press this or the next Amendment, which raise a matter of very considerable principle, or to speak further to them.

If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had been present, I might have been prepared to argue with him. I might have sought to persuade him to go back to his Secretary of State. But he is not present, the Chamber is nearly empty, and it would be a waste of time to divide, only to be "clobbered" again by those who had not listened to the debate, if I considered the reply unsatisfactory.

This is one of the difficulties of taking a Committee stage on the Floor of the House at this time. We as a Committee are not being treated properly by Government Ministers, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will convey to the noble Lord who is now acting as Leader of the House the view which I have just expressed and which I think most Members will share. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, cannot be held responsible, but I do not believe that Committees of this House should be run in this way, or that an important Amendment dealing with a matter of high principle should be discussed under these circumstances. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not want to detain the Committee, but may I make two brief points? First, one of my noble friends counted the numbers in the Committee before the Division was taken, and there were more on our side than on the opposite side. I do not make any complaint at the moment of the fact that the noble Lord has only one Back-Bencher present, who is outnumbered by the Liberals. Secondly, I am in charge of the Bill, I have been put in charge by the Government, I am the Minister without Portfolio, I have no departmental responsibility of my own, and I am in a position to make representations to any Minister. What is more, my noble friend Lord Sandford is not a Housing Minister; he is a Minister of the Department of the Environment as a whole. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I rebut absolutely his statement that the Committee is not being treated properly. The noble Lord knows how difficult this Bill is, and I can assure him that we have been working very hard on it, have been in contact with Ministers and shall continue to be.

LORD SHEPHERD

I acquit the noble Lord, and one point about him is his utter devotion to his duty in this House. As regards the numbers, he may well look at my side and compare it with his side, but I would ask him only to look at the numerical strength of the two Parties. I suspect, if he wants to compare figures one with another, that there were proportionately more Members of my Party present, taking the Party as a whole. What I am complaining about is that there is very little point in proceeding, when one is dealing with matters of principle and problems of ordinary people, if one knows that one will be defeated by an influx of noble Lords who have not participated in the debate.

My criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is made in all seriousness. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said—and I fully accept it—that he is in charge of the Bill. But I have been a Minister and have also had to take Bills of a Department to which I did not belong. The noble Lord will no doubt agree that one has often more influence within the Department to which one is accredited than a more senior Minister outside the Department. As a Minister of the Department one is in constant contact with the officials of the Department and they are the people who at the end of the day weigh up the pros and cons of the issue and advise the Minister. I do not wish to delay the Committee. I have made my protest. It was not made lightly. It was in no way meant to be a criticism of or any reflection upon the noble Lord's position in this House or in the Government.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but as the person in charge of the Bill I am responsible for who is on the Front Bench at any one time. I think the noble Lord will get better answers from my colleagues who are not on the Bench at present if from time to time they take a rest and bring themselves fully up to date with the various parts of the Bill. This is a very common procedure and has always been done by Governments. Bills are divided into Parts and when the Minister in charge may have to be present for most of the time the other Ministers can come in to deal with points on those Parts for which they are responsible.

LORD SHEPHERD

I fully accept that. I would not wish to protract this debate. One always accepts that a Minister requires a rest and moments for consultation, but, if I may say so, the Minister of this Department has been noticeable more for his absence than for his presence.

LORD HYLTON

Before we leave this clause I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he can make any estimate or even a guess of the number of authorities which might need to exceed the 110 per cent. of their standard amount of rebates and allowances.

LORD SHEPHERD

I might remind the Committee that we have had a very wide exchange of views. At the beginning of my discourse I moved the Amendment formally. I now beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [The permitted totals of rebates and allowances]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 106: Page 26, line 43, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("subsections (9) and (10)").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes the provision of subsection (4) subject to the new subsection (10) as well as to subsection (9). It was added at the Report stage in another place by Government Amendment 59 and is consequential on that Amendment. It simply puts the situation in order. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [The Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances]:

8.26 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 106B. Page 28, line 18, after ("appointed") insert ("on the advice of the local authority associations").

The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of this Clause says: The Committee shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such number of other members so appointed as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine …". Although we are moving this Amendment I must say that on reflection I am not certain that the wording is correct because I am not sure that the Secretary of State should take the advice of local authority associations. Perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply will take it that what we have in mind here is "after consultation with the local authority associations". If he will reply on that basis I shall not press the Amendment. I feel that in the appointment of this advisory committee on rent rebates and rent allowances there should be some form of consultation with bodies which represent local authority associations which will have to administer the scheme and which will be aware of the difficulties and the problems that may arise or may not be met by the proposals in the Bill.

LORD AVEBURY

Whilst not disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the local authority associations should be consulted not only in regard to the appointment of a chairman but in regard to the other members appointed by the Secretary of State, it is equally important that the interests of tenants should be borne in mind in the composition of this extremely important body. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has drawn attention to defects in the wording of this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he looks at the phraseology of the subsection, will consider if there is any way in which important bodies such as the Association of London Housing Estates could be brought into consultation.

The noble Lord will be aware that the Association of London Housing Estates asked for an interview at an earlier stage when the Bill was in another place and was refused on the grounds that Ministers could not see one association representing tenants without laying themselves open to a series of demands from all the cities of Britain in which this happens to be a large problem. I do not subscribe to that view. The A.L.H.E. represents such a large number of tenants in our capital that it would have been, to say the least, courteous if Ministers had agreed to meet its representatives. For that reason and because it has had so little opportunity to make its point of view known, except in writing, to Ministers I should like to see, in addition to local authority associations, provision being made in this subsection for consultation with bodies representing the interests of tenants.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

Clause 22 is absolutely outrageous. The Secretary of State is taking great authority unto himself in appointing this committee and the rent officers without consultation with anybody in the field of housing. Hundreds of these Committees are going to be set up and he is going to do this all by himself. It does not make sense.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I hope that we are going to get some detailed information from the Minister as to how the Secretary of State is going to set about this business. Perhaps he will be able to give us some indication if there is any intention to consult and with whom. He ought to consult with local authority associations. I was at the Annual Conference of National and Local Government Officers at Eastbourne yesterday and I was handed a verbatim report of what one of Her Majesty's Ministers—I think it was Mr. Graham Page—had said to them when addressing the conference the day before. He indicated that the Government had always been prepared to meet responsible bodies of the associations such as the one I have mentioned. The associations representing local authorities—the A.M.C., the U.D.C.A., and the R.D.C.A.—have very good reason to resent a number of features in this Bill. It has been raised again and again. If I may say so, although we have repeatedly asked we have had no reply to the question—and we shall have to keep coming back to it—why the representations they have made to the Government on certain matters have been ignored, why they have not been met in any way at all. There has been a complete absence of information as to why the Government have rejected the representations. I do not think I need go into detail, because we have raised it again and again and I do not want to repeat it; but while I am on my feet I want to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we ought to get some indication whether the Secretary of State is going to consult with those responsible associations speaking for large numbers of tenants. There is the Association of London Housing Estates. Nobody who knows anything about them can question their standing and their sense of responsibility. I hope we are going to get something helpful on the Record here, so that local authorities and tenants can feel that the Secretary of State is not going to be a law unto himself in this matter but is going to consult and take into consideration the advice given.

BARONESS SEEAR

This is surely once again a very important general principle, as to what the advisory committee are supposed to do. Ever since we have had this extensive legislation which deals with matters of intimate concern to ordinary citizens—matters which cannot be dealt with adequately by the representative bodies, be they at national or local level, because they are too detailed and too complex—we have had this system of advisory committees. Surely there are two functions of the advisory committee. One is to give specialist knowledge to the Minister and to the officials, and the other is to be representative of interests, directly and very often tacitly, of a quite intimate range, affected by the decisions made. If these advisory committees are there solely because of the specialist knowledge that they have, we are losing the whole democratic side of such a committee, which is to extend the democratic procedure which the existing institutions do not adequately serve when we have legislation of this very detailed and personal kind. I think we are losing sight of this if we do not have these representatives.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In this case I am in the position that I find myself in agreement with almost everybody in what they have said, but not the Amendment. I wonder whether, on this subject, it might he convenient to the Committee if we grouped all these Amendments about the composition of the advisory committee together. That would include Nos. 107, 107A and 107B. Perhaps we could speak to them all together, because I have been invited to speak rather generally on the composition of the advisory committee. Would that meet with general approval?

LORD SHEPHERD

We are quite happy.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am very grateful. May I say at the outset that I agree with the noble Lord's criticisms of his own Amendment: I think the meaning of the Amendment would certainly have tied the Secretary of State much too much. The second thing I would say is that we must get out of the habit of thinking that the Government will never do the sensible thing unless the law tells them to do so. After all, consultation is something which goes on in any sphere of government. In fact, the Government simply cannot operate in this kind of field, and there is no point at all in setting up a committee of this kind, unless they consult with the authorities concerned.

BARONESS SEEAR

Then why not accept the Amendment?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Because in that case you are tying the Secretary of State down to consultation with particular bodies, and he may find from time to time that he wants to go further than that. There are two different ways to approach it: either you give the Secretary of State the general power to form a committee, in which case the consultation almost invariably, wherever appropriate, takes place; or else you have to specify all the various bodies that have to be consulted. If we start specifying one body, then—

LORD DIAMOND

If the—

LORD DRUMALBYN

Would the noble Lord please let me make the point? I am probably coming to the point the noble Lord wants to make.

LORD DIAMOND

We have had it so many times it would not surprise me.

LORD DRUMALBYN

If we start consulting one body, we should have to consult a vast number. Here, the clause lays down specifically: The members of the Committee shall include persons with experience of matters relating to local government. The reason for that particular selection is because local government is so much involved from the financial point of view. In this case it does not mean, as is sometimes said, that if you mention one only you are excluding everybody. It certainly does not mean that. It merely makes it quite clear that, whoever else is a member of the committee, there must be members with experience of matters relating to local government. But members with experience of matters relating to local government generally have experience of a lot of other things as well; and so it is in the selection of members of committees as a whole: you look to see what is the width of their experience and whether you can get on to a committee a person who has a wide experience covering several of these things which are mentioned here—social work, for example; the chronically sick; low income families and elected members of tenants' associations. They may have had experience of all of these things at one time or another. But what you do not want to get is delegates. This is very important. Nor do you want to get nominees of particular bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was careful not to suggest this: he is much too sensible to do that. You want to get together a body which can preserve its independence of judgment and which regards itself, and is regarded by the public, not purely as a body of spokesmen or representatives of particular points of view but as people who will take a broad view and who, while they have special experience of certain things, will be able to give advice to the Secretary of State, and who will be able to combine in giving advice (which is always an important advantage) to the Secretary of State, which will be firmly based on experience and on common sense.

The noble Lord then asked: what sort of qualifications will one look for? Those of your Lordships who have read part of the proceedings in another place—I am sure nobody has read all the proceedings there—will have noticed what my right honourable friend Mr. Amery said in this matter. He mentioned that the committee would be bound to include people who have made studies of sociological problems; academics; council or private tenants, who may also have local authority experience; private landlords, also, since rent allowances are involved; persons with experience of low income family problems; and people with experience of dealing with the chronically sick and the disabled. All these will come into the list of the qualifications that he will want to see covered on the advisory committee. As I say, people may have experience of several of these things, so it may not be necessary to have one specifically with the experience of each. But what you will want to get is the proper kind of representation, covering the whole area.

I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be prepared to allow the Secretary of State to carry out his intentions in this matter without being tied down in a way which might unbalance the committee as he would want to establish it. I hope that your Lordships will give him the widest possible latitude in this matter and rely on the assurance which he has given, and which I now repeat, that these various interests—if that is the right expression; people with these various kinds of experience—will be fully covered in the committee.

8.40 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I do not really like saying what I am going to say, but I have an idea that if it was a Labour Secretary of State, with powers to appoint to this committee members who are going to have their expenses paid and any loss of remuneration made up, he might be charged with giving jobs to the boys. We suggested to the Minister that he might consult with associations and organisations of standing. The Minister very kindly gave us a great deal of information—and I am sure that the Committee appreciates his anxiety to meet us—about the sort of qualifications which the Secretary of State would be looking for, hut he did not tell us whom he would consult before he selected. I think this is important.

The noble Lord said how necessary it was that the people serving on this committee should have experience, that they should have common sense, and that they should be held in regard by the public. What better way is there of securing regard from the public for these people than by giving us some indication that the Secretary of State, before he makes appointments, will consult with associations of standing—and I should have thought it reasonable to indicate the type of organisation. The noble Lord said that the committees would include some landlords. I think the Committee would like to know where he would be turning for this kind of person to serve on the committee. There are all kinds of landlords and, if I may say so, the people who are getting worried about the effects of this Bill are not just people living in local authority houses or even in houses privately owned in the lower realms of rateable value. A great many other people are getting very worried about their future as tenants and I would suggest that it would be helpful if the Government were a little more forthcoming than the Minister has felt himself able to be up to this point.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

Before the Minister replies, may I underline what my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has said. Clause 23(2) states clearly that the chairman and the members of these committees will be appointed by the Secretary of State. We know that there will be several hundred such committees throughout the country—there must be if this is going to work—or at any rate a large number of committees. I think it would be unrealistic to suppose that the Secretary of State would be able to do this in an individual capacity. He obviously has to delegate this kind of authority. What so many of us are afraid of—and the noble Lord the Minister made this point—is that the financial aspect is going to be of supreme importance. Many of us are afraid that, although the people on these committes will have a good deal of local government experience, will they be people who have had experience in the field of social welfare?

Although my name stands against Amendment No. 107, I think that probably Amendment No. 107A, which stands in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench, is better than Amendment No. 107. Perhaps one can draw too narrow a definition of the sort of people we want on the committee. We want people who have had wide experience of social work, and all local authorities to-day are responsible for a great deal of the social work that is being done in the boroughs. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that we want some kind of assurance that there will be on the Committee men and women who are not going to look at this matter in a narrow way, who are not going to be concerned with the financial aspects, which may well happen eventually. We want something laid down in the Bill in clear and precise terms that there must be on the committee a sprinkling of people whose only reason for being there is that they have a wide knowledge of social welfare.

Since the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act some 18 months ago, local authorities have been staggered by the large number of men and women in their area in very grave need, whom they did not know existed. Hitherto their needs had not been taken into account because they were not known. Now we know something about their suffering and their needs, not only physical and mental but also financial. My noble friend Lord Crawshaw and myself, and my noble friends on the Front Bench, want an assurance that there will be clearly set out in the Bill a statement to the effect that certain people, in addition to a knowledge of local government, will have a knowledge of the social welfare work and need in the particular area in which these committees are going to be established.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

I want to press the point to which my noble friend Lady Seear drew attention—that is, the undemocratic nature of this particular clause. An assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is very nice indeed, but it is an assurance outside the Bill. It is the principle that is wrong: that the Secretary of State should have so much power in his hands; that he should be working on what I call the gauleiter principle. It is not right that so many committees, so many people, should be appointed by him alone.

LORD AVEBURY

If we were in the United States we might take the view that a committee of this sort should be elected wholly or in part—they elect all sorts of people there who in this country are appointed. With great respect to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, one has to take the situation as one finds it and see how we can improve the wording of this Part of the Bill covering appointments to be made by the Secretary of State. In my opinion, the only way we can do that is by requiring him to consult with the various bodies which are representative of opinion in the fields we have been discussing.

The noble Lord has suggested that we carry the debate beyond the Amendment we started with, 106A, and talk about Amendments 107, 107A and 107B at the same time. I quite agree that we should take into account these various interest groups and lay an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with them in making the appointments that are so important to the A.C.C.R.A. The noble Lord said that various undertakings had been given by the Minister for Housing and Construction in another place, but I thought he was going a little beyond what his right honourable friend, Mr. Amery, said. I have looked up the passage in his speech and all he said was: We intend also to include among members of the committee persons who are council or private tenants or who have experience and knowledge enabling them to reflect the point of view of such tenants. That is not at all what we are seeking—because he might take a "tame" council tenant or a "tame" tenant of a private landlord who would reflect the point of view of the Secretary of State. We are not asking him to pick any private tenant or any council tenant but to consult with bodies such as the Association of London Housing Estates and listen to the recommendations of those bodies before making appointments.

I cannot see why the noble Lord should make difficulties about it because he has already written into the Bill some provisions relating to experience of matters of local government. I agree that this does not go as far as the first Amendment in that he could pick any councillor or any persons who have served on local authorities without consulting the local authority associations. As the noble Lord has said, that is inconceivable. The Government would be bound to go to the A.M.C. and to the County Councils Association and ask for their advice before making these appointments. It is very simple. I do not know why we are making heavy weather of it. All that we are asking is that the noble Lord should agree to the same kind of machinery in respect of the persons who, as Mr. Amery said in another place, are going to represent "the council or private tenants"; not to make these appointments purely on the initiative of the Secretary of State but to consult with responsible bodies in the field. I really think that the noble Lord might accept that.

LORD CRAWSHAW

I felt fairly confident about Amendment 107 because of the generally warm reception that the Committee gave the Amendment on the needs allowance that I moved on Wednesday morning. I felt confident also because the Minister in another place said that he was greatly attracted by the idea of including on the Committee a person associated with the problems of the critically sick and disabled. Moreover, in reply to the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that he had this very much in mind. It is a question of getting these things in black and white into the Bill. That is what I tried to emphasise in all my previous Amendments.

The wording in this Amendment comes directly out of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and I was thinking at a later stage in terms of a refinement to it; because in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we added the words: person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons", which of course emphasises the point that if you are going to have somebody there is nothing like a little practical experience. I should like to test the Minister on that refinement. I think that that is all I need to say at this stage. I cannot see why we should not have this Amendment in the Bill. I think that it would help the Minister when he selects the committee.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I intervene before the noble Lord replies; it may save him making another speech on this Amendment. It seemed to me that the impression given by the noble Lord's speech—not so much his exact words, for they no doubt reflected the official line—was that he had a certain sympathy with the general proposition that lies behind these Amendments. I hope that we are not going to be confronted with a Division on this. The noble Lord himself said that he expected the Secretary of State to have on the committee persons who have experience of and who know the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, used these words.

The noble Lord also said that it would be obvious that there would be persons with experience in social problems. I well remember the words he used: that there will be persons who would have experience of the problems of low income families; that the question is whether it should be written into the Bill; and that if we voted it into the Bill it would tie the Minister's hands. Year in and year out we have legislation in which there is specified a certain category of people whom the Secretary of State would consult or who would be on a particular board. This is not new; it is a regular feature of legislation where a wide spectrum of opinion is required and desirable. As for tying the Minister's hands, it is quite simple to avoid that: you specify certain bodies and then use the phrase "and others". There is no limit to the size of this committee. In regard to the other Amendment which I moved officially, it is true that the wording is wrong, that it should have included the phrase, "after consultation". I should have thought that here again the Government could concede.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will now rise to say that he has listened to this debate and that he is in general sympathy with what we are seeking to-day. May I say that we do not want to tie the hands of the Secretary of State too much. What we want is to have included the type of person we have in mind and to see that it is so specified in the Bill. Since the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is now with us I hope that he will press on the Secretary of State our feelings in this matter. This is not a Party issue; it is a matter of principle. It springs from a desire to make the role of the Secretary of State easier. I should have thought that the noble Lord could take this away and that the Government could then come forward with an Amendment which would comply with the general sense of the Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to consider this matter, to take it up with the Secretary of State and to come back to us on Report.

LORD HYLTON

When appointed, this committee will consist of from 12 to 15 members. If that is so, it would not unbalance the committee to have representatives of each of these three listed categories on it. Surely that would not tie the hands of the Secretary of State. I feel that all these Amendments are very desirable.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am tempted in reply to use almost exactly the words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I have listened to the debate and I am in general sympathy with the spirit of the Amendments. It is a question either of putting it down in black and white in the Bill that there will be consultation or of whether the Committee are prepared to rely on the fact that we have listened to the advice of noble Lords and will do our best to act in accordance with it. But I should like to make it quite clear that not only will the local authority associations be consulted, but that they will be invited to suggest names of people who might be appointed to the committee because of their special and varied experience. It is not only the interests that happen to be mentioned in the Amendments we have before us that will be consulted. To reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, it is not a question of having power in one's hands. It is a question of the Secretary of State seeking advice—and normally you seek advice from people whose advice you value. Therefore, it is important to keep the power of appointment in the hands of the Secretary of State. So far as consultation is concerned, this is absolute common sense; it must be done if you are going to get a wide range of advice.

I do not think that I need delay the Committee any further on this subject, except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I am not certain whether he quite understood what is involved. Here we are talking about a committee and not a network of committees all over the country. I fully agree with what he said. I mentioned the financial aspect because this is the way it is expressed, in pounds and pence. But, of course, this is a housing Bill. We are dealing with housing authorities and essentially there should be a basis of people with such experience on the committee. Of course there must be people with wide experience of social welfare. I have taken careful note of the expressions of feeling in the Committee that we should not only intend to do this but also say in the Bill that we intend to do it. I shall most willingly take this away and consider it with my right honourable friend, and I hope that we shall be able to produce something of value to the Committee. However, I must not enter into any commitment beforehand.

LORD SHEPHERD

In the light of that assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.1 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 107C: Page 28, line 27, at end insert ("and expenses shall include such sums as the Secretary of State may authorise for research or investigation for the purpose of ascertaining hardship or anomalies.").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Diamond, I beg to move this Amendment. Clause 23(4) says: The expenses of the Committee to such an amount as may be approved by the Minister for the Civil Service may be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament. It then deals with the various expenses. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the expenses shall include such sums as the Secretary of State may authorise for research or investigation for the purpose of ascertaining hardship and any anomalies which may be involved as a consequence of this Bill. This committee, certainly in its very early days, will have a formidable task before it. Whatever experience it may have, it may well need to set up investigations and some degree of research of an immediate sort and of a longer-term nature. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that under subsection (4) it will be possible for the committee to undertake or to authorise research, admittedly with the approval of the Secretary of State because in the end it is public money, and that such expenses will be permitted.

BARONESS SEEAR

I strongly support this Amendment, not only at this stage but also continuously. Throughout the working of a complex measure it is vital to have research going on into the way in which the Act is working, and unless there is adequate money available we shall fail to obtain the information needed to amend the legislation later on.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am sure my right honourable friend is well aware of what the noble Lord has said. I am bound to say that this Amendment struck a chord for me particularly. I am assured that there is no need for a specific provision requiring the Secretary of State to meet reasonable expenditure on research which the committee might wish to be undertaken. In practice, the research might well be commissioned by the Secretary of State on the committee's recommendation rather than by the committee. If a statutory advisory body advising the Secretary of State wishes to study in depth any question on which it is the body's function to advise, and if the study involves research, it is quite normal for the required research to be undertaken and paid for by the Secretary of State. No doubt there is the usual sort of Treasury control. I need only give the example of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which advises the Secretary of State on a variety of housing questions and has issued a number of reports in recent years involving research carried out at Government expense, notably the Cullingworth Report on Council Housing Purposes, Procedures and Priorities. For the purpose of that report Birmingham University undertook the analysis of questionnaires on local authority policies on the allocation of council houses. So I see no need to accept this Amendment and to incorporate it into the Bill and I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he requires.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful for that response from the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Publicity for Schemes]:

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 108: Page 29, leave out lines 35 to 37.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 108 and with it I should like to discuss Amendment No. 109. These two Amendments simplify, without significantly altering, the requirement on the authority, under Clause 24(5), to furnish at regular intervals statutory particulars of their rent rebate scheme to their tenants. The requirement at the end of the existing subsection (5) was added by Government Amendment No. 63 at Report stage in another place, to ensure that, where rents were not being increased or a rebate scheme changed, tenants would receive statutory particulars at least once a year. The proposed Amendments will still secure this result, but more simply.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 109.

Amendment moved— Page 29, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert ("and (e) at such other times as will ensure that each tenant is furnished with the particulars at least once in any twelve months.").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 109A: page 30, line 44, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£100 and not less than £25").

The noble Lord said: Clause 24, subsection (12), lays down certain penalties where a landlord fails to fulfil duties required of him in subsections (10) and (11). We all know that in the private sector relations between a landlord and a tenant are often strained. Subsections (10) and (11) require certain information to be given to a private tenant. It seems to me that the penalties in subsection (12) are inadequate. It may be that the Minister who replies will say that this is in line with existing legislation. We had this not so long ago in the case, I think it was, of legislation about medical inspection in factories. The House then took the view that the penalty, which I think was similar to this, was inadequate, and it agreed, in view of the fact that money is no longer quite as valuable as it was in 1970, that the penalties should be raised correspondingly. I therefore would suggest, first of all, that if there was an offence the maximum penalty should be £100 as opposed to £50, and that the minimum fine should be £25.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I understand the point the noble Lord is trying to make—that in the age of inflation prices change. But this maximum fine of £50 was the considered opinion of the Home Office which advised on this particular point. They had regard to the fact that Clause 24 contains a number of provisions for giving publicity to rent allowance schemes, which should between them ensure that private tenants are made aware of their entitlement to rent allow- ances. The second part of the Amendment which prescribes a minimum fine is quite unacceptable, as it would completely fetter the discretion of the courts. This penalty provision has been drawn in a way which will prevent fines from being imposed on landlords who fail to carry out their duties solely through ignorance. If the landlord can show that he has failed in this duty but that there was no wilful neglect on his part, the courts should have this latitude. They can consider the matter like that.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will not pursue this matter. The noble Lord has a point as regards the minimum requirement. I am not entirely certain that the view of the Home Office is one that one must naturally accept. That was the advice they gave us on previous legislation and your Lordships' House took the view that the advice was not acceptable and raised the limits. However, I recognise that while this is an important matter, it is not in what one might call the criminal sense or in an obstructive sense, and I am prepared to leave it there. No doubt we may need to look at it in the light of future legislation to bring it into line. At half-past two on Wednesday morning I took over what was then the morning shift. I am now leaving it to my noble friends. I shall be coming back, but I say thanks to the noble Lords, particularly Lord Drumalbyn, for the way in which affairs have been conducted since half-past two on Wednesday morning. I hope he will continue to be as conciliatory.

LORD DIAMOND

A lot more.

LORD SHEPHERD

A lot more. We can always live in hope.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Conversion of Controlled Tenancies]:

9.14 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 109FA: Page 33, line 35, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of section 37 (Fair rents etc.) and section 38 (phasing of rent increases) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: We have now reached Part III of the Bill, and we are dealing with rents of dwellings in good repair and provided with standard amenities. Clause 27 provides for a controlled tenancy to be converted to a regulated one when the local authority issue a qualification certificate certifying that the dwelling has all the standard amenities and is in good repair. The clause itself is subject to Clauses 37 and 38, and the Amendment draws attention to this fact. It may be argued that the Amendment in no way affects the position as already set out in the clause, and that it is unnecessary. None the less it is generally agreed, and for very good reason—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has drawn our attention this evening repeatedly to this fact—that this Bill is a most complicated one. I think that all of us who have had to make preparation for the Committee stage of this Bill have been called upon to do an unusually heavy stint. Since the Amendment I now move draws attention to following clauses of substance and importance, it would serve to assist in understanding Clause 27.

There is a point at which the layman ought to be given help in making sense of legislation. We ought to do as much as we possibly can without in any way affecting the revision provisions of the Bill, and I believe, to that end, this Amendment would be most helpful. My noble friend who has just said that he is taking a rest from speaking, and who has served the Committee extremely well, drew attention to the somewhat easier attitude, in the sense that Government spokesmen were giving an indication of being a little more conciliatory than they were when we were dealing with Part I of the Bill. I hope that we shall not only continue in that way, but that we shall find the sense of conciliation developing more and more. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is going to reply to this Amendment, but if she is, I think it is about time that the Government gave her the pleasure of saying that they were prepared to be accommodating on a matter that is, after all, a comparatively simple one. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I should just like to say here that this is not any- thing new. Almost exactly the same words occur in Section 43 of the Housing Act 1969.

LORD SANDFORD

If the noble Lord will be patient—after all, we have only just begun another Part, with a change of bowling and batting—he will find that not only will he have the pleasure of my noble friend's conversation, but also meet with some conciliation and some willingness to consider his Amendments. But I do not think we have quite reached that point, and I do not think this is a matter of sufficient substance to be worth spending very long upon.

Before dealing with the noble Lord's Amendment, I should like to spend a moment or two, as it were, setting the scene for this Part, and reminding the Committee of the kind of people with whom we are dealing, the kind of tenancies with which we are dealing, and the changes that will be brought about, in the circumstances both of the buildings and of the people, by the measures that are in this Bill.

Leaving aside council houses, to which we shall come later, there are about 2½ million tenancies either regulated or controlled: slightly more regulated, 1⅓ million, as compared with 1.1 million controlled tenancies. In considering this Part, I suggest that we need to address our minds to the typical tenant of the controlled property—and I know that we have already been doing this in Part II. They are old people; over half of them are well over 60, and they are poor. Well over half have incomes below £10 a week. Their rent now in London is £1.50 and their rent elsewhere is about 90p. Under the move to fair rents—and this is the sector in which the Party opposite introduced the concept of fair rents—their rents would be going up to £5 in London and £4 elsewhere. And noble Lords opposite had already started this process in a phased programme over five annual steps, without introducing any rent allowances. So some of these classes of tenants would have had theoretically the whole of their income absorbed by rent—or a half of it, or a large and considerable proportion of it.

Under the effect of rent allowances—and I am leaving to one side those who are drawing supplementary benefit, because in their case the whole of their rent, whether a fair rent or any other, would be catered for—the rent of a tenant now paying 90p outside London would actually fall to about 25p, and elsewhere somebody with an income of £10 and paying a rent of 90p outside London would not have that increased by more than, say, 30p or 40p. This is the effect of the allowances, and in those circumstances we can consider the operation of the provisions of this particular Part.

I say that just by way of setting the scene for this Part to which we now move. In answer to the particular Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has moved at this point, I can say that it is clear to the Committee what he is aiming at, but if you once start on this kind of sign-posting within the Bill itself—and this was a point very thoroughly discussed in another place—there is no limit to the number of references you have to make. In this clause alone, we should need to refer to Clause 44 and Clause 46; and in the end the result would be to obscure rather than to clarify the Bill as a whole. I am not saying there are not other ways in which the Bill can be made clearer and easier to understand for landlords and tenants and many other people concerned. But I would recommend to the noble Lord and to the Committee that this particular way of building it into the Bill itself will lead, not to clarification but to obscurity. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will feel he need not press this particular Amendment any further.

9.24 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

When I saw the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rise to answer me instead of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I feared the worst. My understanding of the position was not too far out. I indicated that I thought I might obtain reasonable—no, perhaps I should say "sympathetic"—treatment from the noble Baroness, but the Minister himself was gallant enough to reply. May I take the point he made in closing? We shall be returning again and again to the need for clarification. This Bill is very confused and confusing. What it involves for a great many people at the moment is so far as they are concerned very obscure. I thank him for setting the scene in the way he has done and, as he usually does, he has put it in a straightforward fashion. He has warned some 2½ million people that they are going to be affected and that in London it will mean increases from £1.50 to £5, and elsewhere from 90p up to £4 per week.

I hope that we are not going to spend too much time in being reminded of the failures of Labour Government to take everything into consideration. If we had our time over again it might well be that we should do a number of things in a somewhat different fashion. The present Government would do well to learn from the omissions of the 1968 Act, or any other Act that may be mentioned in connection with rents. We have now reached the year 1972 and if we bring forward matters that have been excluded hitherto I think we are fully entitled to do so, even if only on the basis that this Bill is concerned with a great many more people than were included in the earlier legislation. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord who has just spoken, because indeed he said it, that the people on supplementary benefit would get the increased rents paid.

We are not dealing here with supplementary benefits; we are dealing with rents. I think the charge does not lie that no thought was given to them. I return to something I have said before; we regard housing as a social service. We regard the relief of poverty as not being the duty of local authorities. We regard the duty of relieving poverty and undertaking the administration of that relief as being properly the business of national Government and something that ought to be charged to the Exchequer. The noble Lord himself quite clearly recognises that there is need for signposting in this Bill, and while my Amendment may not commend itself I think I have raised something that we shall have to return to again and again and again.

This Bill is so complicated that something needs to be done to make it more easily understandable to the millions whom it will adversely affect. Not enough is being understood at the moment of the full implications, and the information being provided in the Bill is not in language that the layman will understand. We have been signally unsuccessful this evening in securing an assurance that as much help as we should like to see given is going to be extended to those who for very good reasons will feel themselves sufferers as a consequence of this legislation.

9.28 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY

Since the noble Lord on the Front Bench has rather widened the debate beyond the scope of the Amendment I hope I may be forgiven for saying one or two words about the figures that he gave to the Committee, namely, that we have in this country at the moment 1⅓ million regulated tenants and 1.1million controlled tenants. I think the figures that he has given are a little out of date. I seem to recall that these come from the housing statistics of 1971, and perhaps the noble Lord will verify that when he winds up this particular debate.

In this connection may I now return to a point that I have made once or twice before in the course of these proceedings, that the number of these dwellings is declining at a fairly constant rate over the years and, therefore, we ought not to look at the statutory position as we see it at a particular stage but at what will happen to the controlled and regulated tenants over the course of a number of years as these provisions come into effect and they begin to "bite" on the tenants concerned?

I appeal to the noble Lord again to try to appreciate what will happen to controlled and regulated tenants. The rate of decline anticipated by the Government is much the same as we have experienced more or les continuously since the passing of the 1957 Rent Act, notwithstanding the various legislative changes such as the 1965 Act which have taken place in the intervening years.

Some information which the noble Lord gave the Committee was extremely interesting. He spoke of the sort of increases that could he anticipated in the controlled rents that are now payable—from £1.50 to £5 in London and from 90p to £4 elsewhere. The noble Lord made a political point of the fact that under the Labour Government these increases, which would have taken place in any case in dwellings with standard amenities and in good repair, would not have been taken care of by the sort of rebate scheme that is now being introduced.

The noble Lord is well aware that most of those who live in controlled properties, being the old and the poor, the least well off members of the community, are the most likely to be in receipt of supplementary benefit. I believe that figures are available from the Child Poverty Action Group to show the number of tenants of controlled properties who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

The noble Lord's claim of generosity is spurious because the vast majority of the 1.1 million people who will benefit from the allowances would in any case have had their increases taken care of under the supplementary benefit system. Perhaps the noble Lord will water down his political claims by giving those figures before the end of the debate.

The tenants about whom we are talking will have the additional responsibility of making claims on two different sources under the noble Lord's scheme in order to get their money back. Instead of simply going to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and receiving the whole amount back, they will have to go both to that Commission and to the local authority to obtain a rent allowance. Thus, from the point of view of these tenants the noble Lord's scheme is less desirable. Life would have been far simpler for them if they could have got their money back from one source. Now they will have to claim a rent allowance. which means a positive action on their part, as was the case with supplementary benefit, but in this case it will be a positive action that will be doubly complicated compared with the scheme that was previously in operation. The noble Lord cannot make any great claim of humanity on behalf of these 1.1 million tenants.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

This part of the Bill replaces Part III of the Housing Act, 1969, with a few definite improvements. There is nothing here that is new in legislation, as it were.

LORD DIAMOND

I do not wish to delay the Committee and I rise simply to make sure that I have understood one aspect of the speech of the Minister. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that the words in the Amendment are literally just signposts and will have no legislative effect; that, for legislative purposes, the decisions in this clause will be the same whether or not these words are included?

LORD SANDFORD

If I could just deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, first. That was my understanding, and that was my understanding of what Lord Garnsworthy claimed for them, that they would just draw people's attention to those other parts of the Bill to which this particular clause referred. I think that is what Lord Garnsworthy said.

LORD DIAMOND

With the greatest possible respect, my noble friend is very knowledgeable and very experienced but he has not got behind him quite the Government Department resources that the noble Lord has. What I am asking the noble Lord to be good enough to say on his responsibility is that it makes no difference for legislative purposes whether these words are included or not—perhaps for convenience purposes but not for legislative purposes—because they are, in fact, no more than signposts. He did indicate that they were inadequate as signposts and if you had these signposts you really needed further signposts as well but all I want to be quite sure about is that these are just signposts. If they are there is no need to pursue the matter. But if they have as they might have—and we can only rely on lawyer's advice—legislative effect then it would be a different issue entirely.

LORD SANDFORD

The effect of these particular Amendments is, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, claimed they were, just signposts. To people who were operating and using the Bill they would serve to remind them that what applied here were Clauses 37 and 38. But to carry that idea through one would have, even in this clause, to refer to Clauses 44 and 46 and this would apply all over the Bill. I do not think there is really much difference between us. We all recognise that this is a complex Bill and for anyone other than solicitors and barristers, for tenants and landlords, and local authorities, there will have to be explanatory circulars, pamphlets, leaflets, housing advisory centres, and a whole apparatus designed to make it easier for laymen to see what their rights are under this Bill and to see how they set about getting them. They need to follow the whole procedure which is brought in by this measure which, because it is so radical and because it has complex trans- itional procedures is very difficult for the layman to understand.

We are absolutely at one in recognising that the Bill as it stands, is beyond the wit of anybody except those who are involved in getting it through Parliament and those who are legally trained to operate it. Of course, explanations are needed, but this kind of explanation, this kind of signposting, really does not help a great deal and if carried through to its logical conclusion there would be so much of it in the Bill connecting one clause with another that in the end it would lead to more obscurity than clarity.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

Does the noble Lord mean us to assume that the Bill is unintelligible?

LORD SANDFORD

It is very difficult and I think all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will recognise that.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, followed up a number of points that I made by way of my opening remarks. I was not meaning to get into an extensive debate on the statistics that I mentioned but if I can add to them in the way the noble Lord wishes me to do I will try to do so. I certainly was not trying to make or score political points. If noble Lords feel that I did, that is up to them to interpret it that way. All I was trying to do was to explain the difference from the tenant's point of view of the procedure which is operating now and was introduced by the Party opposite of five annual steps, slower than we are proposing.

The arrangements here were in addition to the questioning effect of supplementary benefit which applies in both systems. There is the questioning effect of rent allowances because it requires the awareness of this to appreciate the reasons for the charges that are brought about by the new clauses which we shall need to discuss in Part III. That was my only reason for doing it. If I cannot do that without making a political point, I apologise to the Committee but it was a point I felt would be helpful to the Committee to have in its mind.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the time he has taken and the effort he has made to deal with the points that have been raised. I think inevitably from time to time he is bound, as I suppose most of us are, to give the appearance of making a political point. He is a political animal—a very political animal. I suppose that is equally true of most people who sit on the Front Benches in this House, and a number behind, and for that he need make no apology; nobody in this House needs to apologise for being a political animal, he no more nor less than the rest of us.

LORD ABERDARE

I would remind the noble Lord that we have Cross-Benchers.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

We have Cross-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, and I am not going to differentiate between them. I think they are quite capable of making political points and I think some show a considerable sense of political awareness at times, and the House is better for that. They are probably not as committed as those on the Benches opposite or as on these Benches here. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his support and the points that he has raised, as indeed 1 am to my noble friend Lord Diamond. I think the debate has been thoroughly worth while and that the Minister has shown his awareness, and, if I may say so, an acute awareness, of explanatory leaflets and explanatory campaigns of one kind and another to try to make this Bill intelligible. I have the feeling, having listened to him and he having shown such understanding, that the best advice we can give to the Government in connection with this Bill is that they should drop it and save everybody many headaches. In the meantime, with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Application for qualification certificate]:

9.42 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 109FB: Page 34, line 18, leave out ("where subsection (3) below applies")

The noble Lord said. In moving this Amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 109FC, 109FD, 109FF and 109FG. I think it is to the convenience of the Government if I do that. Amendment No. 109FB is to leave out, "where subsection (3) below applies". The next Amendment, No. 109FC, is consequential, and I want to speak to that and to the others I have mentioned. On this side we are concerned that the Bill does not adequately protect the position of the tenant. The clause, as I am suggesting it should be amended, would provide that the tenant as defined in the clause shall receive a copy of the application for a qualification certificate which is necessary for the change from a controlled tenancy to a regulated one, and the notice required by subsection (3).

Here again there is one of the greatest difficulties so far as this Bill is concerned: that is to say. its complicated structure. What we wish to ensure is that where a landlord applies for a qualification certificate, even though he may have received a grant in respect of premises, he must still give notice to the tenant. It is surely nothing less than proper that the tenant should know that the landlord is making application that his tenancy will be taken out of control and turned into a regulated tenancy, whatever the circumstances. It is our view that the present Bill does not fully preserve the right of the tenant to be informed of such application. He should always be notified. It may be claimed that this would lead to unnecessary delays. It used to be argued that a man's home is his castle. It will no longer be a feature when his interests are determined and may be prejudiced without his knowledge.

Some may feel that those who live in rented accommodation are second-class citizens. I doubt whether anything that I could say to-night would change their thinking. I am sure that those who proceed on such a presumption make a great mistake and eventually will pay a just penalty. I have spoken briefly. I hope the Committee will not interpret that as meaning that these Amendments are moved lightly or without very serious intent. They are moved with very serious intent, and I should like to say here and now that it will take a great deal to persuade us not to put this issue to the vote.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I have listened most carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I wonder whether I may ask him one question based on his Amendment. What is the difference between the security of tenure for those regulated tenants and the security of tenure for those controlled tenants? I believe they have exactly the same security of tenure, and I believe this was the purpose of his Amendment.

BARONESS YOUNG

In the course of the Committee we have discussed a great many very controversial matters, but I should have thought that on large parts of Part III we could be in agreement, because the one thing which everybody wants to achieve is the improvement of a great many old houses in the nation's housing stock. Large parts of Part III, including the particular clause in question, are designed to simplify the procedures so that the process of improvement can be carried out more quickly.

The series of Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, suggest that tenants ought to have this right to make representations as soon as the landlord has applied for a qualification certificate to see that the amenities of the house will be brought up to standard.

There are two reasons why the Government feel unable to accept these Amendments. In the first place, when a local authority is giving the standard grant it must be satisfied that when the works are completed the dwelling will satisfy the conditions that bring it up to standard. In fact, a local authority would never pay the grant unless it was satisfied that the conditions had been met, and it is rather difficult to see how representations from the tenant would improve the tenant's position when it is in the local authority's interest to see that all the conditions have been effectively met. The work must be carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority. It seems to us that to add something further, or to take out these clauses which have been put in to simplify the position and make it easier for landlords to improve their property, would not benefit the tenant in the end. This is something we would all want to see so that we shall get the maximum number of houses improved.

I understand that this clause is similar to the clause in the 1969 Housing Act which did not give tenants a right to make these representations. We all appreciate that this change from a controlled to a regulated tenancy is a serious matter for tenants. Underlying the whole of Part III are the provisions for rent allowances, and all the effects of the increased rent must be seen against this new background. Therefore the position of tenants is different from what it has been in former Acts when there were no rent allowances to meet this need.

There is an opportunity for tenants to comment on landlords' improvement proposals, and it does not mean that a tenant is left without any form of redress at all. If a tenant believes that the landlord's plans will not bring the dwelling up to the qualifying standard, he can refuse to consent to them. The landlord will then have to apply to the county court for an order under Clause 33. The court can only grant a landlord an order empowering him to carry out works which are required for the qualifying standards to be satisfied, and if a tenant satisfies the court that the works proposed by the landlord will not satisfy the qualifying conditions the court cannot grant the landlord an order empowering him to carry them out. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and that he will recognise that this attempt to simplify procedures is an attempt to speed up the improvement of the nation's housing stock.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

May I say right away that I very much appreciate the effort which the noble Baroness has made to satisfy me? I was quite sure that she would not be able to do it. I do not think we have made any progress in the matter since it was discussed in another place. I hope that she has to some exetnt replied to the question asked by her noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I should have thought that with his background he did not need to ask we that kind of question. I should have thought that with his kind of experience he would know the answer. If he does not, then I invite him to attend the meetings of this Committee regularly and I think that he will learn as we go along. This is a matter of some difference between us and I shall press this Amendment to a Division.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

Before the noble Lord divides the Committee on this Amendment, I hope he will be able to give an answer to the question which I put to him. Ii: was perfectly serious and I think that the Committee is entitled to know the answer.

CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Heycock, L. Shackleton, L.
Barrington, V. Llewelyn-Davies, L. Shepherd, L.
Beswick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.[Teller] Stow Hill, L.
Champion, L. Strabolgi, L. [Teller]
Davies of Leek, L. Maelor, L. Walston, L.
Diamond, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Platt, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Garnsworthy, L. Segal, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Killearn, L.
Abinger, L. Denham, L. [Teller] Kinnoull, E.
Aldenham, L. Digby, L. Luke, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Drumalbyn, L. Lyell, L.
Auckland, L. Eccles, V. Macleod of Borve, Bs.
Balfour, E. Effingham, E. Mountevans, L.
Beauchamp, E. Ellenborough, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller]
Beaumont, L. Elles, Bs.
Belstead, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Rankeillour, L.
Berkeley. Bs. Falmouth, V. Redesdale, L.
Bethell, L. Ferrers, E. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Gainford, L. Sandford, L.
Coleraine, L. Gowrie, E. Sandys, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Grimston of Westbury, L. Thomas, L.
Courtown, E. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor) Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Cowley, E. Vivian, L.
Craigavon, V. Hertford, M. Wolverton, L.
Crawshaw, L. Hylton, L. Young, Bs.

Clause 28 agreed to.

House resumed.