HOUSING BILL

HL Deb 24 July 1974 vol 353 cc1679-725

3.16 p.m.

Report of Amendments received.

Clause 17 [Certain loans and grants limited to registered housing associations]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 15, line 45, after ("relevant works") insert ("approved for subsidy").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment and refers to the new subsection (4)(c) inserted at Committee stage to enable local authorities to make loans where necessary to unregistered housing associations in connection with the relevant works for the purposes of special residual subsidy. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I of course accept this Amendment. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, simply a drafting Amendment. But I rise to speak because although I have been grateful for the courtesy both of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in saying that there were a great many Government Amendments to this Bill to come on Report it has come as rather a surprise to find out how many have arrived. Again, although I am grateful to have had a letter about it, a great number of the Amendments have come without any notes at all and some of the notes have been very short indeed. I received the full list only yesterday and it is very difficult to master nearly 80 pages of Amendments at less than 24 hours' notice. Although I accept that it is difficult for the Government speakers to be able to control these events, it is a question of organisation, and on a major Bill like this it is difficult enough for those of us who are at least reasonably conversant with the Bill but very difficult indeed for other noble Lords who may wish to speak. I think I should register my feeling at this stage.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said, because I have often in the past suffered exactly from the same problem when occupying the Benches on the other side of the House. It seems to be a perpetual fault of Parliament.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I do not think we should let that go quite as simply as that. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rightly said, when we were in Government the same problems occurred of Amendments being put down at a late stage. But I myself in three and a half years in Government have not seen a case as bad as this. I am not criticising the noble Lord. It is not his Department—I think it is the Department of the Environment which is concerned. But I understand that there were 85 Amendments put down yesterday—85! My noble friend Lady Young has said that she was notified in advance and I think she is quite ready to debate them and I am sure she will be able to do justice to the Amendments. But there is a principle here and I hope that the noble Lord will not brush this off—I do not think he will—but will go back to the Department concerned and say, "This is not good enough."

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I will undertake to do so. But I am just making the point that this does happen. Perhaps some years it is worse than others, and perhaps this is a bad year. But when we go through the Amendments it will become quite clear that none of them is as formidable as they look and many are very simple indeed. Indeed, the most difficult Amendments are those which have been submitted from the Benches opposite, simply because of the difficulties attending Members of an Opposition in drafting Amendments on complicated subjects. So I think we will find that the situation is not nearly so bad as it appears at the moment. I hope that events will prove me right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Housing association grants]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 24, line 18, at end insert ("and for this purpose the grant of a licence to occupy shall be treated as a letting.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention of this Amendment is to ensure that a registered housing association which is precluded by its rules or consistent instrument from granting tenancies for some or all of its dwellings may become eligible for housing association grant where the dwellings are occupied by licensees. As the Bill now stands the reference to dwellings "which are or are to be let or available for letting" would exclude from housing association grant those housing associations which are almshouse trusts and whose almspeople are not tenants and do not pay rent. Such almspeople are licensees. They may be, but are not always, required to pay a "coniribution" towards the upkeep of the dwellings and sometimes towards the cost of ancillary services.

The Government intend that housing projects proposed by almshouse trusts (and other similar bodies) who are also registered housing associations, should be eligible for housing association grant on broadly the same basis as projects undertaken by other registered housing associations. I beg to move.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, before starting my remarks on the Amendments, I regret to say that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, regarding the rapid progress of this stage and his feeling that he will be able to surmount the 85 Amendments which have been put down plus a further five Amendments on a supplementary list. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his courtesy and assistance over certain Amendments of which he is well aware. I should also like to point out that his letter reached me at half-past twelve today and as it runs into three folios and is of a particularly complicated nature, I scarcely had time to read it, let alone appreciate the full minutiae of what it contains. This is a further complication, but as the afternoon wears on I have no doubt that I shall have opportunity to go into it in greater detail. We are much indebted to the staff of this House and the Departments concerned in producing these Amendments in a manageable form in particularly difficult circumstances from the printing point of view. This is a massive task. We should congratulate the staff in producing a Marshalled List at all of this magnitude.

In regard to the Amendment itself, in so far as housing associations are concerned related to almshouses, I have a special interest which I should declare in that I am a chairman of a building association currently concerned with the possibility of doing precisely what is suggested within this clause. I can only say that this is a very helpful Amendment and one with which I personally agree. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was kind enough to furnish my noble friend Lady Young with notes and I greatly appreciate his courtesy in providing the amplification.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. On behalf of my noble friend I wish to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord said in praise of the work of the staff. We are all very much in their debt in these difficult circumstances. I am not certain that I spoke of proceeding with speed in relation to these Amendments, although I may have done so. If I did, it was an error. What I intended to convey was that the Amendments would not be as formidable as they appeared; but obviously we must take proper time to consider them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Declaration of housing action areas.]

3.25 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 35, line 23, leave out ("is") and insert ("and the obligations imposed by section (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.) below are").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. I should also like to suggest, if the House would give me leave, that we should consider Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 16, 20, 23 and 69 at the same time. This is a fairly formidable list but it is the heaviest list and what has to be said regarding these Amendments will be more lengthy than will be necessary regarding any other set of Amendments. It will be helpful if I go into some detail because the issue raised is one of some importance and also because of the very difficulties to which reference has been made.

Together, these Amendments would provide for local authorities to be notified, in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods, of notices to quit, and of certain property transactions. This is the notification system, which I outlined on Second Reading, by which we are seeking to realise the sort of objectives the previous Government had in mind when they suggested the so-called "first refusal option scheme". The proposals now before us are less complex and more limited than such a scheme would have had to be, in that the notification system is concerned only with notification: it does not—and I want to stress this—give authorities new rights over land. We also think it more practical, in view of the resources available, in that it is concerned only with seeing that authorities have the opportunity of considering whether they need or are in a position to take action, under their existing powers, in respect of tenanted property where a notice to quit has been served or where the property is in danger of leaving the privately rented sector. It is an essential addition to the powers already in the Bill which are, overall, directed at securing that the action taken in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods is in the interests of those living in the areas concerned.

I will deal first with the new clause, which is the basic provision. Subsec-tions (1) and (2) provide respectively for the notification of notices to quit and of the expiry of fixed term tenancies. Subsection (3) provides for the categories of property transactions which are to be notified: I will come in a moment, when dealing with subsection (6), to the very important exceptions. Subsection (4) provides a four week pause after declaration of a housing action area before the notification system comes into effect: this is to give time for local authorities to publicise the requirements as to notification, and for those likely to be affected by the system to be aware of their obligations.

Subsection (5) requires authorities to say within four weeks of notification what; action, if any, they propose to take as a result of notification. Subsection (6), to which I referred just now, lists exemptions from the requirement to notify property transactions. These are substantial and important exceptions but it is right that the system should apply only to those tenanted or formerly tenanted properties which are likely to leave the rented sector. Paragraph (a) exempts owner-occupiers, as they are defined. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) exempt local authority transactions, furnished or protected tenancies and short fixed-term leases. Accordingly, there is no requirement to notify if a property is owner-occupied or if a tenanted property is to continue to be let. Subsections (7) to (10) prescribe for enforcement the offences created which, being of a summary nature, would have a maximum penalty of £400, which is currently the normal penalty for failing to give required information. Section (10) itself provides that failure to notify will not invalidate a notice to quit or conveyance.

My Lords, the new Schedule prescribes the form and content of notifications The three Amendments to Clause 36—that is to say, Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5—are important, in that they impose the necessary duty on a local authority who have declared a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood, to take steps to bring to the attention of owners and occupiers of property concerned their obligations under the system and to publicise the name and address of the person to whom inquiries about the system can be made. The Department's circular will stress the importance of the provisions for publicity and for seeing that people's questions are answered

The Amendment to Clause 53—Amendment No. 23—provides for the system to apply in priority neighbourhoods as well as in housing action areas. Its availability there will help the housing action area concept, not dilute it. Where resources of staff and other resources are short, it is in housing action areas that an authority will have to concentrate its attention. I shall return to this point when making a few remarks at the Third Reading of the Bill. The Amendment to Clause 48, Amendment No. 20, is purely technical.

My Lords, these are important provisions which we see, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said, as a sensible compromise solution to a particularly thorny problem with which the previous Government, like this one, have sought to grapple. I have referred to the objectives and to the safeguards in order to bring out the balance which we have sought to secure and hold. I commend these provisions to the House and I hope that, seen and taken together, they will make good sense to your Lordships. I beg to move.

3.35 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation of this very important series of Amendments—in particular the new clause. Once again the difficulty of the timetable has meant that we on this side of the House were not aware of the particular grouping of the Amendments which the Government wished to put forward. Therefore one has not prepared one's remarks as if one were speaking to quite such a large group of Amendments, although I of course appreciate that they all stand together in the Bill.

The particular point of these Amendments is to introduce this new concept of a notification procedure into housing action areas and also into priority neighbourhoods. This takes the place of what was originally written into the Bill, which was to have what was called the first refusal option scheme. We on this side of the House entirely support the principle of the housing action area and are concerned that it should work effectively. I indicated at Committee stage that it seemed to me that one of the most important things to do was to have effective consultation about these areas and, of course, about the priority neighbourhoods. This seems to me to become even more important when one sees in the new clause the penalties that will fall on an owner who fails to comply with the procedure laid down in the Bill. In effect, an owner will have a relatively short time—four weeks in some cases—to notify the local authority of his intention to sell a house, and if he fails to do this he could, as I have said, incur these penalties. I think it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could indicate to the House how he sees the timetable on all this working out, because, as I understand the procedure, it is not the intention that the local authority shall consult anybody about the area of the housing action area. It will draw up this area as it will draw up the area of the priority neighbourhood. What has been decided is that, having decided on the area, nothing will happen within it until there is consultation with the residents.

It is very important to know how all this will work out in practice and what advice the Department of the Environment will give to local authorities about how to proceed. This is even more important where an authority may well have as, for instance, in London or some of the other major conurbations, several housing action areas within its boundaries. Therefore it is very important that owners should know what is expected of them in this new procedure, that tenants should know their rights and that there should be the fullest possible consultation and explanation within a reasonable timetable so that everybody can keep to the law.

My Lords, as I said earlier, I myself do not think that housing action areas will be helped by the priority neighbourhood idea. It will tend to dilute the very scarce resources of staff who, instead of concentrating on the housing action area, will be operating on a much larger area—the priority neighbourhood, of course, being adjacent to the housing action area. I hope very much that this will not happen, but I fear that it will. However, I do not propose to oppose these Amendments because, as I have already indicated, we are very keen on this side of the House that the concept of the housing action area should be introduced as soon as practicable.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the way in which she has spoken with regard to this group of Amendments. I wish that we could have extended all the facilities that she would have liked. I think she knows that I did my very best to see to it that she was in possession of information almost as soon as I was. I am very grateful to her for the way in which she has approached this grouping of Amendments as I have put them before the House. May I say that it seemed to me that the noble Baroness had grappled very ably with the grouping. On the last point which the noble Baroness made, the priority neighbourhoods, rather than diluting, will safeguard and strengthen the position. That is the intention. Between the Committee stage and this debate this afternoon we had a discussion with the noble Baroness. I am sorry if she still has any doubts with regard to the effect on priority neighbourhoods. If she feels that she would like further assurance, we shall certainly be glad to communicate or to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss the matter further.

I was very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness raised the issue of publicity. May I say right away that I appreciate what she said when we discussed this matter at the meeting to which I have referred. The ideas which she put forward were constructive and extremely helpful and they will certainly be fully borne in mind when advice is being given to local authorities as to how publicity is to be given. We could not possibly lay down guidelines that would apply everywhere in the same way, as I think the noble Baroness will agree. We shall have to suggest to local authorities that they should go to very considerable lengths in some areas, using not only empty properties and caravans—which I think the noble Baroness herself suggested—but mobile caravans going around an area, explaining and encouraging people to show interest. I think we can use old buses and anything that will help us to bring the community into full participation. It is very important that we should help people to know their rights as fully and intimately as possible.

My Lords, the noble Baroness raised the question of the timetable. The period of four weeks mentioned in the clause is of course a minimum period. One would expect a vendor to notify as soon as he put his property on the market. A notification does not have to say who the purchaser will be; it is merely a matter of informing of the intention to put a property on the market. It is quite a simple thing to do and should present no difficulty. I would also point out that very few properties are sold without the participation of a solicitor. I think we can be fairly certain that a solicitor would make sure that the requirements were met before allowing his client to complete the sale. Again, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her I helpful approach to this matter, and for the constructive suggestions she has made in discussion. I hope that the Amendments will commend themselves to the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 26, after ("whom") insert: ("should be addressed")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 28, leave out ("should be addressed") and insert ("or, as the case may be, any inquiries concerning the obligations so imposed").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.43 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 6.

Page 35, line 46, at end insert— ("(4A) As soon as may be after a resolution has been passed declaring an area to be a housing action area, the resolution shall be registered in the register of local land charges—

1. (a) by the proper officer, for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925, of the local authority in whose area the housing action area is situated; and
2. (b) in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.'")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 22 These Amendments provide that when a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood are declared, they must be registered in the register of local land charges. Persons purchasing or contemplating purchasing property in a housing action area or a priority neighbourhood will thus know when they make their purchases that they are in such an area. The Government consider that these Amendments will enhance the provisions of the Bill which provide for information to be given to owners and occupiers of properties in housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods. I hope that the House will agree to them on that basis.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. It seems a most useful first piece of information for everyone about a housing action area.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Incorporation of general improvement areas, or parts thereof, into housing action areas]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 14:

Page 37, line 21, after ("declaration") insert ("(a)").

Page 37, line 22, after ("1969") insert ("or (b) is comprised in a priority neighbourhood declared under section 49A below").

Page 37, line 24, leave out ("1969 Act"and insert ("relevant").

Page 37, line 28, leave out from ("the") to ("to") in line 29 and insert ("relevant land shall be deemed (according to its status) either— (a)").

Page 37, line 33, at end insert ("or (b) to have been excluded from the priority neighbourhood by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) below, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49C below or, as the case may be, to have ceased to be a priority neighbourhood by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) below (as that section so applies)").

Page 37, line 38, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").

Page 37, line 43, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").

Page 37, line 46, leave out ("1969 Act") and insert ("relevant").

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. These Amendments are purely technical and procedural, and follow upon acceptance in Committee of the clause relating to priority neighbourhoods. They provide machinery by which priority neighbourhoods can be converted into housing action areas without their having to be specifically undeclared first. I hope that the House will accept these Amendments on this basis. If the House will permit me, since they are consecutive, I will move these Amendments en bloc.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, once again I am glad to accept these Amendments. I appreciate that they are all technical, but it would have been helpful to know that they were to be moved together, because it is quite a business going through the Bill and sorting out what they all mean. But of course I accept them.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 43 [Acquisition of land in housing action areas]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 41, line 10, at end insert— (3A) If, at any time after a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition of land falling within subsection (1) above has been made but before it is confirmed, the housing action area concerned ceases to be such an area by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 52 below or the land concerned is excluded from the area by virtue of that paragraph, the provisions of this section shall continue to apply as if the land continued to be in a housing action area.".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendment No. 24 at the same time as moving this Amendment. These two Amendments are consequential on acceptance by the House of new clauses relating to priority neighbourhoods. In both housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods local authorities will have the more specific powers of land acquisition contained in Clause 43. The Amendments provide that compulsory purchase orders made under the clause will not lapse if the area in which the land concerned is situated is converted from a priority neighbourhood into a housing action area, or vice versa. Again, I hope the House will see the advantage of these necessary transitional provisions. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I quite see that these are transitional provisions, because clearly if a local authority has introduced its priority neighbourhood with the intention of converting it within a few years to a housing action area it must have some kind of statutory procedure for dealing with the compulsory acquisition of properties. I am bound to say that it all adds force to my argument that the priority neighbourhood will dilute the housing action area, because if a local authority is going in for compulsory purchase in this area (again this is not something which I feel is a welcome idea outside the housing action area) it will require, as we all know, legal staff as well as surveyors and all the housing staff in order to acquire these properties. I think this is yet another case of the dilution of staff, and I raise this point again because I feel strongly about it. Although I shall not myself oppose the transitional arrangements, it is something which the Department itself should consider carefully when it gives advice to local authorities on the use of their staff and something which local authorities themselves should consider if they want to see housing action areas being as effective as we all hope they will be.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 46 insert the following new clause:

("Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation, etc.

(1)Within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a notice to quit is served—

1. (a)in respect of land consisting of or in cluding housing accommodation in a housing action area, and
2. (b)on a tenant who occupies as a dwelling the whole or any part of that land,

the landlord by or on whose behalf the notice is served shall notify the local authority in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act, that the notice has been served.

(2) Not less than 4 weeks before the expiry by effluxion of time of any tenancy—

1. (a) which is a tenancy of land consisting of or including housing accommodation in a housing action area, and
2. (b)which expires without the service of any notice to quit,

the person who is the landlord under that tenancy shall notify the local authority, in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act, that the tenancy is about to expire.

(3) Not less than 4 weeks and not more than 6 months before the date on which a person carries out a disposal of land to which this section applies, he shall notify the local authority, in accordance with Schedule (Notification procedure) to this Act that the disposal is to take place; and for the purposes of this section a person carries out a disposal of land if he conveys or enters into a contract to convey a legal estate or interest in the land, whether or not that estate or interest is in existence immediately before the date of the conveyance or contract.

(4) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall impose an obligation on any person to notify a local authority of any matter if, apart from this subsection, the obligation would require him to notify the authority at some time before the expiry of the period of 4 weeks beginning with the date on which the housing action area concerned is declared.

(5) A local authority who receive a notification given in compliance with any provision of subsections (1) to (3) above shall,—

1. (a) as soon as practicable after the notification is received, send to the person by whom it was furnished a written acknowledgement of its receipt, stating the day on which it was received; and
2. (b) within the period of 4 weeks beginning with the day on which the notification was received, inform the person by whom it was furnished what action, if any, they propose to take as a result of the notification with respect to the land to which the notification relates.

(6) This section applies to a disposal of land consisting of or including housing accommoda tion in a housing action area, other than a disposal—

1. (a) by a person who, throughout the period of 6 months ending on the date of the disposal, has been continuously in exclusive occupation (with or without members of his household) of the land to which the disposal relates; or
2. (b) to which the local authority arc a party; or
3. (c) consisting of the grant of a protected tenancy, within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968, or of a contract to which Part VI of that Act applies; or
4. (d) consisting of the grant or assignment of a lease (of land or of an interest in land) for a term which expires within the period of 5 years and 3 months beginning on the date of the grant of the lease, where neither the lease nor any other instrument or contract confers on the lessor or the lessee an option (however expressed) to renew or extend the term so that the new term or the extended term would continue beyond the end of that period of 5 years and 3 months; or
5. (e) consisting of the grant of an estate or interest by way of security for a loan; or
6. (f) consisting of the conveyance of an estate or interest where the conveyance gives effect to a contract to convey that estate or interest and the proposal to enter into that contract was notified to the local auhority in accordance with subsection (3) above.

(7) Any person who—

1. (a)without reasonable excuse fails to comply with an obligation imposed on him by subsection (1) or subsection (2) above, or
2. (b) without reasonable excuse carries out a disposal of land to which this section applies without having complied with the obligation imposed on him by subsection (3) above or
3. (c) knowingly or recklessly furnishes a notification which is false in a material particular in purported compliance with any provision of this section, or
4. (d) knowingly or recklessly omits from any such notification any information which 1693 is required to be contained therein by virtue of any provision of Schedule (notification procedure) to this Act,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.

(8) Where an offence under subsection (7) above which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(9) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (8) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

(10) The conviction of any person for an offence under or subsection (7) above shall not affect the date on which any tenancy expires (whether by virtue of a notice to quit or otherwise) or the validity of any disposal of land."—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 [Local authorities for purposes of Part IV]:

3.45 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 44, line 32, after ("under") insert ("subsections (1) to (3) of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27 and 70. It is not as substantial as it may sound and all these Amendments hang together. Your Lordships will recall that the Amendments pressed at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were concerned with deleting the default powers—or the reserve powers, as they are sometimes known—of the Greater London Council to declare housing action areas and general improvement areas without the consent of the London borough concerned.

My noble friend Lord Hughes made it clear at the time that the need to proceed with the Bill—and having regard to the number of noble Lords in the Chamber—precluded the Government from seeking to divide the Committee. We also made it clear that we on the Government side were unhappy at the removal of these powers. They were always seen as no more than back-up powers designed to enable the Greater London Council to act where, in the view not only of the Greater London Council but also of the Secretary of State, the very scale of the problem and the pressing needs of the people and their families living in the deprived areas would merit declaration, even without borough council consent to it.

With reluctance, I have to say that the Government have formed the view that given the firm attitude maintained by the Opposition in this House and the very short time left in which to secure the passage of this vital Bill, we do not seek to contest the decision made by your Lordships at Committee stage. I hope we can now put behind us the differences that there have been between us, and it is in this spirit that I shall be moving these Amendments, which are wholly consequential on the decision of the Committee to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. They are concerned merely with tidying up the Bill, so that as it leaves us it will be technically compatible with the Greater London Council having power to declare housing action areas, general improvement areas or priority neighbourhoods, only (and I want to stress this) with the consent of the local authority concerned.

We also trust that the boroughs, the City and the Greater London Council will put their differences behind them, that the London Boroughs Association will observe the spirit of the offers which they made to promote action in London as a whole and inform the Greater London Council of their proposals, and that the authorities of Greater London will join in planning, agreeing and carrying out together a programme of action. I indicated that it was a fairly lengthy list of Amendments, but I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that these Amendments have been tabled in order to deal with the situation consequent upon the Amendment successfully moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. I hope I have indicated that we for our part have accepted the position and have endeavoured, by the Amendments to which I have spoken, to tidy up the Bill as a consequence. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, it would indeed be churlish of me to criticise this group of Amendments, and I should like to say how grateful I am to the Government for their acceptance of the Amendment that we moved in Committee, concerning the relationship between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs in housing action areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said on that occasion that as always the Amendments were not properly drafted and I am therefore all the more grateful that the Government should have put the Bill in order, to meet this Amendment and, of course, Schedule 4 to the Bill which goes with it. As I understand the position, Amendment No. 25, which I think deals with priority neighbourhoods, included that as well. We are very glad to accept them and are grateful for what the Government have done.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc.

Amendments moved— Page 44, line 38, leave out ("Schedule 4 to this Act") and insert ("this subsection").

Page 44, line 41, after ("(a)") insert ("section 36(4) and"). —(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 20, when we were considering Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 41, leave out ("and 46") and insert ("to (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.)").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, we dealt with Amendment No. 21 in connection with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 9, leave out ("Schedule 4 to this Act") and insert ("that subsection").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51 [Declaration of priority neighbourhoods]:

4.0 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment, No. 22, on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46B, line 28, at end insert— ("(5A) As soon as may be after a resolution has been passed declaring an area to be a priority neighbourhood, the resolution shall be registered in the register of local land charges—

1. (a) by the proper officer, for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925, of the local authority in whose area the priority neighbourhood is situated; and
2. (b) in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Application to priority neighbourhoods of certain provisions of Part IV]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I covered Amendment No. 23 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46D, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert: ("(ee) section (Notification of notices to quit and disposals of housing accommodation etc.); and").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, Amendment No. 24 was taken with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46D, line 55, at end insert: ("(4A) In the application, by virtue of subsection (1) above, of section 43 above, in subsection (3A) of that section for the words" paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 52 below "there shall be substituted the words" paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 38 above ".").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Local Authorities for the purposes of Part VI]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together. We spoke to them on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 46E, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert: (" (2) The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under subsections (1) to (4) of section 51 above with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of any local authority in whose district the area or any part of the area is situated.")

Page 46E, line 18, leave out from ("with") to ("subsection") in line 19.

Page 46E, line 23, leave out ("51 to") and insert ("51(5,), 52 and").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 55 [Grants for provision, improvement and repairs of dwellings]:

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER)

My Lords, there is a Supplementary List which takes precedence here, and we should now take Amendment No. 27A.

4.6 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 27A:

Page 47, line 14, at end insert ("or means of escape in case of fire").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we might discuss together the four Amendments on the Supplementary List, that is to say 27A, 29A, 33A and 33B which all deal with the same subject matter and the same points, the subject being financial help for fitting fire escape apparatus in houses in multiple occupation.

I certainly need to explain to the House the reason for bringing forward this important subject so late in the life of this Bill. I do not think I need apologise because this arises out of something rather wonderful that happened on Report stage of the Finance Bill in another place only on Tuesday of last week. At an earlier stage of that Bill, in Standing Committee, my honourable friend the Member for North Cornwall initiated a debate upon the unsatisfactory slowness of implementing the provisions of the Fire Precautions Act, 1971. In the course of that debate it was pointed out by several Members that there was this anomaly, that a hotel or boarding house keeper who went to expense in order to comply with an order served on him under the Public Health Act was able to show that expense against his profits before arriving at his profits for tax, thus getting tax relief; whereas if the order required him not to do works under the Public Health Act but under the Fire Precautions Act that work did not rank as an expense deductible from profits before arriving at tax. Tax relief in that case was lost. That is an anomaly.

The Government were sympathetic to these arguments. As I say, only on Tuesday of last week at the Report stage the Financial Secretary introduced a new Clause 10 into the Finance Bill setting right this anomaly and allowing hotel keepers and boarding house keepers, if they effected necessary fire escape work and went to expense, thereafter to show that expense as a deduction before arriving at their profits for tax purposes.

That provision does not, unfortunately, apply to the houses of which I am speaking this afternoon—houses in multiple occupation. I should explain to your Lordships that as far as I can see the distinction between a boarding house and what the Department of the Environment calls a house in multiple occupation is that, whereas the boarding house keeper lets furnished rooms to boarders, the house in multiple occupation is a house in which unfurnished rooms are let.

The reason why this new provision in the Finance Bill does not help the house in multiple occupation is that the Inland Revenue, although they recognise hotels and boarding house keepers as being engaged in trade, for Inland Revenue purposes the person owning a house in multiple occupation is not regarded by the Inland Revenue as being engaged in trade. Since the new clause in the Finance Bill begins "if a person engaged in trade" et cetera, that excludes the house in multiple occupation from that tax advantage if fire escape apparatus is installed.

My Lords, take a house which is a single dwelling. If fire escape apparatus is installed there, that expense will qualify for an improvement grant. If a house is converted into a block of flats and that work includes fire escape provision and expense, that expense will rank for an improvement grant. But, for some reason—or it is mere chance, I suppose—the house in multiple occupation is out on a limb, on its own. The owner can see that all round him other people are getting financial help towards putting in fire escapes while he is denied such help. The hotel keepers get it and the boarding house keepers get it by tax relief, and ordinary householders and people who can convert their property into blocks of flats get it as improvement grants. Yet the house in multiple occupation is a greater fire hazard than the others. After all, if you have a block of flats, each self-contained with its own front door, and fire breaks out in one of those flats, there is some chance of the fire being contained within that flat. That does not apply, of course, "in the case of a house in multiple occupation with mere rooms being let and people not having their own front door.

I am only asking in these Amendments that there shall be a discretionary power on local authorities who make the improvement grant in cases where they see fit. I am not asking for mandatory, blanket, enormous financial aid for every house in multiple occupation. I am not asking for that in every case. I do not think that what I am seeking can be done in any Finance Bill. A Finance Bill has to be geared to the conception of a trade and, as I have explained, this does not apply to the houses of which I am speaking. What I am asking for can only be done in a Housing Bill.

I ask myself, if we do not grasp this nettle now, if we do not deal with this in this Bill even at this late stage, when are we going to be able to deal with it? How long is it going to be in some future Parliament before another Housing Bill after this one reaches the top of the pile and gets its Parliamentary time? If we have resolved that it is right that the owners of houses in multiple occupation with their high fire hazard should be entitled to the financial help that these other people get for their fire precautions, let us deal with it now, because if it is to be a long time before we have another Housing Bill to give us the opportunity, and if during the interim there are a series of fires in these houses with loss of life, we in Parliament shall be examining our consciences.

I am sorry to bring this rather weighty and very important matter up at this late stage. As I have said, I do not think it is my fault. I am not responsible for the timetable, or the way things have been working out. I am particularly sorry to be urging this on the Minister on an afternoon when he has, I think, over 80 of his own Amendments to pilot through the House. But this is a very important matter, and I urge Her Majesty's Government to accept these Amendments. I beg to move.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, from these Benches we should like to associate ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and also to thank his honourable friend for the skill and ingenuity with which he spotted what appears to be a loophole in a matter of great public safety. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has explained in such detail what he has in mind that I feel it would be superfluous to add further points from our point of view. I would only say that I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply would consider the possibility of adding, in a circular to fire officers and chief fire officers, the possibility of obtaining this grant should the Government feel that this Amendment commends itself to their general policy on the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, moved this Amendment in so cool and courteous a manner that it is a matter of very great regret that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. When he was supported in equally kindly fashion by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, it is an added source of regret to me that I should have to point out that there is in fact no loophole in the law. What was done on the Finance Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred, is not the question of closing a loophole in the law. As the noble Lord has made so clear, the purpose of these Amendments is to add the provision of fire escapes to the list of standard amenities which may at the discretion of the local authority—and the noble Lord concluded by stressing the fact that it was a discretionary power—be provided with special grant for houses in multiple occupation. The proposal sounds reasonable since it is concerned with the safety of the occupante of houses in multiple occupation, but it is not considered that it would be right to make grants available for this purpose.

The need for adequate means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation has been clear to successive Governments for years. Provision was made in Section 60 of the Housing Act 1969 to enable local authorities to take action where it appears to them that a house in multiple occupation does not have the necessary means of escape from fire, or where it would not be practical to put this right at a reasonable expense. It was implicit in the packet of provisions in the 1969 Act, however, that no grant of any kind would be available to provide fire escapes in houses in multiple occupation. A clear distinction was drawn between dwellings for which improvement discretionary grants were available, and houses in multiple occupation. This distinction is continued in this Housing Bill.

In the case of improvement grants, advice has been given by Circular, that where a house was being converted into self-contained flats with the aid of grant, the cost of any necessary means of escape from fire should, wherever practicable, be included in the total cost of the works. That was in Circular 79 of 1970. Grant could be paid at the discretion of local authorities towards the provision of fire escapes in existing dwellings regardless of whether other improvement work was being carried out. That was contained in Circular 46 of 1971. Whereas, however, improvement grants for the improvement of a dwelling which in this Bill is defined as, a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling together with any yard, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoined with that building or part", "house in multiple occupation" is in that clause defined as one which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household, exclusive of any part thereof which is occupied as a separate dwelling by persons who do form a single household. In the latter case, special grants are intentionally confined to the provision of standard amenities, if necessary more than one of each. The intention is to encourage the provision, where required, of adequate basic amenities in relation to the number of tenants in the house, to make life that much more tolerable. Grants for more widespread improvement should be available only through the medium of improvement grants if the house was either converted into flats, or if it reverted to occupation by a single household. Although this sometimes provokes unfavourable comment, not least because many older houses in multiple occupation, especially those of three or more storeys, could be fire risks, local authorities may use the powers to which I have referred to insist on the provision of special facilities or, if necessary, closure of part of the house for human habitation.

There is also the point that to extend special grants in the way proposed would make it difficult to resist demands for grant for other work to be carried out on houses in multiple occupation, perhaps to deal with other kinds of hazards. Grants would thus come to perpetuate multiple occupation when the ultimate aim must be to provide something better than houses in multiple occupation.

My Lords, the comparison between houses in multiple occupation and hotels and boardinghouses is not a good one, for this reason. Hotels and boardinghouses generally are desirable features of the social scene. Houses which are multiple occupied are not. It is one thing to encourage the provision of fire escapes in the one case, but it is no part of Governernment policy to prolong the existence of houses in multiple occupation. The aim should be to do away with these forms of dwelling as quickly as possible. Fire hazards can be dealt with by the local authority's compulsory powers. No grant aid is needed to enable that to be done. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Sandys, will accept it when I said at the beginning of my remarks that it was not a loophole that was being closed, but that this was an entirely different thing. Provision of these facilities was regarded as part of the expense which could be charged in the running of a business. In the case of multiple occupation, which in itself is an undesirable feature, the local authorities have the necessary powers at present to deal with it. It is not necessary to give financial incentives to make in one degree something a little better which ought to be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity.

LORD ROBBINS

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House, roughly speaking, the number of houses in multiple occupation?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, having regard to the complaints made at the beginning, it is perhaps wrong to say, "not without notice", but that is the answer.

4.20 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, rather surprising on this subject. If I have understood his argument correctly he is saying that it is acceptable to give tax relief for hotels and boarding houses because they are desirable and part of the community, that it is right to give something where available to houses which are divided into self-contained flats because, again, this is a desirable consequence, but it is not right to give anything in the case of multiple-occupied houses because these arc in themselves undesirable.

Leaving aside whether or not that is so, the fact is that we have only recently been debating the Rent Bill, and the whole purpose of the Rent Bill, as I understand it, is to shift the emphasis from the division of tenancies between furnished and unfurnished to tenancies where the landlord is resident and where the landlord is not resident. By definition, when you have many tenants in a house where the landlord is resident the chances are you will have multi-occupation, and indeed there was considerable discussion on one or two Amendments of this theme of multi-occupation. I am certain that one of the consequences of the Rent Bill will be an increase in multi-occupation, because this will be the one type of accommodation outside the Rent Acts, generally speaking.

If I am right in this, it makes the point of the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lord Sandys all the more pressing. Probably there will be more houses in multi-occupation. Whether or not this is desirable seems to me to be irrelevant. Due to the short notice that we had—for perfectly explicable reasons—over the Amendments of Lord Airedale. I have not had the opportunity to look up any figures at all. either on the point Lord Robbins has raised or, indeed, on any reports from fire officers of the number of fires in multi-occupied buildings. But my impression from the reports which one sees in the Press is that these are much more common, because, of course, with many people the chances of a fire breaking out are all the greater. Of course, as we all know, the drier houses become the more likely there is to be a fire, and the more electrical equipment there is the more likely there is to be a fire. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this point, because quite seriously I think there will be more houses in this state. It may be wrong to use the expression "a loophole in the law", but they do seem to be the only group of people who are not getting any help on a matter of safety.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I am immensely grateful to both speakers from the Opposition Front Bench for their support of my Amendment, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for pinpointing these matters. I am glad I stressed at the end of my speech that what I was asking for was not mandatory grants but grants at the discretion, of the local authority. The Minister began his speech by also stressing the discretionary element and I must say I was surprised when he went on to tell us how unsatisfactory, how undesirable are houses in multiple occupation. I would not conceal for a moment that there are many houses in multiple occupation which are a disgrace and on which no local authority in its senses would encourage having money spent to put in fire escapes or anything else. However, on the other side of the coin there are unquestionably large numbers—there must be—of well-conducted, well-constructed, well-maintained houses in multi-occupation which are perfectly satisfactory in our housing situation to-day, which are serving a useful purpose and which would handsomely repay the expense—where it would be well worth while—of having fire escape apparatus included.

I have the good fortune to be in possession of the same piece of paper the Minister was quoting from in his reply to my argument. He began by quoting Section 60 of the 1969 Housing Act. and I can tell your Lordships in paraphrase what that says. Indeed, the Minister himself told your Lordships at the end of his speech, when he quoted the words, … or if necessary closure of part of the house for human habitation". What that Section 60 says, in paraphrase, is that if a house is a bad fire risk if the whole of it is occupied. but it would not be such a bad fire risk if only part of it is occupied, the local authority can go to the owner and get an assurance from him that he will not allow people to occupy the undesirable part; and if they do he commits a criminal offence. If the local authority does not trust the owner, the local authority can make a closure order and close that part of the house.

My Lords, what a defeatist housing policy to say, "You shall not put in fire escapes and get financial help towards that so that the whole house can be occupied, but if it is dangerous you can close part of it". I do not regard that as a very enlightened housing policy. I am sorry to have taken up so much time. I did not suppose that at this late stage I was going to win this battle, but I am quite certain that my conscience would not have been clear if I had not raised this important matter at this opportunity. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 [Grants for provision, improvement and repair of dwellings]:

4.27 p.m.

LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:

Page 47, line 21, after ("dwelling") insert ("or, in the case of a registered disabled person, works required for his welfare, accommodation or employment where the existing dwelling is inadequate or unsuitable for these purposes")

Page 47 line 25, after ("lacks") insert ("or which in the case of a registered disabled person are inaccessible to that person by virtue of his disability").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 33 together, and possibly move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 at this stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would agree to that course, I will proceed on those lines. I think I ought also to apologise to the House for breaking new ground at this late stage of the Bill, because the subject matter contained in these Amendments has not been raised before; it is because of difficulties with communications and the printing problem that I have been left to this late stage.

The first of these Amendments, Nos. 28 and 29, are designed to provide and partially finance amenities such as ramps, wide doorways, downstairs bathrooms, or where more appropriate some form of lift, for those who need them for physical reasons. The Reverend Sydney Smith once wrote: A comfortable house is a great source of happiness. It ranks immediately after health and a good conscience.

Whether he had his priorities right, I will leave to your Lordships to judge. Personally speaking, I find occasionally that wrestling with one's conscience is less of a problem than grappling with a flight of stairs, but be that as it may. This question of priorities was reinforced by Lady Sharp in her recent Report on the mobility of the disabled, which was recently debated in your Lordships' House, when she gave preference to the problems of housing over the subject matter of her own Report; your Lordships will probably recall the invigorating debate we had on the fate of the three-wheeler and other forms of transport.

Your Lordships' may be wondering whether there is help available on the lines I am proposing under existing legislation. To cast your minds a little further back, I would recall Section 22(1)(e) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which did require local authorities to "provide assistance" in arranging for the carrying out of any work of adaptation in the registered person's home, or for the provision of any additional facility designed to secure his greater safety, comfort or convenience. Of course, the problem is that local authorities interpret this in varying degrees, and "provide assistance" can mean a range of help. Obviously some help more than others. In fact, I have found out that the majority use a means test.

I have an example which I am afraid may be rather complicated but, if your Lordships can follow it it may illustrate the point. A certain local authority required that for every 50p of assessable income—that is, the difference between a household's actual income and what they were deemed to need on the basis of a supplementary benefits type subsistence level—the owner had to pay 10 per cent. of the cost of adaptation. Therefore, with £5 a week assessable income, which is not a very high level, a person would have to pay the total cost of the adaptation. I realise that that is a rather complicated example, but I hope your Lordships will take my word for it that that is the position.

All this is in strict contrast to the uniform non-means tested 50 per cent. improvement and intermediate grants. Yet I believe there is a close parallel in helping the ordinary house owner by providing basic amenities and helping the physically handicapped person with access to an existing facility, or an alternative to that facility. There is no point in having a bathroom, even one with gold taps and a marble floor, if you cannot get at it. I believe that you are then in the same position as a person who does not have that facility at all.

If, as I propose with these Amendments, improvement and intermediate grants are introduced for these adaptations, not only will many people achieve a great deal of independence and be able to continue living in their own homes, but the cost of help from the Social Services Department, and of institutional care, will be greatly reduced. It is my contention that there is no extra cost involved if these Amendments are put into the Bill. This matter was raised in the other place by my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker but, unfortunately, because of pressure of time, the debate was cut short and no real answer was given. My spies tell me that if your Lordships agree to putting these Amendments into the Bill they should stick.

Finally, may I say one word on the third Amendment, Amendment No. 33? Whatever happens to the other two Amendments, something must be done about this subsection. I believe that my Amendment is needed to cover the case of a person who is specially moved into a more convenient house, but who, under this subsection, will have to wait 12 months for minor improvements or adaptations. I believe that to be an unsatisfactory position. For the moment, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

LORD MAYBRAY-KING

My Lords, I count it a privilege to support the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, in Amendments which he has moved with the characteristic courage and cheerfulness that we meet among disabled people throughout the country. One of the happiest Parliamentary days of my life was the last day of the last Parliament, when I presided in the other place over the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. That Act is not yet being administered equally sympathetically by every local authority. These Amendments marry with that Act, and I hope that both sides of the House will accept them.

4.35 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it is a particularly difficult task that I have been given to advise your Lordships that the Government cannot accept the Amendments, particularly when, as my noble friend Lord Maybray-King said, they were moved with such feeling and in such an accurate and detailed manner. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, suggested that Amendments Nos, 28, 29 and 33 should go together, and I agree that that was the correct way of doing it.

Administration of the grant system has been traditionally in the hands of local authorities, and the Government generally do not wish to interfere with each local authority's discretion to decide in what circumstances, and for what kind of improvements, a grant may be approved for a substandard house. Thus, where a local authority regards a house as meriting an improvement grant under the criteria which exist, either now or under the new legislation, it would seem not unreasonable, if the application or a member of his family was disabled, for the work to be so planned as to have regard to the special needs of that person. To this extent, therefore, the grant scheme could in future help (and can already help) in deserving cases.

That apart, however, the Government do not consider it appropriate to seek to intreduce into the improvement system specific provisions for meeting the special needs of disabled people. As the noble Lord expected me to say, these can be dealt with quite separately under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (for which the Department of Health and Social Security are responsible), which gives social service authorities specific powers to carry out adaptations to existing houses to meet the special needs of disabled people. It is for individual authorities to determine whether assistance should be given in any particular case, what form that assistance should take and, depending on the means of the person concerned, whether to help financially.

The provision is particularly used by social services authorities in relation to owner-occupiers and tenants of private accommodation—and remember, my Lords, the tenant in private accommodation may well be as much, or even more, in need of something being done as the man who is an owner-occupier or who may be the tenant of a local authority house. In the case of council housing, Section 3 of the 1970 Act requires them, in considering the housing needs of their district, to have regard to the special needs of chronically sick and disabled people. New housing, and adaptations to existing dwellings for this purpose, are eligible for subsidy.

There was issued in May of this year a Circular which urged local authorities to do more in the way of housing for physically handicapped people, and to help housing associations to do so, also. There is no doubt that too little has been done even since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Government intend to follow up the Circular and see that more rapid progress is made from now on in the range of ways advocated in the Circular. One has only to see what the enlightened authorities have done, the complete progress that has been made, to know that this Act, which made history in relation to help for the disabled, can deal with the situation if local authorities so wish. If a local authority are not willing to use the wide powers of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in their discretion, I cannot see that they are likely to use their discretion simply because we reiterate these powers in a housing Bill. I must admit that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said about the means test effect, in certain cases the Amendments might be helpful where an owner-occupier could, if the Amendments were added to the Bill, get a grant either of a specific amount—I am not sure whether it would be that way—or of 50 per cent. There are other cases where if the local authority use that method what could be given could be substantially less than if the provisions of existing legislation were used.

I can tell the House sincerely that the Government genuinely believe that the real measure here is that everybody who can should use all possible influence in pressing the local authorities to use the powers they have; that will be the best way of dealing with the situation. In certain cases we think that the Amendments could have an opposite effect. For that reason I cannot advise your Lordships that it would be in the interests of disabled people to make these Amendments to the Bill.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I never cease to be astounded at the Government's priorities in the matter of grants, even more so since the reply which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whom I always regard as being one of the most reasonable people in your Lordships' House. Every year the Government give grants to hundreds of thousands of students, many of whom are entirely undeserving and make little use of them. But for some hypothetical reason which I am unable to understand, in a case like this they say it would be undesirable. Where are our priorities?

LORD HUGHES

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, misunderstands me. If I have a reputation for being reasonable I hope he thinks that I am not prepared to abandon it lightly. The Government are not refusing to give grants. The Government say that the financial help which is available under existing legislation can give more help than the 50 per cent. which could be available if it were brought into the Housing Act. Under these Amendments it is not a choice between giving or not giving grants; it is a choice concerning the legislation under which assistance can be given. As noble Lords know, I am not speaking in relation to my own Department, either in English housing or in the Department of Health and Social Security, but I have accepted the advice, which I think has been given to me properly, that in the best interests of the disabled it is better to rely on the existing legislation than making this small amendment to the Housing Bill.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, I did not speak after the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, because I anticipated a more helpful reply from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. As one may speak only once on Report, I think this is perhaps an opportunity to say that from these Benches we support the Amendment, for a number of reasons. First, it seeks a standard grant; secondly, in our submission it is a "belt-and-braces" operation. We recognise this, but it is very helpful in a situation where, as the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has pointed out, many local authorities have done exactly nothing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has rightly pointed out, some splendid local authorities have taken a great deal of trouble. In supporting this Amendment we hope to spread the amount of help available on a much wider basis. By incorporating the Amendment in the Bill we feel that this aim will be achieved.

LORD RAGLAN

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, why he thinks that local authorities, having done nothing under previous legislation, should do more under this legislation?

LORD SANDYS

It is the effect of water dropping on a stone.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I also wish to support the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seemed to have three arguments, two of which rather cancelled out one another. First he said that the Government did not like to interfere with the action of the local authorities. That we understand and accept. It has been the timeless answer given by Governments of all kinds to many suggestions. He went on to deal with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. As I understand it, to incorporate the Amendment in that Act would not automatically allow for directives, but would merely place certain powers upon local authorities. It seems that the first argument was therefore unnecessary. If one is not attempting to change an already existing structure it cannot be true that it would make any difference by adding this Amendment. I would always support the argument that it is better to have powers available under more than one Act of Parliament so that if you cannot call on one you can call on the other, and, better still, you can call on both.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER

My Lords, now that the noble Baroness has spoken we can regard this as a non-political matter in which it is possible for a Bishop to take part. As Bishop of Leicester I count myself the keeper of the conscience of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, but I am equally anxious to help him and all those who share disabilities with him. Therefore, I feel that I must add this brief word in support of the Amendments.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if the House will permit me yet again, with the Opposition, the Cross-Benches, my own supporters and the Church now all lined up against me, although I remain of the opinion that it will not necessarily be helpful, it is correct that I should accept the feeling of the House on the matter. On reflection I will accept the Amendment.

LORD ALPORT

My Lords, as an observer of this incident, it is the first time I have heard a Minister of either side take an opposite view to the one expressed in his brief. I personally congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on that departure.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 59 [Certificates of future occupation]:

4.45 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32:

Page 50, line 17, after ("(3)") insert ("or subsection (3A)").

Page 50, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").

Page 50, line 25, at end insert— (" (3A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, in a case where an application for a grant is made by the personal representatives of a deceased person or by trustees, a" certificate of owner-occupation "is a certificate stating that the applicants are personal representatives or trustees and intend that, on or before the first anniversary of the certified date and throughout the period of 4 years beginning on that first anniversary, the dwelling will be the only or main residence of, and exclusively occupied by, a person who, under the will or intestacy or, as the case may require, under the terms of the trust, is beneficially entitled to an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof and members of his household (if any)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 en bloc. These Amendments, which are technical, are related to the certificate of owner-occupation. No allowance is made for circumstances in which an application for a grant in respect of a dwelling could be made either by the personal representatives of a deceased person or by trustees. The purpose of the Amendments is to correct these deficiencies. Comparable Amendments will be proposed to Clause 72 of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, I welcome these Amendments and associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who has so rightly said that this is a historic occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has departed from his brief. We welcome it most assuredly.

LORD HUGHES

I wish that noble Lords would not emphasise this too much, or it may be the last opportunity I shall have of doing it.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 64 [Intermediate grants]:

LORD CRAWSHAW moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 55, line 7, after ("concerned") insert ("except in the case of a registered disabled person when this subsection shall not apply, ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment briefly on the other two, but in passing may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—I know he does not wish me to—for his co-operation. I explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is necessary in any case. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72 [Conditions as to future occupation]:

4.50 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37:

Page 61, line 35, leave out from ("grant") to end of line 41 and insert—

1. (" (a) that throughout the first year of the initial period the dwelling will, as a residence, be occupied exclusively by, or be available for the exclusive occupation of, a qualifying person and members of his household (if any); and
2. (b) that if, at any time during the second or any subsequent year of the initial period, the dwelling is not occupied exclusively as his only or main residence by a qualifying person and members of his household (if any), the dwelling will at that time be let or available for letting by a qualifying person as a residence, and not for a holiday, to persons other than members of that person's family.

(2A) For the purposes of this section, the following are "qualifying persons" in relation to a dwelling, namely,—

1. (a) the applicant for the grant and any person who derives title to the dwelling through or under the applicant, otherwise than by a conveyance for value; and
1714
2. (b) at any time when personal representatives or trustees as such are the qualifying person by virtue of paragraph (a) above, any person who, under the will or intestacy or, as the case may require, under the terms of the trusts concerned, is beneficially entitled to an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof.").

Page 61, Line 47, after ("holiday") insert ("by a qualifying person").

Page 61, Line 49, leave out from ("of") to second ("the") in line 50 and insert ("that qualifying person or any other person who is for the time being a qualifying person in relation to").

Page 61, Line 54, at end insert— (" (3A) In determining, in a case where sub-section (2) above applies, whether there is a breach of the condition specified in that subsection, there shall be disregarded any period of not more than 12 months during which that condition is not fulfilled if—

1. (a) that period begins on the death of a qualifying person who, immediately before his death, was occupying the dwelling concerned as his residence; and
2. (b) throughout that period an interest in the dwelling or the proceeds of sale thereof, being either the interest which belonged to the deceased or an interest which arose or fell into possession on his death, is vested in his personal representatives acting in that capacity or in trustees as such or, by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, in the Probate Judge, within the meaning of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I would move Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37 en bloc.

These Amendments honour an undertaking given by the Government in Committee in another place. The Opposition had tabled an Amendment which would have had the effect of making it a breach of grant conditions if the owner of the improved dwelling were to sell the property within five years of the improvement. The Amendment was technically defective, however, and Mr. Rossi withdrew it on being promised that the Government would bring forward their own Amendments to achieve broadly the same ends. That, my Lords, is the purpose of these Amendments. I beg to move.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, yet again I should like to extend to the Government a very warm expression of gratitude, because this group of four Amendments arose out of Standing Committee in another place, and we should like to suggest to the Government that it was extremely fortunate that they were placed so suitably. I notice that the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Freeson said this in Standing Committee—and I quote: I do not undertake to follow specifically the Scottish position. I should like to examine the matter further and bring forward a Government Amendment which seeks to meet the point that I gather we are all concerned with here". We most warmly welcome the fact that he has done so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Power of local authorities to impose grant conditions]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 62, line 21, leave out ("or a general improvement area") and insert ("a general improvement area or a priority neighbourhood").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. This is a consequential Amendment. Amendment No. 33 was moved during the Committee stage of this Bill and had the effect of making the grant conditions in Clause 73 mandatory on G.I.A.s and H.A.A.s The Government have often made it clear that it was intended to extend these mandatory conditions to priority neighbourhoods once the new clauses relating to priority neighbourhoods had been incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I am very glad to accept this Amendment, which I think is entirely in line with what we would all wish to see.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 39:

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

"General interpretation of sections 107B to 107G for Scotland

107A.—(1) In sections 107B to 107G the reference to an English enactment includes a reference to the corresponding Scottish enactment, and the corresponding Scottish enactments, except where the context otherwise implies or provides, are as follows—

1. (a) the corresponding Scottish enactments to Part III of the House Act 1957 are Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
2. (b) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 54 and 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 are respectively sections 52 and 53 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
1716
3. (c) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845;
4. (d) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 9 of the, Housing Act 1957 are section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
5. (e) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Part V of the Housing Act 1957 is Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966;
6. (f) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is Part VI of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
7. (g) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 60 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Housing Act 1957 are section 49 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
8. (h) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 is section 9 of that Act;
9. (i) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 is Schedule 3 to that Act;
10. (j) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 3 to the Housing Act 1957 is Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 by virtue of section 7(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
11. (k) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 43(2) of the Housing Act 1957 are section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 6 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
12. (l) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 49 of the Housing Act 1957 are section 41 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
13. (m) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 169 of the Housing Act 1957 is section 5(3) of, and paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947;
14. (n) the corresponding Scottish enactment to Schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1957 are paragraphs 6, 15 and 16 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1947, and the corresponding Scottish enactment to paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 4 is the said paragraph 6;
15. (o) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 30 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947;
16. (p) the corresponding Scottish enactments to section 22 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 are sections 117 and 118 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845;
17. (q) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is section 40 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963;
1717
18. (r) the corresponding Scottish enactments to the reference to section 68 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1969 are sections 18 to 20 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;
19. (s) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 36 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is section 34 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973;
20. (t) the corresponding Scottish enactment to section 30 of the Land Compensation Act I96I is section 38 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.

(2)(a) The expression "clearance area" includes a housing treatment area which is to be dealt with by securing the demolition of all or some of the buildings in that area under section 4(2)(a) or 4(2)(c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969;

(b)" mortgagee "means the creditor in a heritable security.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are a number of new clauses in successive Amendments—Clauses 107A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H—and with permission I would speak to them all together in one set of remarks. The new Clause 107F and the accompany Schedule seeks to allow an authority to change its mind and rehabilitate housing scheduled for demolition under slum clearance compulsory purchase orders. This provision was anticipated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on Second Reading in another place, and a new clause covering this same subject was tabled in Committee by the Opposition. This was withdrawn on the Minister assuring the Committee that it was the Government's intention to introduce a provision of this nature at a later stage.

Recently, my Lords, there has been a groundswell of opposition to area clearance, and pressure on authorities not to demolish areas of unfit houses but, wherever possible, to rehabilitate them. While this is not always practicable or desirable, nevertheless there are instances where authorities have wished to change their minds, only to find that once they have acquired houses under slum clearance powers they have no alternative under existing Statute but to demolish them. This straitjacket is all the more galling in the light of the provisions for housing action areas set out in Part IV of the Bill, for authorities may well say that had these powers been available they would not have decided in favour of clearance.

This clause seeks to overcome this problem, and provides that an authority may apply to the Secretary of State for confirmation of a rehabilitation order in respect of any houses included in a slum clearance compulsory purchase order confirmed before three months after the coming into operation of this Bill. The rehabilitation order, if confirmed, will revoke the compulsory purchase order if the authority have not yet acquired the property, and will release them from the duty to demolish, while requiring them to achieve their rehabilitation. In consequence, the local authority will be required to pay additional compensation to those owners from whom they acquire houses for clearance at site value in recognition of the fact that the houses are now to be retained.

I should stress that this power will broadly apply only to property in Part III compulsory purchase orders already confirmed. In deciding any future action authorities will now know of the powers available to them under this Bill, and will take them into account in deciding whether or not to demolish. Authorities must in the future give earnest consideration to the problem of their older housing stock and how best it can be tackled, for if they decide that clearance is the answer there will be no turning back. I therefore urge authorities to consider carefully whether reconditioning and improvement is possible before resolving to clear areas of unfit houses.

Clauses 107B, 107C, 107D and 107E deal with the particular problem that arises when property acquired for demolition under the slum clearance powers in Part III of the Housing Act 1957 is subsequently listed as worthy of preservation. There is a clash of Statute here, and these clauses remove from the authority the duty to demolish in the case of a building found to be worthy of preservation while empowering them to apply, if they so choose, to the Secretary of State for his consent to the demolition of the building. Here again, additional compensation will have to be paid if houses bought for clearance are now to be retained. Clause 107G sets out the provisions covering the adjustments in compensation. Clause 107H provides that the period of three years within which the local authority can exercise its powers under a compulsory purchase order shall not be reduced by any period during which they are, under Clauses 107B, 107E or 107F, prevented from serving Notices to Treat. Clause 107A provides for the application of Clauses 107B to G to Scotland.

My Lords, in a matter of this complexity there are many points of detail, but as these provisions can reasonably be said to be acceptable to both sides I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have said sufficient to explain the purposes of these new clauses. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

Listed buildings subject to compulsory purchase orders under Part HI of the Housing Act 1957.

107B.—(1) In this section references to a compulsory purchase order are to a compulsory purchase order made (at any time before or after the coming into operation of this section) under Part III of the Housing Act 1957.

(2) Where a building to which a compulsory purchase order applies is (at any time after the making of the order) included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority making the order may, subject to subsection (3) below, apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.

(3) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (2) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

1. (a) on which the building is included in the said list, or
2. (b) on which this section comes into force,

whichever is the later.

(4)The following provisions of this section shall have effect where—

1. (a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (2) above, and has been refused, or
2. (b) in a case falling within subsection (3) above, the period of three months has expired without the authority having made such an application,

and in this section "relevant date" means the date of the refusal or, as the case may be, of the expiry of the period of three months.

(5)If, at the relevant date—

1. (a) the building has not vested in the authority, and
2. (b) no notice to treat has been served by the authority under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, in respect of any interest in the building,

the compulsory purchase order shall cease to have effect in relation to the building and, where applicable, the building shall cease to be comprised in a clearance area.

(6) Where a building, which was included in a clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation, ceases to be com prised in the clearance area by virtue of sub section (5) above, the authority concerned shall, in respect of the building, forthwith—

1. (a) serve a notice under section 9 of the Act of 1957 (power of local authority to require repair of unfit houses), or
2. (b) make a closing order under Part II of that Act, whichever is appropriate; and in the application of this subsection to Scotland the words from "solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.

(7) Where subsection (5) above does not apply, the authority shall cease to be subject to the duty imposed by Part III of the Act of 1957 to demolish the building, and in relation to any interest in the building which at the relevant date has not vested in the authority the compulsory order shall have effect as if—

1. (a) in the case of a house, it had been made and confirmed under Part V of the Act of 1957, and
2. (b) in any other case, it had been made and confirmed under Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(8) If the building, or any interest in the building, was vested in the authority at the relevant date it shall be treated—

1. (a) in the case of a house, as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1957, and
2. (b) in any other case, as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Act of 1971.

(9) As respects a building falling within sub section (2) above, the authority shall not serve notice to treat under section 5 of the Compul sory Purchase Act 1965 in respect of the building until after the relevant date.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

"Listed buildings in clearance areas acquired by agreement

107C—(1) Where Part III of the Housing Act 1957 applies to a building purchased by a local authority by agreement, and at any time (before or after the coming into operation of this section) the building is included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority may, subject to subsection (2) below, apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.

(2) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (1) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

1. (a) on which the building is included in the said list, or
2. (b) on which this section comes into force, whichever is the later.

(3) Where

1. (a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (1) above, and has been refused, or
2. (b) the period of three months mentioned in subsection (2) above has expired without the authority having made such an application,

the authority shall cease to be subject to the duty, imposed by Part III of the Act of 1957, to demolish the building, which shall be treated—

1. (i) in the case of a house, as appropriated to the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1957, and
2. (ii) in any other case, as appropriated to the purposes of Part VI of the Act of 1971.").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, with the approval of the House I think I should speak here on this whole group of Amendments. First of all, on behalf of those on these Benches I should like to give three very loud cheers for this group of new clauses. I think the background to this is essentially the very strong growth of the preservation movement, and perhaps I might delve into the past and quote to your Lordships from the debate on the Motion on historic towns and villages brought before your Lordships' House on April 11 last year by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said something extremely relevant in regard to this group of three clauses. He said: My Lords, I have three photographs here. One shows an old lady standing in several acres of Georgian rubble looking at what used to be her house, while behind stands a row of Georgian houses identical with what has been knocked down. So one can see how unnessary it was to knock down."—[Official Report, 11/4/73; col. 677.] My Lords, these Amendments, taken together, permit a local authority to change its mind. In addition to the fact that since the end of March and the beginning of April the new local authorities have taken over, we can anticipate that the membership of planning committees will have changed very substantially, as also will the advice to which those planning committees are subject. Therefore, for the very large numbers of people concerned with both housing and the preservation of buildings—which can frequently be taken as subjects which go hand in hand—this series of Amendments can be highly beneficial.

My Lords, I should like to point to a matter which was raised in the same debate by the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford. He mentioned something in regard to call-in powers, which I hope the Amendments will in no way whittle away. He said: … the first point I want to make and it is my main ground for speaking: that in no circumstances must the Government be tempted, whatever their hope of the local authorities which they are setting up, to whittle down the power and, in proper cases, the duty of the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application to develop."—[Official Report, 11/4/73; col. 731.] We know that in all too many cases local authorities have taken very substantial areas of cities into their development plans and have wrought havoc, and we have listened with sorow to the debate on Bath, Lincoln and other places. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will add in his remarks—perhaps he will not say anything at this stage—but this is clearly giving local authorities the opportunity to vary the schemes which have been submitted and, perhaps, approved by the Minister and a second chance to alter their entire concept. With that we very much agree. Further, it allows a degree of flexibility which was not written into previous planning law and it is this special factor which I think should be warmly welcomed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.3 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.

Amendment moved:

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

Temporary provision for listed buildings subject to clearance orders

107D.—(1) In this section references to a "clearance order" are to a clearance order made (at any time before or after coming into operation of this section) under Part III of the Housing Act 1957.

(2) Where a building to which a clearance order applies is, at any time after the confirmation of the order, included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the authority making the order may, subject to subsection (3) below apply to the Secretary of State (and only to him) under section 55 of the Act of 1971 for his consent to the demolition of the building.

(3) No such application may be made by virtue of subsection (2) above after the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date—

1. (a)on which the building is included in the said list, or
2. (b)on which this section comes into force, whichever is the later.

(4) Where—

1. (a) an application for consent has been made under the said section 55, by virtue of subsection (2) above, and has been refused, or
2. (b) the period of three months mentioned in subsection (3) above has expired without the authority having made such an application,

the building shall cease to be comprised in a clearance area or to be subject to the clearance order.

(5) Where a building, which was included in a clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation, ceases to be comprised in the clearance area by virtue of subsection (4) above, the authority concerned shall, in respect of the building, forthwith—

1. (a) serve a notice under section 9 of the Act of 1957 (power of local authority to require repair of unfit house), or
2. (b) make a closing order under Part II of that Act,

whichever is appropriate; and in the application of this subsection to Scotland the words from '"solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.

(6) Where a payment in respect of a house has been made by a local authority under section 60 of, or Schedule 2 to. the Act of 1957, or Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1969, in connection with a clearance order, and by virtue of this section the house is excluded from the clearance area, then, if the person to whom the payment was made is entitled to an interest in the house he shall, subject to subsection (7) below, repay the payment to the authority on demand.

(7) No repayment shall be required by virtue of subsection (6) above in a case where the authority have made a closing order in respect of the house and—

1. (a) no appeal has, within the time allowed, been made against the making of the order, or
1724
2. (b) such an appeal has been made and has failed."—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:

"Application of provisions about listed buildings to buildings in conservation areas

107E.—(1) Sections 107B. 107C and 107D above shall, with the modifications mentioned in subsection (2) below, have effect in relation to buildings subject to directions made and confirmed under section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 (control of demolition in conservation areas in England and Wales) as they have effect in relation to listed buildings.

(2) The modifications subject to which those sections are to have effect by virtue of subsection (1) above are—

1. (a) for references to section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 there shall be substituted references to that section as applied by Schedule 2 to the Act of 1972; and
2. (b) for references to a building being included in a list under section 54 of the Act of 1971 there shall be substituted references to a building being subject to a direction made and confirmed under section 8 of the Act of 1972".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause:

Temporary provision for rehabilitation of unfit houses

107F.—(1) This section applies to any building comprised in a clearance area under Part HI of the Housing Act 1957 which—

1. (a) at any time before the date on which this section comes into operation, has been purchased by agreement by the local authority in whose area the clearance area falls, or
2. (b) is subject to a compulsory purchase order—

1. (i) made at any time before that date under the said Part III, and
2. (ii) which, at any time before the expiry of the period of three months beginning with that date, has been confirmed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Act of 1957.

(2) Where any building to which this section applies—

1. (a) was included in the clearance area solely by reason of its being unfit for human habitation. and
1725
2. (b) in the opinion of the authority concerned is capable of being, and ought to be, improved to the full standard,

the authority may, subject to the provisions of this section and of Schedule 8 to this Act, make and submit to the Secretary of State an order under this section (a "rehabilitation order") in relation to that building.

(3) In subsection (2) above "full standard" in England and Wales means the standard attained by a dwelling in respect of which the conditions mentioned in section 65(2) of this Act are fulfilled and in Scotland means the standard specified by virtue of section 16(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974; and in the application to Scotland of subsection (2)(a) above the words from "solely" to "habitation" shall be omitted.

(4) Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of this section.").—(Lord Hughes)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 107 insert the following new clause: