REDEVELOPMENT OF DWELLING-HOUSE SUBJECT TO SECURE TENANCY

HC Deb 24 April 1986 vol 96 cc518-33

Mr. Rooker

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 18, line 3, leave out clause 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 18, line 14, at end insert 'and for that purpose reasonably requires possession and occupation of the dwelling-house'. No. 11, in page 18, line 14, at end insert 'provided that possession is not required for the purposes of refurbishment and subsequent sale or re-letting to another person.'. No. 12, in page 18, line 20, after 'dwelling house' insert 'provided that possession is not required for the purposes of refurbishment and subsequent sale or re-letting to another person'. No. 13, in page 18, line 25, at beginning insert 'subject to sub-paragraph 4'.

No. 14, in page 18, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—

'(3) The Secretary of State shall, in giving his approval, consider:

1. (a) whether the tenants in an area which is the subject of a disposal and re-development scheme have been fully consulted about the proposals;
2. (b) the views expressed by tenants in an area which is the subject of disposal and redevelopment;
519
3. (c) the likely effect of the disposal of the whole or part of one or more dwelling-houses on an adjacent property;
4. (d) whether the proposed disposal and redevelopment will lead to a substantial loss of accommodation and;
5. (e) whether the tenants in an area which is the subject of disposal and redevelopment will have an opportunity of renting one of the developed dwellings at a fair rent or buying at an appropriate price. '.

No. 15, in page 18, line 41, at end insert—

'(4) A landlord may apply to the Secretary of State for consent for the disposal and redevelopment of an area of land consisting of or including the whole or part of one or more dwelling-houses only if

1. (a) a majority of two-thirds of the tenants of the dwelling-houses have agreed in writing to the proposed scheme, following a consultation period of not less than three months from the point at which full details of the proposed redevelopment have been made available on an individual basis to the tenants concerned; and
2. (b) the local authority is satisfied that the disposal of the dwelling-houses will not affect its ability to carry out its duties under section 22 of the Housing Act 1985; and
3. (c) the consideration obtained by the local authority for the disposal of the land would in the opinion of the local authority be more than the vacant site value of the land.'.

Government Amendment No. 16. No. 23, in page 20, line 27, at end add—

'(5) In Part IV of the Housing Act 1985, section 105(3) after the word "demolition" insert "or disposal for redevelopment" and in section 105(3) after the word "situated" add— or (c) a proposal to consider the disposal and redevelopment of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies".'

Mr. Rooker

This is the one central clause to which we take fundamental objection. I do not intend to delay the House because I made the case on Second Reading. In Committee, the Opposition refused even to countenance amending clause 5. I spoke for the best part of nearly two hours, and apologised for doing so, giving the arguments why clause 5 should not remain in the Bill. We failed in our task. We tabled modest amendments earlier in the week and since then have tabled and withdrawn others. For the convenience of the House we thought that it was best to have one debate on clause 5 so that hon. Members would have an opportunity to debate the principle of the clause. We are grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting amendment No. 7 because that will ease our debate.

The clause will give back to 6 million council tenants one-sided tenancy agreements. It will allow the landlords to kick those tenants out simply because they want to get in the home to do it up and sell it off to someone else. When one strips away all the verbiage, that is what the clause is all about. It is about kicking council tenants out—not so that the home can be demolished to remodel the estate or to create access to the land for new building or because the home is substandard, but so that the home can be done up and sold off to someone else. That is immoral. That is not the housing policy we expect from a British Government in the 1980s.

We are not interested in amending clause 5. Essentially, we want it to be deleted. We cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to accept some of our amendments. The provisions in amendments Nos. 10 to 15 would ameliorate some conditions. One Minister said last November on "TV Eye" that the Government were proposing a residual power and that one person should not stand in the way of a development.

During the debate, we gave the example—I repeat it because no one else should be able to argue that we have kept our light under a bushel—of the Labour-controlled Langbaurgh council carrying out this type of measure with 177 dwellings. Three tenants—there were eviction notices on two—were sticking it out because they loved their homes and did not want to move. Under existing law, they may, or may not, have failed in the courts, but, under this legislation, the council would have walked in immediately. The argument was that those homes would remain and were not required for remodelling. The council changed its mind during the passage of the Bill. I take no credit for that. The credit is due to the campaign waged by the three families concerned to show the council that there were other ways of carrying out housing policy.

Clause 5 requires something that can be tested in the courts, so that it is a matter not just of the view of the Secretary of State, but of a test of reasonableness. That is implied in amendment No. 10. At least there would be a further test of what the Government are up to.

Under amendment No. 11, the clause would not operate after rehabilitation if the dwellings concerned were resold to other people.

Amendment No. 14 relates to tenant consultation—as does amendment No. 15—if by a majority of two thirds the tenants have agreed in writing to the proposed scheme. In this way there is some kind of veto for the tenants. I imagine the Minister will come to the House with good news in some respects on clauses 4 and 6. The Minister made concessions in Committee which he confirmed to me in writing today, saying that in another place substantial concessions will be made on clauses 4 and 6. For that, on behalf of the Opposition, I am very grateful, as I know tenants and my hon. Friends will be.

If the Minister can meet us in that way on clauses 4 and 6, why can he not meet us similarly on clause 5 in regard to amendments Nos. 14 and 16? Before 1980 council tenants had no security of tenure. This Tory Government gave tenants security of tenure. If clause 5 is retained in the Bill, it will remove that security of tenure for a wholly spurious and immoral reason. If such homes are to remain, tenants should have the choice to remain in them.

This is the one clause on which I give the firm pledge that, if it stays in the Bill, it will be removed by a Labour Government because we will have no use for it.

9 pm

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

I wish to refer to one small point in connection with amendment No. 16, which says: 1B.—(1) In considering whether to give his approval to a scheme or variation the Secretary of State shall take into account, in particular—

1. (a) the effect of the scheme on the extent and character of housing accommodation in the neighbourhood,
2. (b) over what period of time it is proposed that the disposal and redevelopment will take place in accordance with the scheme, and
3. (c) to what extent the scheme includes provision for housing provided under the scheme to be sold or let to existing tenants or persons nominated by the landlord"

Will my hon. Friend, when considering whether to give his approval, comment on the extent to which there might be a defective title? I think that our hon. Friend the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment touched on this yesterday when he commented that the Government had not ruled out further action. Can my hon. Friend comment on whether he thinks that further legislation might be needed in this respect or whether there might be an amendment in another place to take account of the possibility of a defective title?

This has been the subject of correspondence for nearly a year between me and the Department of the Environment. It started on 29 April last year in connection with my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Stallard of 1 Charnock Drive, Bolton. Correspondence has been exchanged about those constituents and a number of other constituents who are in a similar predicament. Bolton council, it appears, is unique among councils in having so many defective titles and doing so little about them. I shall be grateful, therefore, if my hon. Friend will say whether he thinks that new legislation might be needed, or whether an amendment in another place might take care of the matter.

Mr. Cartwright

I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that occurred in Standing Committee, but I am still not persuaded that the clause is necessary. I continue to believe that local authorities have a lot of experience of the slow process of voluntarily decanting people when dealing with this kind of problem. It involves a great deal of time, effort and energy, but surely that is the way to go about the problem when, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) reminded us in Committee, we are discussing taking people's homes away from them.

My fear, and I think the fear of other hon. Members, is that if this power is given to local authorities to back up what may be a voluntary process to begin with they might be tempted to short-circuit the voluntary process and have early recourse to any legal powers that they may be given. Although the Minister tried to persuade us in Committee that there would be legal protection for tenants, and that tenants who were not happy with the alternative housing would have the protection of the courts, that does not adequately cover the problem of tenants who will suddenly be thrust into the frightening process of appearing in the courts and arguing the issues.

The clause will in a sense play into the hands of the Bill's oponents. Earlier this week the Minister talked about the scare stories which are circulating on council estates about the impact of the clause. That is the price that he will have to pay if he sticks to this approach. So long as this power is left in the Bill, such stories will be told. That is a tragedy, because there are many useful provisions in the legislation. Unfortunately, they will be swept away in the reaction to the shorthand headline approach that will flow from the inclusion of clause 5.

The Minister has gone some way to try to meet the points about consultation and about giving tenants real power. Amendment No. 16 is barely a form of consultation. Certainly it gives no power to tenants who want to express their view on the possibility of losing their homes. I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said. If we must have clause 5, we must ask that alongside it there is real and genuine protection for tenants to ensure that such power cannot be exercised against the will of the majority of the people involved.

Mr. Raynsford

The clause is objectionable. It removes security of tenure, effectively to facilitate privatisation. In my constituency the Fulham Court estate is subject to exactly this process at the moment. That example illustrates the position that will be created if the clause is put into effect.

Fulham Court is an estate of about 370 dwellings. It was built in the 1930s. It was attractive and popular at the time, but it has been allowed to fall into decay. I do not wish to make a party point about it. I suspect that both parties which have controlled Hammersmith and Fulham council have in their own ways neglected the estate. The tragedy is that, rather than accept the need to try to put things right and to look after the interests of the tenants, whose needs have been neglected for many years, the current council—a Conservative council held in power by Liberals, an interesting combination—has, in a Pontius Pilate-like style, washed its hands of Fulham Court and decided to sell the estate.

The council started with a process of consultation with the tenants. This is an interesting example of the value of the consultation proposed by the Government. Consultation took place. The council said that it was considering selling to non-profit making bodies. That was the basis of the consultation. The response of the tenants was clear and unequivocal. They did not want disposal of their homes; they wanted the council to live up to its responsibilities and improve the estate for them. A large majority of the tenants said that they did not want the estate to be disposed of.

The council disregarded the wishes of the tenants and proceeded with a proposal to dispose of the estate. It gave priority to decanting people from the estate into available lettings in the authority. As a result, many other people who are in extreme need have not been given housing to which they should have had access. Recently I have been giving advice to tenants who are statutorily overcrowded and who have been advised by the authority that it cannot house them. It is a sad comment on the attitude of an authority when it gives priority to decanting people to enable privatisation to take place, rather than meeting the needs of the people who are statutorily overcrowded.

The estate was gradually vacated, but only one block was vacated in total. With the local authority elections pending, the Conservative councillors suspected that they would lose control of the council and sought to pre-empt any decision by a future council to take a different course of action. The council sought to impose on the sale of that one vacant block a covenant which would require a future council to dispose of the rest of the estate by sale. That covenant was rejected by the housing association. I must declare an interest, because at the time I was a member of the committee of the housing association which had previously wished to buy one block on the estate for shared ownership. The association would not proceed on those discreditable terms.

Did the local authority pay attention? No, it did not. The response by the local authority was to say that it would try to sell and dispose of the properties to private developers. The council has agreed to dispose of the estate, not to a non-profit-making body, which was the basis of the consultation, but to Barratts, a company which is most emphatically profit-making. I should add that during a period over two years ago when Barratts was rather over-committed to timber framed housing, it was not making as much profit as it would have liked. In principle, Barratts is not a non-profit-making body.

That is a measure of the value of consultation by a Conservative-controlled council seeking to privatise. The councillors have demonstrated their contempt for the tenants of Fulham Court. The council has ignored the wishes of the tenants, who did not want the estate to be privatised. It has shown a gross breach of faith by changing the basis of the sale from a sale to a non-profit-making body to one to a profit-making company, and it has shown a contempt for the democratic process by attempting to bind the hands of a future council to proceed with sales.

Throughout this period the estate has been allowed to go to rack and ruin, and more and more properties have been left empty. It rings pretty hollow to hear the Minister talk about empty properties when we hear about a council which is deliberately leaving 200 houses empty. That represents more than the number of homeless families in Hammersmith and Fulham who are presently living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Those houses are being left empty while the council pursues its objective of sale for privatisation.

One of the tenants has been able to get redress by seeking a judicial review in the High Court and obtaining an injunction to restrain the council from proceeding with the sale in the meantime. If this clause had been in effect, that remedy would not have been available and the tenants of Fulham Court not only would have had their wishes ignored, but would have been evicted. The clause will do nothing to help people who need houses. It will exacerbate the sort of problems that I have described and will open the door to exploitation of tenants. I urge hon. Members to reject the clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Political retribution of a type came my way during the by-election for the Fulham constituency at which the hon. Gentleman was the victor. I went along incognito, as it were, to ask what I could do to help. I was given a load of leaflets to deliver and, as it happens, I was asked to distribute them in the Fulham Court estate. I had some dealings with my colleagues on the local council about that estate and know all about it. I went round the estate on a sunny and pleasant afternoon not long before the by-election took place.

My comments are as strong as those that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). The clause is the worst part of the Bill, and if the Government want the Bill to have a favourable reception outside they have no option but to remove it. The clause takes away protection for tenants. We made that point on Second Reading. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) has said, the consultation process is never adequate unless it gives power to people. The problem with consultation is that it always retains power for local authorities. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, if this power is given to local authorities it will override the right of security of tenure given by the Government to tenants in council property. I give all credit to the Government for giving tenants that right. In this case and in others—Langbaurgh and Tower Hamlets are other examples—that right is under threat.

If ever an experience was destined to make one firm in one's view that the clause ought to be resisted, it was the experience that I had when I went to Fulham Court estate and to many similar estates in my constituency and found that the community feeling was so strong that people were determined not to give in with any degree of willingness. They deserve to be supported in their right not to give in. I understand that the procedures followed by the local council meant ultimately that the proposal, as it was before the application for the judicial review, was that there would be a sale of only those blocks which by then had been vacated and that the rest were not to be sold. Therefore, the picture was not as black as was sometimes painted by the hon. Member for Fulham and his colleagues. None the less, an issue of principle was raised, and there was criticism of Members of this House, both Labour and Conservative.

I beseech the Minister to say that his amendment is not sufficient to recognise the strength of feeling and the strength of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich and by myself, reinforcing what was said by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, speaking for the Labour party. We would be committed to removing the clause if it went into the legislation, and I hope to persuade the Minister that to legislate in this way, albeit for a short period, might be misleading to those who would be affected and harmful to the rights of people to stay in their homes if they wish to do so.

9.15 pm

Mr. John Patten

I regret that this must be my longest speech this evening. This is an important issue and it is important that I set it out clearly.

Can I begin by dealing with the important issue of Bolton. My hon. Friend from Bolton North-East, (Mr. Thurnham) with his characteristic energy and ingenuity, was able to put Bolton into this debate and I think he is right to raise it. In Bolton, as elsewhere in the country, the problems which he raises in respect of the amendment, which he has admirably drafted, are complex and raise difficult technical issues relating to the rights of third parties, and I do not regard this Bill as a suitable vehicle for pursuing the point further.

I hope what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said yesterday, in answer to questions, will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) this evening, because there is a strong feeling in the Committee that we must make progress on the main elements in this particular debate.

We are looking seriously at this issue, but I do not think that I can conceivably make any amendments during the progress of this Bill, although I do deplore the way in which Bolton council is delaying so seriously people's rightful aspirations to exercise their right to buy.

Sir Ian Percival (Southport)

This is a difficult question. I am glad that my hon. Friend has accepted that it is an important one. Could he not go a little further? So far, he has ruled out the possibility of dealing with this in the course of this Bill in the other place. I would ask him to leave it open, because I doubt whether it is as complicated as some people think. I did have something to do with it when I was a Law Officer, and I would ask him to undertake to look at the formula in clause 13 before the other House parts with it.

Mr. Patten

Who am I to resist the blandishments of my right hon. and learned Friend? I am not going to give an undertaking to him or my hon. Friend to do anything in another place. If they wish to write to me further and in greater detail about this point, I will consider it further. But for the avoidance of doubt, that is not an undertaking to do something in another place but is an undertaking to look at the possibilities of doing something in another place. With that I hope we can leave the important issues of Bolton. What a political cockpit Bolton is. When I go to Bolton I get scragged by the local council—a very rough lot. I mean Labour Members on the local council.

So far as the main element of this debate is concerned, I understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Gentleman for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on this issue, and I listened to him for two hours upstairs in Committee in a long and powerful speech. I think that clause 5 has been wrongly misrepresented as a wholesale attack on the security of tenure and I think that it is bizarre in the extreme to suggest that it is such. It is nothing of the kind. Its purpose is to remove certain anomalies in the powers of local authorities, and other public sector landlords, to improve their housing stock. That is how I prefer to see it, and that is what I think the reality of the situation is.

At the moment private landlords can obtain possession of their property when they can provide suitable alternative accommodation under present powers.

Councils can also do so because public sector landlords of secure tenants can already seek possession of their dwellings on the grounds that they wish to redevelop the property. There are, therefore, two clear precedents for what is made possible in clause 5. The only situation in which it is not possible to do it is when property is being transferred from public to private ownership—which is not always a bad or an evil thing.

Under present legislation, landlords can also make home loss payments to long-standing tenants who move within the public sector, but they cannot make those home loss payments when there is a transfer disposal from the public to the private sector, and that inability to make home loss payments has been a major obstacle to a number of local authorities, both Labour and Tory, in their attempts to bring dilapidated stock into better condition.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr referred to the "TV Eye" programme last November on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton appeared. As my hon. Friend then said, these anomalies could, on a very limited number of occasions, hinder councils that wished to bring private sector funds into the refurbishment of run-down estates.

What happened in Langbaurgh was very unfortunate. The Opposition know my views about that; I made them quite clear in Committee. It was wrong that a single tenant could block a desirable scheme which, after due consideration, all the other tenants wanted. There must be a balance between security of tenure and the possession of one's home, and the benefit of the greater number of people who wish for a change.

In Standing Committee, after some debate, I was persuaded that the factors that the Secretary of State should take into consideration in deciding whether to give approval for a scheme should be spelt out in the Bill. Persuasive arguments were deployed by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and by Labour Members. I had already announced some of the issues that I envisaged would be taken into account, but I think that they must be stated in the Bill. Amendment No. 16 is therefore designed to spell out the factors to be taken into account. Opposition Members will wish to be assured that the scheme must be a viable one which will result in the improvement of housing. The Secretary of State will ensure that that is so. He will make sure that the tenants have been properly consulted. I have already stated that I would consider giving tenants a statutory right of individual consultations on proposals for which the new ground is to be used. Landlords will have to take tenants' views into account before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State.

This speech must necessarily be rather long, because of the sensitivity of the issues.

Hon. Members who expressed concern about individual consultations will be pleased to see that the amendment will give tenants that right. I am glad to see that organisations such as Age Concern have given what they call a cautious welcome to the additional safeguards in amendment No. 16.

I expect that only a very few cases relying on the proposed new ground will come to court, but only the court can grant a possession order. It is important that that should be clear. It is unfair and wrong to say that clause 5 introduces the right for councils to kick tenants out at will. That is not true.

Mr. Raynsford

rose—

Mr. Patten

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The court will need to be satisfied that the re-development scheme has the Secretary of State's approval, that the scheme will proceed reasonably quickly, and that suitable alternative accommodation can be found. I shall put on record what I have put in writing to the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I refer to the two amendments that I am unable to move this evening. We shall move them in the other place, and the amendments to clauses 4 and 6 will give effect to the veto that the hon. Gentleman desires. I am happy to give that undertaking, and I shall place a copy of my letter to him in the Library. I sense that it is not the wish of the House to hear it read out word for word.

In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is always good to be praised by one's own side for one's phrases. But the provisions introduced by the clause will assist public-sector landlords in tackling their rundown estates for the general improvement of the housing stock, while at the same time providing adequate safeguards for tenants. It is perfectly fair for the Labour party, Social Democratic party or Liberal party to campaign against. the Bill, to campaign in particular against clause 5 or to inform tenants that they think that the clause is wrong, is against their interests and may do them damage. But I ask them not to scaremonger in their party political propaganda and to give the impression that clause 5 allows the "turfing out" of tenants at will. That is completely and utterly wrong. Any propaganda to that effect is a straightforward lie, and it will be put right by me and my fellow Ministers whenever we have the opportunity.

The Opposition amendments would leave the anomalies that I have described unchanged, and would mean that the opportunity was missed to make a minor change that would help local authorities in their difficult task. I reject their amendments. I wish to strengthen the safeguards for tenants as requested by both sides of the Committee, and am happy to commend amendment No. 16.

Mr. Rooker

The Opposition never said that clause 5 would allow councils to kick out tenants at will. But I make no bones about it: the clause gives councils the right to remove tenants from their homes solely for the purpose of doing them up and selling them off. That is the long and the short of it. If the clause remains in the Bill, 5 million or 6 million families will be unsure whether they can sleep easily in their beds, not knowing whether their council will go in for a scheme that could force them out of their homes.

I have been in the home of a tenant who wanted to stay there. The home was perfectly OK. Somebody knocked on that tenant's door and said, "Why are you still living here? This home is going to be mine. On the plot in the estate agent's office on the site, your plot number, your home, is going to be mine." Imagine how someone feels when that happens, yet that happened in Langbaurgh. It could be repeated up and down the country if the clause remains in the Bill. I do not blame the Minister for saying that he did not want to read out the whole of his letter. We are extremely grateful to the Minister for his concession in relation to clauses 4 and 6. But he said: You will see that this arrangement will give tenants an effective right of veto where the majority are opposed to a disposal of tenanted property or to a management agreement. That is what we asked for, and we are extremely grateful. But why cannot the tenants have the same sort of veto in relation to clause 5?

9.30 pm

We are not opposed to private money being spent to do up rundown estates where there are vast numbers of empty council flats. We have made that clear. We are not opposed to tenants being persuaded of offered something better to move into to facilitate such development. We are not opposed to tenants being moved from their homes under existing law where estates are being remodelled to provide decent roads, proper gardens and proper front paths.

We are opposed to tenants being moved out simply so that their home can be done up and sold off. It is that central point that we are opposed to, none of the others. That is something that the Government's amendment and the Minister's speech do not seem to meet.

Mr. John Patten

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Opposition do not think that the bringing of private funds into the public sector is a bad thing. Would the hon. Gentleman undertake—as much as it is possible for him to control his support as it is for us to control our supporters—to do everything he can to prevent Labour party literature containing allegations that clause 5 makes large-scale evictions possible and makes it possible for tenants to be turfed out of their homes. That literature is being circulated in London at present in the local government campaigns. It is doing much harm and stirring up many unnecessary fears in people's minds.

Mr. Rooker

I do not think that the Minister appreciates the problem. The majority of clauses in the Bill would be accepted by every hon. Member because they are not related to the contentious parts of housing or planning. I am not talking about the Bill. We object to clause 5. I do not have any control—I do not think that anybody in the House does—over what our individual candidates say or do. All I seek to do is tell the truth.

I have sought to explain what is wrong with clause 5. I have sought to explain what we have tried to do to amend it and I have also tried to show what can happen if clause 5 stays in the Bill as it is now. I make no bones about it. I have used Langbaurgh as an example. It is a good example, because it shows the naked reality of clause 5 and how the security of tenancy is under threat.

I do not want to repeat what I have said. My constituents are not subject to that at the moment and neither, perhaps, are my hon. Friends. However, there is no political monopoly in seeking to kick tenants out of their homes. It has happened under Labour-controlled councils as well. I do not want council tenants to be removed from the homes they wish to stay in simply so that the homes can be done up and sold off to somebody else. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends do either.

We want this clause removed from the Bill. In the absence of that, at the very minimum, we want something like that contained in amendment 15 put into the Bill to strengthen the operation of the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 184.

Division No. 155]	[9.32 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Alton, David	Fisher, Mark
Anderson, Donald	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Forrester, John
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Foster, Derek
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Foulkes, George
Barnett, Guy	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Barren, Kevin	George, Bruce
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bell, Stuart	Godman, Dr Norman
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Golding, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Hancock, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney	Harman, Ms Harriet
Blair, Anthony	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Boyes, Roland	Haynes, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Heffer, Eric S.
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Home Robertson, John
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Howells, Geraint
Bruce, Malcolm	Hoyle, Douglas
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	John, Brynmor
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cartwright, John	Kirkwood, Archy
Clarke, Thomas	Leadbitter, Ted
Clay, Robert	Leighton, Ronald
Clelland, David Gordon	Litherland, Robert
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Corbett, Robin	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Corbyn, Jeremy	McTaggart, Robert
Crowther, Stan	Madden, Max
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Marek, Dr John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Martin, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Deakins, Eric	Maxton, John
Dixon, Donald	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dobson, Frank	Meacher, Michael
Dormand, Jack	Meadowcroft, Michael
Dubs, Alfred	Michie, William
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mikardo, Ian
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Eadie, Alex	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Eastham, Ken	Nellist, David
Ewing, Harry	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Faulds, Andrew	O'Brien, William
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	O'Neill, Martin

Park, George	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Pendry, Tom	Skinner, Dennis
Pike, Peter	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Soley, Clive
Radice, Giles	Straw, Jack
Randall, Stuart	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Raynsford, Nick	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Redmond, Martin	Tinn, James
Richardson, Ms Jo	Torney, Tom
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wallace, James
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Robertson, George	Wareing, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Weetch, Ken
Rooker, J. W.	Wigley, Dafydd
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Rowlands, Ted	Winnick, David
Sedgemore, Brian	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. Norman Hogg and
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)	Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would like a Division on amendment No. 15.

Mr. Rooker

Yes.

Amendment No. 15 proposed, in page 18, line 41, [Clause 5], at end insert—

'(4) A landlord may apply to the Secretary of State for consent for the disposal and redevelopment of an area of land consisting of or including the whole or part of one or more dwelling-houses only if

1. (a) a majority of two-thirds of the tenants of the dwelling-houses have agreed in writing to the proposed scheme, following a consultation period of not less than three months from the point at which full details of the proposed redevelopment have been made available on an individual basis to the tenants concerned; and
2. (b) the local authority is satisfied that the disposal of the dwelling-houses will not affect its ability to carry out its duties under section 22 of the Housing Act 1985; and
3. (c) the consideration obtained by the local authority for the disposal of the land would in the opinion of the local authority be more than the vacant site value of the land.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 185.

Division No. 155]	[9.32 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Alton, David	Fisher, Mark
Anderson, Donald	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Forrester, John
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Foster, Derek
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Foulkes, George
Barnett, Guy	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Barren, Kevin	George, Bruce
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bell, Stuart	Godman, Dr Norman
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Golding, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Hancock, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney	Harman, Ms Harriet
Blair, Anthony	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Boyes, Roland	Haynes, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Heffer, Eric S.
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Home Robertson, John
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Howells, Geraint
Bruce, Malcolm	Hoyle, Douglas
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	John, Brynmor
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cartwright, John	Kirkwood, Archy
Clarke, Thomas	Leadbitter, Ted
Clay, Robert	Leighton, Ronald
Clelland, David Gordon	Litherland, Robert
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Corbett, Robin	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Corbyn, Jeremy	McTaggart, Robert
Crowther, Stan	Madden, Max
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Marek, Dr John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Martin, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Deakins, Eric	Maxton, John
Dixon, Donald	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dobson, Frank	Meacher, Michael
Dormand, Jack	Meadowcroft, Michael
Dubs, Alfred	Michie, William
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mikardo, Ian
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Eadie, Alex	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Eastham, Ken	Nellist, David
Ewing, Harry	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Faulds, Andrew	O'Brien, William
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	O'Neill, Martin

Park, George	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Pendry, Tom	Skinner, Dennis
Pike, Peter	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Soley, Clive
Radice, Giles	Straw, Jack
Randall, Stuart	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Raynsford, Nick	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Redmond, Martin	Tinn, James
Richardson, Ms Jo	Torney, Tom
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wallace, James
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Robertson, George	Wareing, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Weetch, Ken
Rooker, J. W.	Wigley, Dafydd
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Rowlands, Ted	Winnick, David
Sedgemore, Brian	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. Norman Hogg and
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)	Mr. Andrew MacKay.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Heddle, John
Aitken, Jonathan	Hickmet, Richard
Ancram, Michael	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Hordern, Sir Peter
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Howard, Michael
Benyon, William	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hunter, Andrew
Burt, Alistair	Irving, Charles
Butterfill, John	Jackson, Robert
Cash, William	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Chapman, Sydney	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	King, Rt Hon Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Conway, Derek	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Coombs, Simon	Knowles, Michael
Cope, John	Knox, David
Couchman, James	Lamont, Norman
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Lang, Ian
Dickens, Geoffrey	Lawler, Geoffrey
Durant, Tony	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Dykes, Hugh	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Evennett, David	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Fallon, Michael	Lilley, Peter
Favell, Anthony	Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Fletcher, Alexander	Lord, Michael
Forman, Nigel	McCrindle, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Forth, Eric	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Maclean, David John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Freeman, Roger	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Fry, Peter	Major, John
Gale, Roger	Malins, Humfrey
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Marlow, Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Mather, Carol
Goodlad, Alastair	Maude, Hon Francis
Gow, Ian	Mellor, David
Greenway, Harry	Merchant, Piers
Gregory, Conal	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Moate, Roger
Ground, Patrick	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Grylls, Michael	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Moynihan, Hon C.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mudd, David
Hanley, Jeremy	Neale, Gerrard
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Nelson, Anthony
Harris, David	Newton, Tony
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholls, Patrick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney	Norris, Steven
Hayward, Robert	Onslow, Cranley
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Oppenheim, Phillip

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Stern, Michael
Osborn, Sir John	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Ottaway, Richard	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Sumberg, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pawsey, James	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Pollock, Alexander	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Portillo, Michael	Thornton, Malcolm
Powell, William (Corby)	Thurnham, Peter
Powley, John	Townsend, Cyril D. (B' heath)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Tracey, Richard
Price, Sir David	Trippier, David
Proctor, K. Harvey	Twinn, Dr Ian
Raffan, Keith	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Viggers, Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Waddington, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Walden, George
Roe, Mrs Marion	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Waller, Gary
Rowe, Andrew	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Ryder, Richard	Warren, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Watson, John
Sayeed, Jonathan	Watts, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Wheeler, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Whitney, Raymond
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wood, Timothy
Shersby, Michael	Yeo, Tim
Sims, Roger	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Spencer, Derek	Younger, Rt Hon George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Squire, Robin	Tellers for the Noes:
Stanbrook, Ivor	Mr. Michael Neubert and
Stanley, Rt Hon John	Mr. Gerald Malone
Steen, Anthony

Division No. 156]	[9.44 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Boyes, Roland
Alton, David	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Barron, Kevin	Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Bell, Stuart	Buchan, Norman
Bermingham, Gerald	Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Bidwell, Sydney	Campbell-Savours, Dale

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cartwright, John	McNamara, Kevin
Clarke, Thomas	Madden, Max
Clay, Robert	Maxton, John
Clelland, David Gordon	Maynard, Miss Joan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Meacher, Michael
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	Meadowcroft, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Michie, William
Corbett, Robin	Mikardo, Ian
Corbyn, Jeremy	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Crowther, Stan	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Deakins, Eric	Nellist, David
Dormand, Jack	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dubs, Alfred	O'Neill, Martin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Park, George
Eadie, Alex	Pavitt, Laurie
Eastham, Ken	Pendry, Tom
Ewing, Harry	Penhaligon, David
Faulds, Andrew	Pike, Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Raynsford, Nick
Fisher, Mark	Richardson, Ms Jo
Foster, Derek	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Foulkes, George	Robertson, George
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Rooker, J. W.
Godman, Dr Norman	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Golding, John	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Hancock, Michael	Sedgemore, Brian
Harman, Ms Harriet	Sheerman, Barry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Skinner, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.	Soley, Clive
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)	Torney, Tom
Howells, Geraint	Wareing, Robert
Hoyle, Douglas	Weetch, Ken
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)	Wigley, Dafydd
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Winnick, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Kirkwood, Archy
Leadbitter, Ted	Tellers for the Ayes:
Leighton, Ronald	Mr. Ron Davies and
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Mr. Allen McKay.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh

NOES
Adley, Robert	Fallon, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan	Favell, Anthony
Ancram, Michael	Fletcher, Alexander
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Forman, Nigel
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Benyon, William	Forth, Eric
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Freeman, Roger
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fry, Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Gale, Roger
Buck, Sir Antony	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Burt, Alistair	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Butterfill, John	Goodlad, Alastair
Cash, William	Gow, Ian
Chapman, Sydney	Greenway, Harry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Gregory, Conal
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Clegg, Sir Walter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Conway, Derek	Ground, Patrick
Coombs, Simon	Grylls, Michael
Cope, John	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Couchman, James	Hanley, Jeremy
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Durant, Tony	Harris, David
Dykes, Hugh	Haselhurst, Alan
Evennett, David	Hayes, J.

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Hayward, Robert	Pollock, Alexander
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Portillo, Michael
Heddle, John	Powell, William (Corby)
Hickmet, Richard	Powley, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hordern, Sir Peter	Price, Sir David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Raffan, Keith
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hunter, Andrew	Roe, Mrs Marion
Irving, Charles	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Jackson, Robert	Rowe, Andrew
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Ryder, Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Jones, Robert (Herts W)	Sayeed, Jonathan
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Knowles, Michael	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Knox, David	Shersby, Michael
Lamont, Norman	Sims, Roger
Lang, Ian	Spencer, Derek
Lawler, Geoffrey	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Squire, Robin
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Lilley, Peter	Steen, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)	Stern, Michael
Lord, Michael	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
McCrindle, Robert	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Sumberg, David
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Maclean, David John	Temple-Morris, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Major, John	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Malins, Humfrey	Thornton, Malcolm
Marlow, Antony	Thurnham, Peter
Mather, Carol	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mellor, David	Tracey, Richard
Merchant, Piers	Trippier, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Moate, Roger	Viggers, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Waddington, David
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Walden, George
Moynihan, Hon C.	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Mudd, David	Waller, Gary
Neale, Gerrard	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Nelson, Anthony	Warren, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael	Watson, John
Newton, Tony	Watts, John
Nicholls, Patrick	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Norris, Steven	Wheeler, John
Onslow, Cranley	Whitney, Raymond
Oppenheim, Phillip	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Wood, Timothy
Osborn, Sir John	Yeo, Tim
Ottaway, Richard	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Tellers for the Noes:
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Mr. Francis Maude and
Pawsey, James	Mr. Gerald Malone.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take Government amendments formally in blocks, as we come to them, and non-Government amendments as we reach them on the Order Paper.

Amendments made:—

No. 16, in page 18, line 41, at end insert—

'1A. —(1) Where a landlord proposes to apply to the Secretary of State for the approval or variation of a scheme, it shall serve a notice in writing on any secure tenant of a dwelling-house affected by the proposal stating—

1. (a) the main features of the proposed scheme or, as the case may be, the scheme as proposed to be varied,
2. (b) that the landlord proposes to apply to the Secretary of State for approval of the scheme or variation, and
3. (c) the effect of such approval, by virtue of section 84 and ground 10A in Part II of this Schedule, in relation to proceedings for possession of the dwelling-house,

and informing the tenant that he may, within such period as the landlord may allow (which shall be at least 28 days from service of the notice), make representations to the landlord about the proposal.

(2) The landlord shall not apply to the Secretary of State until it has considered any representations made to it within that period.

(3) In the case of a landlord to which section 105 applies (consultation on matters of housing management) the provisions of this paragraph apply in place of the provisions of that section in relation to the approval or variation of a redevelopment scheme.

1B.—(1) In considering whether to give his approval to a scheme or variation the Secretary of State shall take into account, in particular—

1. (a) the effect of the scheme on the extent and character of housing accommodation in the neighbourhood,
2. (b) over what period of time it is proposed that the disposal and redevelopment will take place in accordance with the scheme, and
3. (c) to what extent the scheme includes provision for housing provided under the scheme to be sold or let to existing tenants or persons nominated by the landlord;

and he shall take into account any representations made to him and, so far as they are brought to his notice, any representations made to the landlord.

(2) The landlord shall give to the Secretary of State such information as to the representations made to it, and other relevant matters, as the Secretary of State may require.'.

No. 20 in page 19, line 29, leave out from 'include' to end of line 30 and insert any authority or body within section 80 (the landlord condition for secure tenancies) having an interest of any description in the dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Durant.]