HOUSING BILL

HL Deb 02 June 1964 vol 258 cc423-83

4.11 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "may", where that word occurs the second time, and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with No. 19, and No. 20, a Scottish Amendment, is consequential upon them. They simply clear up some loose ends in subsection (3), which as it stands at the moment could allow a final improvement notice to remain indefinitely in a state of suspended animation. This would occur if the court upheld an appeal by a tenant and the local authority then failed subsequently to satisfy the court that it had complied with the obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation. It is thought that it is much more satisfactory to bring this procedure to a close in due course, and to impose a time limit of twelve months. The Amendment provides that that should be done by obliging a local authority which fails to satisfy the court that it has complied with the obligation to withdraw the improvement notice.

In Amendment No. 19 the local authority is also obliged to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person with an interest in it, that an appeal has been made by the tenant. If that were not done, a landlord who had received a final improvement notice might, of course, go ahead and carry out the works not realising that the tenant had in fact appealed against the improvement notice, and the appeal might be upheld by the court. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move the next Amendment formally.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 8, leave out from ("operative") to end of line 10 and insert ("unless, within twelve months (or such other period as may be prescribed) from the hearing of the appeal, the local authority satisfy the court that they have complied with those obligations.

If the local authority have not so satisfied the court, they shall at the end of that period from the hearing of the appeal withdraw the improvement notice, and the withdrawal shall be effected by serving notice of the withdrawal on the person having control of the dwelling, and the local authority shall serve a copy of the notice on the occupier of the dwelling and on every person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling.

(4) If an appeal is brought under the last foregoing subsection it shall be the duty of the local authority, when served with notice of the appeal, to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling, or the bringing of the appeal and to draw their attention to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection and the effect which it may have on the improvement notice.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 10, at end insert— (" (4) As soon as practicable after service of a withdrawal notice under subsection (3) of this section in Scotland the local authority shall cause to be recorded in the General Register of Sasines a certificate in the precribed form stating that the said notice has been served as aforesaid.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Dwellings outside improvement areas]:

4.15 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which I thought I was moving before. This is an Amendment, as I said then, to cut down from twelve months to six months the period of notice to carry out work; and, as I said earlier, it is, of course, possible, where the works are of an extensive nature, to increase the period: six months would be the minimum. It is possible under Clause 19 for local authorities to require works to be carried out to buildings that are sub-standard—for example, to provide hot and cold water, a water closet and satisfactory facilities for storing food. But where a dwelling house is below standard merely because it has not satisfactory facilities for storing food, or a hot and cold water supply at a sink and so on, it ought not to take twelve months for the necessary work to be done.

I suggest that in such a case, where the work required is not to be the full standard work but something below that—that is, work set out in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of Clause 39—then the period within which the work must be done could well be six months. That would be ample. If further time should be required, through circumstances which were not foreseen, there is nothing in Clause 19 that will not enable the local authority to extend the time. But if, as I believe, the noble Lord is concerned, as I am, to reduce this possible period of years before work is carried out, why cannot we say six months in the first instance and a longer period if necessary, instead of saying twelve months and then longer if necessary? The purpose of my Amendment is to cut down the period from twelve months to six months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 28, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD HASTINGS

We had a long discussion of this point on our previous Committee day, and I am afraid that on this occasion I have not come to any different conclusion. The real difficulty is the physical possibility, with the shortage of labour, of getting the work done in the time. These programmes must be staggered by the local authorities, but, even so, there is going to be considerable competition for the labour available. It seems to us much more likely that more work would be created for the local authority by making the completion necessary within a period of six months, as a result of which they would have continuously to extend the period and to examine the reasons for the work not being completed, than if we were to leave the period at twelve months, in which case we believe that the work will invariably be completed, and the local authority will not have to bother itself about inquiring why work is not completed and whether or not the period should be extended.

The noble Lord has, of course, made a point here, in respect of Clause 19, that it may be dealing only in this case with improvements to a lower standard and, therefore, presumably the work will take a shorter time. I could look into that particular point, but again I think that administratively it would probably be awkward to prescribe a different time limit for one form of works from that for another. On the whole, we believe that it will be better to keep to this period. As I think I partially explained on the previous occasion, there were consultations with the local authority associations on this matter, and when they were told what period of time was in the Government's mind it was not challenged in any way and no alternatives were suggested.

We have, in fact, modelled some of this Part of the Bill, and the time periods we are using, on the experience of Leeds, who have a pretty comprehensive programme of area improvement and a good deal of experience of these matters. They do in fact accept undertakings from people to carry out improvements within a twelve months' period, and if they are then carried out they do not apply for a compulsory purchase order. Thus we have some practical experience to base our thoughts upon, and we feel, not having had any protests or other suggestions from the local authorities in this matter, that, on the whole, this is the better way, and that we shall create less work for the local authorities by adopting the twelve months' period rather than the six months' period when it is a question of carrying out and completing works.

LORD TAYLOR

May I ask the noble Lord to clear up one point which is not clear to me? After "twelve months" it says, "or such other period as may be prescribed". Is this prescribed in the improvement notice? Because if so, the local authority has to make up its mind every time. Otherwise, how on earth can the local authority exercise any discretion, if it is to be a period longer than twelve months?

LORD HASTINGS

These words in brackets refer to the Minister's powers. It is the Minister who prescribes such other period in the light of practice, as local authorities gain experience in working this Part of the Act, and if we find the time is unnecessarily long the Minister will be able to prescribe a shorter time. It does not refer to the local authority's prescribing another period. They merely have permission to extend the period.

Referring to this question of lower standards, I might elucidate that point a little further. The next Amendment of the noble Lord refers to tenement blocks. The difficulty is that, whereas one tenement could presumably be improved to the lower standard, I think the whole building would obviously be dealt with at the same time, and in this case the twelve months' period would refer to the whole block rather than to one or two dwellings in it.

LORD SILKIN

I do not want to pursue this matter much longer. If the noble Lord has promised to consider it again in the light of the possibility that the only work to be done might be work carrying out some of the items in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Clause 39(1), I should think it would be possible to say, "six months or such longer period as the local authority think necessary, having regard to the circumstances", and leave it to them. They might say straight away, "twelve months". I should be grateful if that point could be looked at. I am most anxious that this provision should not become a dead letter simply because years may go by from the time when the local authorities first consider taking action until work is actually done. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Immediate improvement notices as respects tenement blocks]:

LORD SILKIN

I will move this Amendment quite formally and withdraw it, because the noble Lord has promised that it will be considered in the same way as the Amendment to Clause 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 15, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD SILKIN

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Local authorities may acquire dwellings, &c., in tenements in improvement areas in Scotland]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 23. At present allowances and removal expenses for displacement are payable under Section 131(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, where tenement and other property is acquired for slum clearance and redevelopment. This Amendment extends this power to pay allowances to tenements which are acquired for improvement under this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 19, at end insert— (5) The power conferred on a local authority by section 131(1) of the Act of 1950 to pay certain allowances to persons displaced in consequence of the exercise of certain powers shall include power to pay allowances to any person displaced from a house or building which, or a part of which, has been acquired by a local authority under this section; and accordingly in the said section 131(1) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph— or (f) which, or a part of which, has been acquired by the local authority under section 23 of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Acceptance of undertakings to carry out works]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that the owner of a Scottish tenement dwelling can give to a local authority an undertaking that he will carry out improvement works at any time before an improvement notice is served on the dwelling, and to ensure that if he does so the local authority is not debarred from serving an improvement notice later if the undertaking is not fulfilled. The Amendment adds an improvement notice under Clause 22 (which deals with Scottish tenements) to the list of improvement notices which may be served if an undertaking is not fulfilled, even if the original time limit for serving such a notice has run out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 4, leave out ("or section 21(2)") and insert ("section 21(2) or section 22(1) ").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It removes words which on consideration are not thought to be necessary. The opening words of the clause make clear that once an improvement notice of any kind has been served, Clause 24 no longer applies. Accordingly it is not necessary to say so also in the words proposed to be deleted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 38.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees]:

LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) This section shall not authorise the county court to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of an agricultural holding as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.

The noble Lord said: The next four Amendments can conveniently be taken together. No. 27 is consequential for Scotland on No. 26, and No. 29, the Scottish Amendment, is consequential on No. 28, and Nos. 26 and 28 go together. No. 26 is, in a manner of speaking, a paving Amendment to the new Government clause following Clause 34—that is to say, to Amendment No. 28. This Amendment, No. 26, has the effect of ensuring in respect of an agricultural holding that increases of rent on account of compulsory improvements will be determined under the arrangements of the Agricultural Holdings Act as adopted by the following clause. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as a result of improvements being carried out by a landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding, the rent could of course be increased or terminal compensation given to a tenant, as the case may be. But at present these provisions relate only to improvements which are carried out with the agreement of both landlord and tenant. Here, in Part II of this Bill, we are dealing with compulsory improvement, perhaps forced upon the landlord without his agreement by the tenant. Therefore we must take special account of that fact, and we must allow for an increase in rents after expenditure has been incurred on the compulsory improvements.

This new Clause 34 (Amendment No. 28) makes special provision for that. Subsection (1) enables the landlord of an agricultural holding who incurs such expenditure to obtain an increase of rent under the normal machinery of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Subsection (2) enables the tenant of a holding who incurs such expenditure to claim improvement compensation under the 1948 Act on quitting the holding at the end of his tenancy—in other words, what we know as "tenants' rights". Subsection (3) provides for proportional reduction of compensation where a person other than the tenant has made a contribution to the works. That ensures that these matters are handled by people who understand the technicalities of farming and farming rents, as they are at the moment under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD TAYLOR

I am not quite sure whether this is dealing with the same point as we seek to deal with in our Amendment No. 74 after Clause 97. Are we now dealing with the tenants of tied cottages, with the agricultural workers who are occupying tied cottages, and whose position as such has not been dealt with?

LORD HASTINGS

No. There is a Government Amendment coming shortly which relates to the point that the noble Lord is referring to. This is purely a question of rent as between the landlord and the farm tenant. The ability of service tenants to make applications for improvements is dealt with in an Amendment, upon which I cannot at the moment put my finger, but which is coming quite soon. That Amendment relates to the new clause that the noble Lord has put down.

LORD TAYLOR

Does not this one deal with the problem of the tenant who pays no rent—the agricultural worker occupying a tied cottage? What is to happen if an improvement grant is granted and his notional rent goes up? Is he then charged a rent under this particular clause?

LORD HASTINGS

No; the rent is chargeable under the Agricultural Holdings Act, to the farm tenant and not to the service tenant. If compulsory improvements are carried out on farm service cottages, the landlord would be entitled, if we did not pass this Amendment, to charge that service tenant the rent; but because we bring it under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the matter falls to be settled by the person who is really in control of that dwelling, that is, the farmer and not the occupier. We come to the noble Lord's particular point under an Amendment to be moved soon in regard to the definition of a tenant. That matter will be dealt with then.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 16, at end insert— (" (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to Scotland, but this section shall not authorise the sheriff to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of—

1. (a) an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, or
2. (b) a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, or
3. (c) a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is moved formally.

Amendment moved— After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

Amendments of Agricultural Holdings Act 1948

(".—(1) Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:

Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 9 shall be reduced proportionately.

(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final impovement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 78 of that Act to amend the said Schedule 3; and section 49 of that Act (which makes that right to compensation conditional on the landlord consenting to the carrying out of the improvements) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking.

(3) Where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 48 of the said Act of 1948, shall be reduced proportionately.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is consequential and is moved formally.

Amendment moved— After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees of agricultural holdings, etc., in Scotland

(" .—(1) Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:

Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 8 shall be reduced proportionately.

(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 79 of that Act to vary the said Schedule 1; and sections 51 and 52 of that Act (which make that right to compensation subject to certain conditions) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking:

Provided that where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 49 of the said Act of 1949, shall be reduced proportionately.

(3) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Past of this Act shall

1. (a) if carried out on a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, be permanent improvements on that croft and be deemed to be suitable to the croft for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) of the said Act of 1955 (crofter's right to compensation for improvements),
2. (b) if carried out on a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931, be permanent improvements on that holding and be deemed to be suitable to the holding for the purposes of section 8(a) of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 (landholder's right to compensation for improvements),

and accordingly, after paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the said Act of 1955, and after paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the said Act of 1886 (both of which Schedules relate to permanent improvements), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

'(1A) Works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice served, or an undertaking accepted, under Part II of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.37 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:

Compulsory application for standard grant

" .—(1) Where an immediate or a final improvement notice is served in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act on the person having control of any premises to which this section applies requiring him to carry out in those premises the works specified in the notice, that person shall, prior to the carrying out of the works (and notwithstanding that he is not required under the provisions of the section hereinafter referred to so to do) make an application (which shall not be withdrawn) to the local authority for a standard grant in respect of those works in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959.

(2) Where, after an application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, a standard grant is made available by the local authority but is refused by the person making the application, the rent of the premises the subject of the application shall be assessed in the same manner as it would have been had the grant been accepted.

(3) This section applies to any dwelling let under a controlled tenancy as defined in section 25 of the Rent Act 1957."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is similar in terms to that which was discussed in another place in Committee, but it varies because in another place the Amendment provided for tenancies, whether they were controlled or decontrolled, and this Amendment applies only to controlled premises. The point of the Amendment is that where an improvement notice is served, whether immediate or final, there is provision that a grant shall be made by the local authority. It may suit the landlord not to accept the grant but to carry the whole burden of the cost himself. By this means he can impose an increase in the rent of 12½ per cent. of the total cost. That may be quite considerable, and may impose a heavy burden on the tenant. He may do this either because he is vindictive and wants to get rid of the tenant, or because it suits him to get a higher rate of interest on his outlay.

It was felt—and I think the Minister had some sympathy with this in another place—that the landlord should be compelled to accept the grant or, if he refuses, at any rate that he should be treated as if he had accepted the grant so far as an increase in rent to the tenant is concerned. The simple object of this Amendment is merely to say that if a landlord becomes entitled to a grant, but refuses to accept it and chooses to carry out the work himself (which he is quite entitled to do), he will not thereby be entitled to increase the rent to the tenant beyond what he could have done if he had accepted the grant; in other words, the tenant is not to suffer by way of an increase in rent simply because the landlord refused to accept the grant to which he was entitled under this Bill or under an earlier Act. I hope that this will commend itself to the Government, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 34, to insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD HASTINGS

I know that this was discussed in another place and, so far as I remember, decontrolled dwellings were included at that time. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refers only to controlled dwellings. We have thought this over carefully, and of course it is extremely unlikely that any landlord would behave in this way—it does not really make sense that he should not take a grant but should spend twice as much as he needs to. It is only a very remote possibility, but, as the noble Lord says, there is just a remote possibility that he might insist on paying the full cost and refuse grant merely in order to victimise, as it were, the tenant, knowing that the tenant would not be able to afford the extra rent, and thus forcing him out. As it is a possibility, the Government propose to accept this Amendment in principle.

As the noble Lord will realise, there is some difficulty in accepting the Amendment in the form in which it is set down. The new clause is defective in one or two particulars, first of all because there are no sanctions. The Amendment says that the landlord should apply for grant. Unless he applies for grant the local authority will not be in a position to offer him or refuse him, as the case may be. One cannot force the man to apply for grant if he says that he is not going to do so. The second point is that one could run into the most interminable difficulties about agreeing the acceptable cost of these improvements which were being carried out entirely at the landlord's expense. This could lead to a great many arguments.

We believe that there might be a better way of bringing out what the noble Lords opposite are aiming at. We could, for example, extend the right of appeal given to the tenants of controlled dwellings by Section 5(3) of the Rent Act, 1957. Under this subsection a tenant may appeal to the county court for an order cancelling an increase of rent on account of improvements carried out to the dwelling, on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was spent on it than was reasonable. We think that it may be possible to extend this right of appeal to cases where the rent increase, on account of improvements carried out following an improvement notice, is based on the total expenditure on those improvements and where the increase would have been less if the landlord had sought and obtained a standard grant.

I think that achieves what the noble Lords opposite would like. I believe that it could be done better by extending this right of appeal under the Rent Act than by putting it in the words suggested by noble Lords opposite. If they will withdraw their Amendment, I will study this further. It is not altogether easy to frame such a provision as I have outlined, but I think that it can be done. The Government will undertake to produce an Amendment on Report stage as near as possible to fulfil this purpose.

LORD TAYLOR

I am glad to hear what the noble Lord has said, but part of our concern was not with vindictive landlords, but simply that it would be profitable for landlords who had a number of properties. They could get a small extra profit on each one by not taking improvement grant, for the reason that they could borrow the money in toto from the local authority to do the job, and then, as a result of not taking the improvement grant, their permitted increase in rent would be slightly greater than it otherwise would have been. This would represent a profit per house of a few pounds, and therefore if they had a large number of houses it would pay them to do this. We were not thinking purely of vindictiveness.

LORD HASTINGS

It is rather an abstruse point, and I should like to study it more carefully. I am not sure that the economics works out exactly as the noble Lord says. I will have to take his word for it at the moment. I do not know whether we would go so far as to draw a new Amendment particularly in order to prevent what the noble Lord suggests, but we would wish to prevent any sort of victimisation or hardship, and that is what we propose to do. If noble Lords have other ideas as to how this can be done, I should be glad to hear of them.

LORD SILKIN

If we are agreed in principle, then it only becomes a question of the method by which this is to be carried out. On the face of it, it looks as if the suggestion of the noble Lord is a quite reasonable one. I should like to see it on paper, and if the noble Lord will put it down we will give it sympathetic consideration. In the meantime, I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen fit to accept the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37:

Exclusion of dwellings controlled by Crown or a public authority

37.—

(2) No preliminary notice or improvement notice shall be served in respect of any premises if the person having control of the premises is— (c) a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 33(2) of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts) or, in Scotland, a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 25(2) of the Scottish Act of 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts),

4.47 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c), under which housing associations are to be exempt from the provisions of the Act: they are put in the same position as the Crown or a public authority. I agree that, in general, housing associations are set up without any desire to make profits, and that the individuals who form such associations derive no benefit from them. Therefore, on the face of it a housing association is the same quasi-charitable organisation as a housing trust and bodies of that kind. But if the noble Lord will consider how a housing association can be formed, he will see that there exists the possibility of an abuse of the whole conception of housing associations.

The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, under which they are formed, requires that there must be seven people to form a housing association. These seven people may themselves be owners of land, the housing association having been set up to sell the land to the association at an inflated price. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, so far as I know. Having done that, they lend the purchase price to the housing association at a rate of interest—5½ per cent., I think, is the maximum. They are thereby getting a rate of interest of 5½ per cent. on a highly inflated selling price. That suits them very well. This is not working without profit, it is not a charity—it is a commercial transaction. Since it is possible for housing associations (though I certainly do not suggest that this applies to a large number of them) to be formed in this way and with this motive, it seems undesirable that they should be exempt from the ordinary provisions of this Act. I would therefore suggest that it is right that paragraph (c) should be deleted and that housing associations should be subject to the ordinary law.

In any event, why should they be exempt, even those which have not been formed in this manner and are merely carrying on in the ordinary legitimate way? Why should they not be subject to the ordinary law which requires them to carry out work that is urgently needed? I can see the ground for exempting a local authority, but I cannot see the ground for exempting a housing association in any case. I therefore beg to move this Amendment with the object of deleting them from the numbers of exempted organisations.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has really put his argument for leaving out housing associations on the basis that they might originally have been formed by certain people who had made a rather good profit out of them. He was tying up his argument with the possibilities under Part I of the Bill. In point of fact, of course, we are dealing with Part II and the serving of improvement notices, which is a different matter. But, to answer the noble Lord's first argument, under Clause 2, the Housing Corporation makes loans to the housing associations, and these loans have to be approved by the Treasury and my right honourable friend, so that housing associations are not likely to be allowed to purchase land at unrealistic prices.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord has not quite understood my case. These people do not get a loan from any public body at all; they themselves lend the money to the housing associations. Let me give a concrete case. Suppose that they own 50 houses, and that they sell these to the housing association at an inflated price. They lend the purchase money to the housing association, and the housing association pays them interest. This interest may be more than the normal rate, and they are then entitled to charge a high rent. That is the case I am making. I agree that if they are borrowing money from the Exchequer, or from a local authority, the district valuer comes in and values the land, and it cannot be purchased at an inflated price. But where they are not borrowing money from any public source, they can fix any price they like, and the tenants suffer. I would say that in such a case there is a possibility that it is not a bona fide housing association. But I did not base my argument entirely on that kind of case: I said, "generally". I cannot see why housing associations should be exempt from the provisions of Parts II and III of this Bill.

LORD HASTINGS

I am sorry that I did not appreciate fully the distinction which the noble Lord is drawing, as regards the housing associations formed without the help of the Housing Cor- poration. I will look into that particular point and see whether there is any case for separating the two sorts. But as regards the housing associations which we have in mind, which will be formed as a result of this Bill and operated under the terms of this Bill, we feel there is no case for excluding them from the same privileges as are given to local authorities, New Town Development Corporations and so on, because in fact they are not building houses to make a profit, and they can be trusted to act as responsible landlords and to improve their dwellings wherever possible. There will be few instances, I think, where it will be necessary to improve their dwellings, as we shall mostly be dealing with new houses. But, of course, they are empowered to buy and manage existing dwellings and, presumably, they would do so only if they were going to improve them.

But these associations will be made up of responsible people, not in the business for profit; and I do not think we should get so far with encouraging the development of these housing associations if they were to be treated in a way that suggested they could not be relied on to manage their own affairs responsibly and fairly, and to do the job properly. I do not think we could allow a Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads and allow them to be interfered with in this way. We do not believe that it would be a good thing, and we do not believe that it would be at all necessary. The noble Lord referred to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, under which these housing associations must be registered, and I should imagine that even the sort of people he was referring to would find it difficult to get away with doing the sort of deal which he suggested. However, I will look into that particular point to see whether there is any form of distinction that can be made. So far as the housing associations to be formed through the Housing Corporation are concerned, we feel most strongly that they must be allowed to take their place in this other list of exemptions from outside interference.

LORD TAYLOR

I still think we have not quite got over to the noble Lord the point we are trying to emphasise here. As I understand it, this clause exempts these bodies from the compulsory improvement provisions of Part II of the Bill. A good housing association will not mind not being exempted, because a good housing association will want to keep itself up to standard. It will not in the slightest mind being improved, as it were. What we are concerned with is not a fraudulent housing association, but a housing association formed for the specific purpose of dodging the compulsory provisions of this Bill; a body which is not, in ethics, a bona fide housing association but is in law a bona fide housing association, Indeed, a perfectly simple way of dodging the duty to be compulsorily improved seems to be simply to form oneself into a housing association and then to go through the manœuvres which my noble friend Lord Silkin has described, thereby getting the same rent, or even more, while not being subject to the compulsory improvement powers. That is the point we are concerned with.

LORD HASTINGS

I think the noble Lord was really talking about a possible gap in the housing association law in general, and I have said I will look into that and see if there is anything in it. But that does not directly concern the question of compulsory improvements, and we feel that the question of compulsory improvements hardly arises with the housing associations to be formed under Part I of the Bill. Therefore, we do not want them to have compulsory notices served on them: first, because I think it would be completely unnecessary; and, secondly, because I think it would discourage public-spirited people from trying to form these associations and running them on the proper lines. As regards the point of this possible gap in housing association law—where other housing associations might as a result of this particular clause escape compulsory improvement notices—I will look into that question again and report to the noble Lords opposite what I find in that respect.

LORD SILKIN

Half a loaf is better that none. On the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (5)(a), after "includes" to insert "(i)". The noble Lord said: There is a question of definition here. We thought the Bill was wide enough to cover all the police authorities, but it appears that it will not catch watch committees; nor will it catch police committees as provided for in the Police Bill at present before Parliament. It was accepted in principle in another place that dwellings held by police authorities of all kinds should be exempt from the provisions of Part II of the Bill, and this Amendment, together with the next one, Amendment No. 33, which is consequential, completes that coverage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 33, after ("includes") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 35, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and (ii) any police authority").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 [Interpretation and construction of Part II]:

5.2 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 go together, and No. 36 is drafting, consequential upon them. This first Amendment is to the definition of the person having control, and is needed mainly to deal with dwellings which are part of agricultural holdings. It is a continuation of the previous discussion I was having with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and concerns the point about which he was asking me. This Amendment ensures that the request of both the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers is carried out—namely, that the farmer, in the case of the farm cottage, and the landlord of the holding, in the case of the farmhouse, are respectively the persons having control for the purposes of this Part of the Bill. This is what Amendment No. 34 is about and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 40, leave out ("the rack-rent") and insert ("any rent including a rack-rent) payable by the tenant (as defined in this section)").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD TAYLOR

I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. He might also have mentioned Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, who also asked for this same Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 43, leave out ("it") and insert ("the rent").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 43, leave out ("house") and insert ("premises").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (1) to leave out the definition of "tenant". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a paving Amendment for the main one, No. 38, and I will deal with them together, for the convenience of the Committee. This refers, again, to the definitions, and particularly to those concerning agricultural holdings, The Committee will note that Amendment No. 38 very largely repeats lines 4 to 19 on page 46 which are deleted by Amendment No. 37; but, in addition, by paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 38, there is included in the definition of "tenant", a person employed in agriculture … who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment"— in other words, a service occupier.

By this means the Government are giving effect to their pledge, given in another place, to extend the provisions of Part II of the Bill to farm cottages occupied by service occupiers. In fact, the Amendment goes rather wider than the Opposition asked for, because it applies not only the compulsory improvement powers under Clause 19 relating to dwellings outside improvement areas but also the improvement area powers dealt with in Clauses 13 to 18: so compulsory improvement can be forced upon the owners of these cottages both inside and outside improvement areas. In fact, they come generally under the Bill as a whole. I think—I hope, certainly—that this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when it comes to his Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 97, because I think this is doing what that clause is intending, to do—in fact, it goes rather beyond it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 19.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD TAYLOR

I must confess that this is a very difficult matter to understand. When drafting the new clause after Clause 97, I found it very difficult to know what I was really doing, because I had to refer to other Acts in order to get what I required. If the noble Lord assures us that this Amendment is doing what we want to be done, and is doing it even more effectively, I am delighted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("which") to end of line 24, and insert ("as constructed contained, and which contains, two or more flats;").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg formally to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 46, line 27, at end insert— (" (2) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "tenant"—

1. (a) includes a sub-tenant and a tenant (as defined in section 12(1)(g) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920) who retains possession by virtue of the Rent Acts and not as being entitled to a tenancy, but does not include—
1. (i) in relation to England and Wales, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a term certain of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the demised premises, or a mortgagee in possession,
2. (ii) in relation to Scotland, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a period of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the net annual value for rating purposes of the leased premises, or a heritable creditor in possession, and
445
2. (b) includes, in relation to a dwelling, a person employed in agriculture (as defined in section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, or in relation to Scotland, section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949) who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment,

and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.

References in this Part of this Act to a tenant occupying a dwelling include, in the case of a tenant within paragraph (b) of this definition, a tenant residing in the dwelling and "occupation" and "occupied" and related expressions shall be construed accordingly; and in relation to a dwelling occupied by such a tenant "the person having control" of the dwelling means, in this Part of this Act, the employer or other person by whose authority the tenant occupies the dwelling.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Amount of standard grant]:

LORD HASTINGS moved, in column 2 of the Table in subsection (3), to leave out "the local authority are satisfied" and insert: before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been".

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 to 54 inclusive can be dealt with as a whole, but they are split into three groups and one subsequent Amendment. Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 are one group; Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 are the second group; Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 form the third group—and we can take them together, because they all do exactly the same things; Amendment No. 53 is a condition attached to all three groups; and Amendment No. 54 is consequential. This is merely to improve the position, and to make sure that the intentions of the Government in respect of standard grants are carried out. With the introduction in this clause of a special upper limit applicable to certain cases of standard grant—that is to say, where a septic tank is put in, where an additional building at the back is put up, where an out-building is converted to take a bathroom or where a cold water supply is being piped for the first time—then in such cases an extra amount will be allowed upon the standard grant. But, of course, an applicant will need to know whether or not he is going to qualify for that extra, and, if so, by how much.

For this reason, local authorities will have to determine what the upper limit will be and when it is going to apply. They will have to study the application, consider the reasonable cost and then—and this is one of the things the Amendment does—having ascertained that reasonable cost, they will be obliged to pay half of it. As drafted at the moment the clause merely says "not more than half". Of course, the intention is that once there is going to be extra cost, half should be paid in the same way as the statutory obligation to pay half of the normal standard grant. Therefore, I think it would help if I were to read out in respect of the first group of Amendments what the full wording will be, so that the Committee may appreciate the sense of it.

The second column will read in this way: £25, or, if the bathroom is being provided by the building of a new structure or the conversion of outbuildings attached to the dwelling (or to the building of which the dwelling forms part)"— and this is the first piece of the Amendment: and before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide the bathroom in any other way, such higher amount"— and this is the second piece of the Amendment: as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion one half of the part of the cost to be reasonably incurred in executing the works being the part of the cost attributable to the provision of the fixed bath or shower.

That ensures that everything is carried out in the order in which it should be carried out: prior consideration is given and then the local authority are bound to pay half. And by Amendment No. 53, when they approve the application they then must inform the applicant of the decision taken by them and of the amount he is going to receive. By this procedure we shall avoid any misunderstandings and difficulties, everybody will know where he is and the intentions of the provision will be carried out properly, without any argument and without the possibility that people may go ahead with work before they get approval, thinking they are going to get half the extra cost and then finding it is not going to be allowed. It is really a clarification and ties both sides in this bargain down to a clear procedure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 23 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

If the Committee agrees, I think I could put a single Question as to the remainder of the Amendments in this group.

Amendments moved—

Page 48, line 26, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").

Page 48, line 27, column 2, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").

Page 48, line 28, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").

Page 48, line 29, column 2, leave out from ("shower") to end of line 30.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Again, with the Committee's leave, I will put Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 inclusive.

Amendments moved—

Page 48, line 41, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 42 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").

Page 48, line 45, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").

Page 48, line 46, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").

Page 48, line 47, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").

Page 48, line 48, column 2, leave out from ("closet") to end of line 49.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEES

Now, I will take the group of Amendments Nos. 49 to 54.

Amendments moved—

Page 49, line 3, column 2, leave out from ("amount") to end of line and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at the time when they approve the application as being in their opinion").

Page 49, line 4, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").

Page 49, line 5, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").

Page 49, line 7, column 2, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line 8.

Page 49, line 10, at end insert— (" (3A) The local authority shall, when they approve the application, inform the applicant of any decision taken by them under the Table fixing a higher amount in respect of the cost attributable to the provision of a fixed bath or shower, or of a water closet, or fixing any amount in respect of the cost of bringing a piped supply of cold water into the dwelling.").

Page 49, line 26, after ("(3)")insert ("(3A)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44:

Standard grants excluded for certain houses and other buildings in multiple occupation

44.—(1) Section 4 of the Act of 1959 shall apply to an application made after the coming into force of this section in respect of a dwelling which is or forms part of a house or building in respect of which the local authority are satisfied that they have power to serve a notice under section 15 of the Act of 1961 (which, as extended by section 21 of that Act, relates to the execution of works in houses and buildings in a state not suitable for multiple occupation).

5.15 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to a dwelling as respects which the local authority are so satisfied if the person having control of the dwelling undertakes in writing to carry out therein within a time to be agreed between him and the local authority such works as may be required to provide, for the exclusive use of its occupants. the standard amenities referred to in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act of 1959.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a somewhat complicated matter, even for this Bill. I understand that the subject matter of the Amendment has been under discussion, and, indeed, under correspondence, between the London County Council and the Ministry. It is designed to avoid placing certain properties at a disadvantage, as will happen as the Bill is at present drawn. As we know, there are in the London area at the present time many thousands of Victorian properties, consisting of two floors, originally constructed for occupation by one family but since adapted as two dwellings. It would seem that under the terms of the Bill the landlord, and also the tenant, will be at some disadvantage. The landlord will not be entitled to any financial aid, and will therefore be in a position to pass on to the tenant, by way of increased rent, the cost of the improvements.

It is felt that cases could well arise, as has been indicated, where the landlord, faced with the knowledge of the local authority's powers under Section 15 of the 1961 Act, would prefer, where the premises are defective with respect to the amenities referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 1959, to accept a standard grant and provide these full amenities, thus making each of the premises virtually self-contained. The operation of Clause 44 of the Bill, by excluding payment of standard grant, will deny most landlords in these circumstances this opportunity, as it will the tenant. If the local authority has to rely solely on the service of a notice under Section 15 of the 1961 Act both the landlord and the tenant will be denied the opportunity of obtaining the exclusive use of the amenities. The point, it is submitted, would be met by excluding from the provisions of the clause a dwelling in respect of which a landlord agrees to provide for the exclusive use of its occupants the five standard amenities; and that is the object of the proposed Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD HASTINGS

As the noble Lord said, this is a rather complicated matter. Clause 41 and Clause 44 (the one that we are dealing with here) are complementary to each other. Clause 41 makes it possible to accept for grant a standard lower than the full five amenities. That is why the tenements, the multi-occupied houses, are excluded under Clause 44: because the intention of creating the lower standard was that it should be applicable only in complete dwelling houses which were otherwise too small to have the full five amenities put into them. It had not occurred to Her Majesty's Government that there would be tenements where it would be possible to put in less than the five standard amenities. Because if we began allowing in all tenements the three amenities for the lower standard it would mean that in a house which perhaps originally had been one house, but had been broken up into multi-occupied dwellings, there would be a number of lower standard improvements which would also qualify for grant from the Exchequer. Obviously, that is not the intention of the Bill.

At the same time, because we realise that there may be some borderline cases in these multi-occupied houses or tenement blocks where it will be possible and desirable to provide all the five standard amenities in parts, we accept this Amendment in principle. There are, however, some difficulties about the drafting. For example, there is the point, which may only be a technical one, that approval to a standard grant must be given on an application made before the work commences, and once an approval is given the local authority would be bound to pay the grant, regardless of the length of time which may elapse before the work is carried out. The noble Lord's Amendment puts in a time factor. There are one or two points like that. I should like to look at this matter again, and I undertake to introduce on Report stage an Amendment in the Government's own words to take care of this point.

LORD LATHAM

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.

5.23 p.m.

LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:

"Partial Grants

.—(1) Where a dwelling would have qualified for a grant if it provided accommodation for fifteen years but in fact provides accommodation for less than fifteen years, the local authority may make a partial grant.

(2) The amount of such partial grant shall be the standard grant less one fifteenth for each year under fifteen in the expected life of the dwelling.

(3) The Minister's contribution shall be proportional with the size of the grant made."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause. Here we come to something which would make a substantial difference to the Bill. It is not concerned with a small detail of working, but with something of great importance to a great number of people. What we are seeking to do here is to make it possible for people to get a grant when the expected life of the finished building is less than fifteen years. We propose that the grant shall be proportionately smaller to the length of the expected life of the building. We have drafted this in a much simpler way than a similar Amendment which was discussed in another place. We have tried to put simply what is proposed, so that its purpose can be seen exactly.

We feel that there has been a move forward in this Bill, in that it is not absolutely necessary all the time to have everything provided in terms of facilities. Equally, why should it be necessary all the time to have an absolute standard in time? There may be many cases where a dwelling will have to be lived in for 14, 13, 12 or 11 years, perhaps for what may be the whole of the tenant's life, and yet, because it cannot be improved and expected to last for fifteen years, he will not be able to have it improved.

The argument the other way is that we should not dissipate our scarce resources. I think that the local authorities are themselves probably the best judges of the available resources in their area and are unlikely to dissipate these building resources unduly. I have here a report of a debate in the Blackburn Town Council when both Conservative and Labour Councillors argued that this fifteen-years rule is too long. For example, the leader of the Conservatives said: If a house is going to be up for twelve or thirteen years, it is ridiculous that people cannot enjoy a bath in their own homes". I also think that that sort of thing is ridiculous.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, quoted the experience of Leeds, because Leeds has done a great deal in this respect, as a model to be followed, when dealing with an earlier clause in the Bill. The Chairman of Leeds Housing Committee says that eight years is a reasonable time. I think that eight years may be a perfectly reasonable time, but why not leave it flexible?—because if we draw a hard and fast line there are bound to be hard cases just below the line.

The situation in this respect is probably much worse in the North of England than in the South. The city planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has pointed out the difficult situation there. It was found that of 87,000 houses, 29,000 were without baths, inside lavatories or hot water systems, and that, of these, 11,000 should be dealt with by what is called long-term revitalisation and the balance should be dealt with either by demolition or by short-term revitalisation. This is what we want to make possible—short-term revitalisation.

The planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has said that there is a need for some way of dealing with a dwelling which is still sound but which is not going to have the expected life of fifteen years. He suggested that we should try to find improvement units—for example, standard bathroom, kitchen and toilet units—that were either so cheap that they could be thrown away, or so durable and so good that they could be re-used when the house was rebuilt. These seem to me to be two reasonable and sensible suggestions. I hope that the Minister will look at this Amendment in the kindly way he has looked at so many Amendments this afternoon and will be able to give us some encouragement. We do not say that our approach, particularly our drafting approach, is correct, but we hope that he will feel that here more discretion ought to be given to local authorities to do the best they can for people who would otherwise be in great hardship, often for the rest of their lives.

Amendment moved— After Clause 48, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept, or at least seriously to consider, the principle of this Amendment, even if they cannot accept it in its present form, which I agree they cannot do. In the past, I have known of several instances where local authorities have refused grants on the ground that the time of the future life of the house would not be sufficient to justify one. One particular case I remember was where it was proposed to put a by-pass round a town somewhere between ten to fifteen years ahead. The result was that a man of limited means who owned a couple of cottages, which were situated where it meant that they would eventually be removed when the by-pass was built, felt himself unable to face the expense of modernising them, because he was told that he would get no grant from the local authority.

As the noble Lord opposite has said, there is a period of anything from ten to fifteen years during which houses cannot be put in such a condition that they can be occupied by a tenant with reasonable comfort, just because there is a fixed term which is to be regarded as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. The Amendment in its present form would not, I submit, be very satisfactory, because it gives no minimum time, and I think if it were accepted it would be necessary to say that the minimum life would have to be perhaps ten, and certainly not less than eight, years from the time of the giving of the grant. However, I feel that the principle is one that is worthy of acceptance.

LORD HASTINGS

I realise that this is a difficult matter, and I shall try to treat it sympathetically. I must say, however, at the outset that we regard this very much as a question of priorities. We know that we have a tremendous housing programme ahead of us to cope with, and that will be the task of either or any political Party which happens to be in power. We have to clear all the slums; we have to keep up with the increase of population; we have to improve all the improvable houses to the highest standard possible, and a few of them to a lower standard. That is going to take up both the physical and financial resources of the nation. We should be very chary of making it possible to get any Government money for repairing or improving houses which should not be repaired or improved.

We know that, apart from the slums, there are what we call "twilight" areas which must be completely redeveloped after the first priorities have been dealt with. It may well be that the sort of houses to which the noble Lord is referring fall within either slum or "twilight" areas. I would remind the noble Lord that there are the patching grants. Local authorities have power to acquire houses which are considered unfit or will shortly become unfit and to patch them up in such a way that they are habitable until such time as they will be demolished. Under a later clause in the miscellaneous section of Part V (Clause 93, I think it is) we are in fact increasing the patching grant from £3 to £8 a house in England and Wales and from £7 10s. to £12 10s. a house in Scotland over the fifteen year period. There is, therefore, that possibility open to local authorities, and we should prefer to recommend that course rather than accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

To turn to a more detailed examination of the Amendment, it seems that it would be difficult to work. In the first place, scaling down the amount of grant in proportion to the reduction in expected life does not alter the actual cost of the improvements, which would be the same as it would be for a house lasting longer. But the consequence would be—and here I am dealing with tenanted dwellings—that the owner would always have to pay more than half the cost when the life of the dwelling was less than fifteen years, and much more if it came down to as low as eight years, as was suggested; and the shorter the life, the higher his share of the cost. It hardly seems likely that an owner would voluntarily seek grant on that basis.

It must be remembered that we are dealing here with Part III (assistance grants) and not with Part II (compulsory improvement areas) and there will be no compulsion to improve these houses. It is simply the possibility of offering grant to those willing to improve their houses. I suggest that landlords could hardly be expected to make an improvement voluntarily on this basis, because, to continue the argument, they will still be limited in the rent that they can charge if they accept a grant. This would be 12½ per cent. of the owner's share of the cost. On a sinking fund basis this would involve the landlord in a loss of 1 per cent. per annum on his expenditure on improvements over a ten-year period, and he would not make ends meet until after twelve years. It does not therefore seem likely that this sort of thing will be done voluntarily. It could affect some owner-occupied houses and people who might wish to improve them to live in them for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to do so because of an instance such as my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned, of some proposed development which was expected to take place in the near future.

There is one final argument, apart from the main one I have used—of, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, dispersing our resources both physical and financial—and apart from the extreme difficulties of getting any owner-occupier or landlord to agree with the local authority the precise number of years for which his house was going to stand, which could lead to a lot of argument. The clause could—I do not say would—give a chance for any rather reluctant local authorities to drag their feet in respect of assistance grants and evade the full mandatory powers of the standard grants scheme simply by assessing houses at a reduced life. It would be, as I think the noble Lord will see, a temptation in some respects.

So there are quite a number of difficulties. In view of the possibility of patching these houses if the local authorities think it right, and the extra grant to be given them to do so, and in view of the difficulties I have outlined and the Government's strong feeling that we must concentrate on the priorities, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, because I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.

LORD TAYLOR

I think the noble Lord has made a number of reasonable points and reasonable criticisms about this, but, at the same time, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out, there is real hardship wherever one draws the line. Here I must confess that I am in great difficulty to know how local authorities decide that the precise life of a house may be expected to be exactly fifteen years. I do not see how it can be done. The noble Lord spoke of the local authority varying its estimate of the life in order to dodge the full grant under my Amendment. Well, equally they could vary the estimate of the life by one year, or even one month, at present and dodge the whole of the improvement grant. One has to assume that local authorities are not going to dodge their responsibility, otherwise their assessments in terms of years are meaningless.

I can imagine a situation where the officers of a local authority might be strongly pressed by the members to assess as generously as possible in respect of the expected life in order to achieve what I want to do. I personally should have preferred to see the figure of perhaps ten years or eight years rather than fifteen years. I still think it is a very hard thing that a person who has lived all his life to, say, the age of 58 or so in a home, which is not a bad home, but lacks the standard amenities, cannot get a grant to help him over the last period because the expected life of the house is only twelve years, for the sort of reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given. I hope that the Minister will have another look at the difficulty, although I appreciate his difficulties and accept at once that our clause would produce an impossible situation. I wonder whether he would look once again at the margin around which this operates, to see whether there is any further concession that could be made to give greater flexibility to local authorities.

LORD HASTINGS

I am glad the noble Lord is not going to press his Amendment and that he appreciates the difficulties. It is very difficult to be precise. I do not think we can alter the figure of 15 years as a general principle. It is rather easier to be precise about that sort of figure than about a much shorter period, because if a house is going to stand 15 years the odds are that it is good enough to stand a good deal longer, but when one comes to consider a really short time, such as 10 years, one sees that a house must be in a pretty ricketty condition for one to come to that opinion. I would not quibble on that. It is extremely difficult, and I would gladly consider particular cases, such as owner-occupiers and one or two cases suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to see whether there is anything at all that can be done. But I will not hold out a lot of hope. I will consider it and discuss it again with the Department, and see whether there is anything that can be done in an extremely limited number of cases. It certainly would not take in a great many people. That is all I can say at the moment.

LORD TAYLOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so accommodating, and in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 49 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 56:

Amount of improvement grant for dwellings provided by conversion of houses of three or more storeys in England and Wales

56.—(1) Section 32(1)(b) of the Act of 1958 (which limits the amount of an improvement grant under Part II of that Act for each dwelling provided by the improvement works to four hundred pounds or such other amount as may be prescribed) shall have effect in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys as if for the words "four hundred pounds" there were substituted the words "five hundred pounds".

(2) The reference in the foregoing subsection to the number of storeys shall, if any of the dwellings provided by the improvement works is a dwelling all or part of which is in the basement, include the basement as one of the number of storeys of the house.

(3) The Minister's power under the said section 32(1)(b) to vary the amount specified in that paragraph shall be exercisable separately as respects the amount of four hundred pounds mentioned in that section and as respects the amount of five hundred pounds substituted by this section in the cases specified in this section.

5.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys". The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the three Amendments to this clause which stand in my name, because they all raise the same point. If one wishes to convert an existing building and provide dwellings by that conversion, or to improve a house that one has, there is a provision in the 1958 Act by which one can get a grant from the local authority for this purpose. The grant is half the cost of the works, provided that that half does not exceed £400. The discretion is given to the local authority whether to give the grant at all and, if so, how much, up to the limit of £400.

This clause in this Bill has slightly modified that provision in the 1958 Act by providing for a larger grant of £500 in the case of conversion—not improvement—of houses of three storeys or more in height. The three Amendments which I have put down have the effect of increasing, not that small part of the grant under Section 32 of the 1958 Act, but the whole of the discretionary grant system for improvements and conversions, and by placing a top limit of £600 on the amount that the local authority can contribute.

It is Government policy, and has been for a long time, that old houses if possible should be converted or improved so as to provide proper dwellings. The Minister said in 1954, in one of his circulars, that he was convinced that all local authorities will recognise that houses which lack modern services and amenities are well on the way to permanent unfitness The owners have less and less incentive to maintain them properly as they fall steadily behind modern standards. It is a question of time only—not a long time—before they become slums and a statutory responsibility to the local authority. He goes on: If this process can be arrested by timely improvement or conversion at a charge to rates and taxes appreciably less than that imposed by building a new house to replace a slum, it is only elementary prudence to encourage the owners to do the necessary work. The Government have continued with that policy, and rightly so. I understand that, whereas the number of houses that were improved with grant-aid in 1960 was 135,000, and in 1962 it was only 115,000, the Government have now set a target of between 150,000 and 200,000 houses a year to be improved in this way. So the Government are stepping up the target. The situation now is that the number of houses being improved seems to be falling. I think this will be a particularly bad year because, of course, everybody will have waited for the provisions of this Bill before they put in for a grant at all. So it may be that this year will not be representative.

In addition to avoiding houses being turned into slums by neglect, another great advantage of improving or converting old buildings to provide up-to-date dwellings is that this needs no extra land. I am sure my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will not be slow to see the advantage of that. The 1958 Act provided this figure of £400. It was not new then. It was fixed at that figure in 1954, and it was put up in that year from the £300 limit which had been set, I think, in 1949. I am now suggesting that the top limit should be £600. It is fairly obvious to see why I am suggesting that. I am told that since 1954 the costs of building have gone up by between 40 and 50 per cent., and I have no doubt that they will not go down in the future but will continue to go up. Of course, it is mostly the easier houses, the more obvious ones, that have been converted and improved already, and in many cases it is the difficult ones, or the ones far out in the countryside, far away from the builder and all the services required, which are left. So these will be more expensive, quite apart from the rise in the cost of building.

When this point was raised in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Housing resisted the Amendments on the grounds that the average of both the improvement and the conversion grants had not yet reached the £400 limit. In fact, he said they were nowhere near it. They were higher in the case of conversion than they were in the case of improvement. This seems to me to be a curiously bad piece of logic, because if, quite regardless of what the improvement job costs, you take into account only £400 of it, of course the average will be well below £400. Therefore I hope my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is not going to put that argument forward this afternoon. I have a certain amount of information, although I am afraid it will not be as full as that in the possession of the Ministry, and this information suggests to me that in a very large number of cases in some rural districts (it seems to be about half, over the last year or so) the jobs which come to them for improvement or conversion grant cost over £800 to carry out. That is over the maximum for which one can get half at the moment; and perhaps about one quarter of these cases cost over £1,000.

That is the present situation, or the situation that can be gleaned from the last figures that are available. It is possibly a representative thing to say, as I was told by the clerk of a rural district council in the West Midlands, that even a fairly small job by way of improvement or conversion nowadays will cost about £1,200. That is not altogether surprising, when we look at the standards required by the Minister after a house has been improved or converted in order to warrant the grant at all. It must be in a good state of repair and substantially free from damp—that envisages damp courses, which are very expensive; each room must be properly lighted and ventilated—which sometimes means raising ceilings and increasing the size of windows. It must have an adequate supply of wholesome water laid on inside the dwelling; must be provided with efficient and adequate means of supplying hot water for domestic purposes; must have an internal or otherwise readily accessible water closet. Then it must have a fixed bath, or shower, preferably in a separate room; it must be provided with a sink, or sinks, and with suitable arrangements for the disposal of waste water; it must have a proper drainage system; it must be provided in each room with adequate points for gas or electric lighting (where reasonably available); it must be provided with adequate facilities for heating; it must have satisfactory facilities for storing, preparing and cooking food; and have proper provision for the storage of fuel, where required.

Will all these things be obtained for £800? Not all these things will necessarily be required in each case; but some may be. Is it surprising that on an average the cost of conversion or improvement seems to be in the region of £1,200? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to see his way to putting up this ceiling of the grant. I feel certain that it will be a false economy if he does not, because the incentive which his own Minister has said in his circular is required to get owners to improve these houses is just not going to be there if the Statute does not provide a proper proportion of the money to come from the local authority, and if the Minister is tied to a sum which is now ten years old.

There are only two other points that I should like to make. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Act provides for two things. First, it allows a local authority, at its discretion, and with the Minister's consent, to give a higher grant in certain individual cases. I do not think this is of much comfort, because this is obtainable in practice only if the building to be improved or converted is one of, say, historic nature or one where very special treatment has to be given—because perhaps the material of which it is made is very expensive. The other thing the Act of 1958 provides is that the Minister can himself at any time, by regulation, put up the ceiling. I move this Amendment because he has not done so, and therefore I hope that, my noble friend will not say that he has powers and can in the future do so. The reason why I am asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment this afternoon is that I believe it is necessary as there has been no sign whatever from the Ministry that they seem to recognise this situation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 18, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 19.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

There has been only one thing wrong with the noble Viscount's presentation of his case. He has badly under-stated it; because I know from my own county council experience that not in any single instance in the last few years has a house requiring complete modernisation been able to get it done for £800. In each case the cost has exceeded £1,000, and very often £1,200, or even considerably more. And that has usually been for a one-storey house. Therefore, where a two-storey house, and still more a three-storey house, is concerned, surely it is obvious that the Government's proposals, to put it very mildly, do not err on the side of generosity. I hope very much that at least they will accept my noble friend's Amendments, and that, for the future, they will look once, twice and again at the grants which are being given for modernisation. Unless they are greatly enlarged in the near future, many buildings which could be modernised at a lower cost than that of erecting new houses, will not be modernised, because of the excessive cost. These buildings are often in excellent condition and only require this modernisation to be made habitable for perhaps another fifty years.

LORD SILKIN

I should not like it to be thought from the silence on this side of the House that we are not in complete sympathy with the objects of this Amendment; we are. We do not speak at any length about it, because the case has been so adequately presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and we are content to rest our case on what he has said. I hope very much that the Amendment will receive sympathetic consideration.

5.56 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

I think we are all agreed on the need for making progress with improvements, either by way of standard grants or by discretionary grants in the manner which we are now discussing. I should like to express myself at one with noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment. Not only are we anxious to make progress with improvements, but it is, of course, as 1 sought to explain on Second Reading, a cardinal aspect of our housing policy That is why, in various ways in this Bill, we are embodying measures designed to improve the rate of improvement.

Perhaps I should add, by way of introduction, that I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was a little pessimistic about the way improvement is going at the present time. I think he indicated that it might be dropping off. It is not going nearly as fast as we should like it to go, but in fact there is at present no sign of the rate of improvement dropping off. Indeed, the reverse is the case. For the first quarter of this year the figure of improvements was about 5,000 up on the equivalent for the first quarter of 1963. But I say that merely in passing, and by no means do I wish to put a gloss on what my noble friend has said about the need for an increased rate of improvement.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

May I interrupt my friend at this point? I do not suppose that the building rate in the first quarter of 1963 is the highest in history.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that is a perfectly reasonable point. I doubt whether the figures for the second quarter will show this pessimistic trend which my noble friend was suggesting is to be seen at the present time.

The background, of course, my noble friend has explained. I should like just to make one thing clear. The Government have never taken an inflexible stand on this question of improvement rate. Your Lordships will remember that when the grants scheme was first introduced in 1949 no application could be entertained if the cost of improvement exceeded £600. In 1952, that limit was raised to £800; schemes costing more than that sum of £800 did not rank for grant purposes. But, again, under the Act of 1954, that ceiling of £800 was abolished, and schemes which cost more than £800 are now eligible for grants. In this very clause, as my noble friend explained, we are raising the level for three-storey houses and above. I feel, therefore, that the record suggests that the Government have been willing to make sensible relaxations in the scheme where the case has been made crystal clear. Unlike my noble friend and those noble Lords who supported him, I am not myself convinced that the case has yet been made for a general relaxation, apart from the particular relaxation written into this Bill, such as is suggested by my noble friend. My reasons for this are as follows.

In the first place, I would suggest that £800 still remains a substantial sum to expend on improving old buildings. As my noble friend Lord Hastings was saying, in a slightly different context, I believe, when there is so much to be done we have to be very careful about our priorities. Again, I am doubtful whether expenditure of the order which is envisaged in my noble friend's Amendment, total expenditure of, say, £1,200, would be attractive to tenants, in view of the amount of likely rent increase of 12½ per cent. of the expenditure less grant; that would amount to £75.

I do not wish to dwell on it, as my noble friend has put a shot across my bows in advance, but there are the average figures. I should like to mention what they are at the present time. In 1963, for conversion under discretionary grant the average grants have been run- ping at £291 in urban areas and £338 in rural areas, and for improvement £232 in urban areas and £298 in rural areas. My noble friend said these average figures are of course misleading if a great deal of work is going on above the present limit of £800, and I would agree with him entirely that they are misleading if a great deal of work is going on above that level.

The real point is whether or not this is the case, and here I think the figures and the evidence available to the Government are at present rather incomplete, A good deal of evidence on this point has been submitted recently to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, following discussion of it in another place, and that evidence has been pretty carefully sifted and analysed. In this initial analysis of the figures which have been submitted I think two curious facts tend to emerge at the present time. The first is the enormous disparity in the cost of similar improvements undertaken by different people and apparently in similar conditions; the margin is enormously wide. The second disparity which emerges is the very great difference between the cost of improvement undertaken by people on their own initiative, subject to discretionary grant, and that undertaken by local authorities.

Since my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned the experience of his local authority I would just mention the figures which I have been given and which I have got, of course, from the Ministry. There were four cases in Cornwall, for example (these were by the County Council) approved in July, 1963, which involved a very substantial amount of work—the provision of bathrooms, w.c.s, hot water supplies, septic tank, drainage and so on—and the highest total cost figure was £340, which is very low. Very similar work was undertaken in Surrey, Wiltshire and Kent; where work of this kind has been undertaken by county councils the costs in those areas were well below the figure of £800. I do not wish to draw any firm conclusions from the figures I am mentioning at this stage. The only tentative conclusion which one could draw at this stage is that we are without sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case at this moment for increasing the limit of grant. And the only firm evidence available to the Ministry at present is that the cost of improvements undertaken by local authorities tend to confirm that the existing limit of grant is adequate, even in rural areas.

I have said that that is our present conclusion. I should like to say this to my noble friend my right honourable friend is very willing to look at this evidence again, and I understand that fresh evidence may be submitted to the Ministry. He is very willing to look at any such fresh evidence, and he has by no means closed his mind on what conclusions will then be drawn from that evidence. All I have said is that present evidence and the present facts available to the Ministry produced the tentative conclusions they have formed.

Moreover, having said that, I would remind your Lordships—although I need not remind my noble friend, because he is perfectly well aware of this—of two other things. First, the Minister already has power in certain special and individual cases to permit payment of grant at a higher figure than the present £400. Secondly—and this is perhaps more to the point—he has power to raise the general limit without coming back to Parliament; that is under Section 32 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1953. Thus the position is that, should it appear on further examination of further evidence which may be submitted to him that the general level should be raised and that a real case has been made out for that, then my right honourable friend has power to do that under existing legislation by order. I would therefore suggest that there is no need to write into the Bill the specific figure for which my noble friend is pressing, and indeed, on the present evidence available to the Ministry, it would be undesirable to do so. For these reasons, given the fact that I have sought to demonstrate to your Lordships that my right honourable friend's attitude on this matter is by no means inflexible, I hope my noble friend will not at this stage wish to press this Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

There is one thing which the Minister said which I found rather difficult to follow. I understood him to say that there was some difficulty in collecting evidence of the number of conversion schemes which cost £800 or more. I do not see that there need be any difficulty in collecting that evidence. Surely all you need to do is add up the total of grants of £400 each and that gives the total number of conversion schemes which are costing £800 or more. I did not understand that part of the Minister's speech.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that process of mathematics is far too simple. One thing it would not show is how much more than £800 and how many over £800 are wrapped up within these figures, or what sort of special factors are at play. I think there is a case for looking at the figures and making a detailed investigation of them, and my right honourable friend is ready to do that.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am sorry if I did not make it clear, when I spoke of figures checked by county councils, that they were not mainly for work by county councils themselves but figures they themselves had to check from private persons whose figures were being submitted to them with the schedules for the carrying out of the work. I can assure my noble friend that what I said is absolutely accurate. Furthermore, I have had painful experience, having modernised many houses myself. These figures are again correct, and they have been mostly, but not all, for houses for which, being agricultural cottages, no rent is payable.

EARL JELLICOE

I misunderstood my noble friend. I thought he was speaking of work undertaken by local authorities. I would remind him that one fact which seems to emerge is that similar work by local authorities is undertaken less expensively than by private individuals. My own experience—this is limited to one particular instance—was not totally dissimilar from his.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Local authorities have lower standards than private owners.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to my noble friend pr taking so much trouble. May I make two points on the arguments he adduced before he came to the figures? First of all, he said that £800 is a substantial sum to spend on any one house. This may very well be so, but there is no requirement that the local authority should pay half, or even any, of the money that is claimed by the person improving the house. Secondly, I know as a fact that there are certain local authorities who, as a matter of policy, do not pay the full amount in any case. Therefore I do not think this is a very good argument against raising the ceiling, because there is no requirement for them to give grants up to that ceiling, in any case. Secondly, so far as the attractiveness to tenants is concerned, it remains a perfectly clear fact that houses are being improved, and have been improved for some time, to the tune of about £1,000 or £1,200 each, without apparently creating any difficulty; and I do not see that this provides any substantial argument against putting up the ceiling.

Now to turn to these figures. When we are discussing this Bill we have a golden opportunity to deal with this matter, at any rate for the moment, in a concrete way. I do not underestimate my noble friend's promise that his right honourable friend the Minister will consider these figures again. But here we have an opportunity to do something concrete and substantive. If we miss this opportunity there will not be another, and it will not be possible for this House, or any House, so far as I know, to make the Minister raise the ceiling under the powers which admittedly he has in the 1958 Act. So I do not think this opportunity should be lightly missed; and if my noble friend is inviting me to miss it, I would ask him, first of all, what are the figures that the Minister is looking at? Is he making a serious effort to get a wide cross-section of the sums that have been paid, both by the private owner and by local authorities for improvements of this sort? If he has not got enough figures, will he have enough, and will he have studied them, by the Report stage, so that he can come to us with some conclusion about them?

If there is this extraordinary discrepancy between the £300 paid by the local authority, and perhaps double or three times that amount by the private individual, is this not in itself something that my noble friend ought to have looked into? Because it seems to me that it is certainly possible, either that the local authorities are not improving the houses up to the proper standard or that there is something which is militating against the private owner to make him pay more, and therefore of course, claiming more public money, or more ratepayers' money, in the process. It seems to me to be a most serious situation, and I hope that by the Report stage my noble friend will be able to produce some more facts to explain this extraordinary discrepancy. If I withdraw this Amendment to-day, it will be only on the undertaking that something will be said before we leave this Bill altogether.

EARL JELLICOE

On the question of where this information, at which my right honourable friend the Minister will look, has come from, I can tell my noble friend that it was sent in by one of the sponsors of a similar Amendment in another place. I can assure my noble friend straight away that the sort of points which he suggested should be looked into are precisely the sort of points which the Ministry themselves are anxious to look into, and I certainly hope that I may be able to bring more information to bear on this matter at the Report stage.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

In those circumstances, I think I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I hope that I may keep in touch with my noble friend in order to see how this is going on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 64 agreed to.

6.17 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 64 to insert the following new clause:

Request for Action by a Local Authority

".—(1) On the request in writing by any person who is or has been within the last three months a tenant or lodger in a house to which Part II of the Act of 1961 applies, the local authority shall forthwith cause the house to be inspected, and shall take any appropriate action under the Act of 1961 which the condition of the house or the circumstances of its occupation make desirable

(2) The local authority shall within three months inform the person making the request of the action it has taken.

(3) If the person is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority, he may apply to the Minister, who may take any appropriate action he thinks fit, on behalf of the local authority.

(4) Any action taken by the Minister shall be deemed to have been taken by the local authority on the date on which it was taken by the Minister."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. This Bill throughout provides that action is to be taken on the initiative of the local authority. Nowhere does it provide for a tenant, or, as I describe him, a lodger, to take the initiative in requiring action to be taken. I think that there ought to be the opportunity for tenants or lodgers to draw the attention of the local authority to defects in their premises which require attention under this Bill or under the Act of 1961. There ought to be provision for the tenant to be able to carry the matter further, where the local authority does not take action, or does not take action satisfactory to the tenant.

I say at once that the noble Lord may quarrel with the language of this Amendment. It may be that it is too strong. It may be that it is imposing too great a burden to say that the authority must immediately take action. It may even be said that to enable a person aggrieved to apply to the Minister, with the possibility of a public inquiry, is going a little too far. But I feel that there ought to be provision for two things: first, for a tenant or a lodger to take the initiative and ask the local authority to have a look at his premises. He ought to have the right to get the decision of the local authority somehow, and within a reasonable time. Secondly, he ought to have the right to make representations to the Minister if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord would give me those things, then he can improve this new clause in any way which may be satisfactory to him. I believe that this Amendment was moved in another place. I myself find it a little too strong; but I feel that the particular requirements that I have specified ought to be met in this Bill. So far as I can see, they are nowhere met. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord has rather surmised that the occupier or tenant of the dwelling has no rights in the matter; that he cannot take the initiative. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that. Such a person has the normal right to bring the condition of the house to the knowledge of the local authority. The noble Lord's first subsection refers to a request in writing. But, I should think it quite likely that any aggrieved tenant would write in any case, whether or not we state in the Bill that he can do so. And, of course, local authorities, their housing committees and their health committees and so on know pretty well what is going on in their areas: they keep an eye on these houses, through their welfare officers; and they get to hear of bad conditions. There is nothing in the world to stop any tenant who is not satisfied with the condition of his house from saying so, and making that known to the authorities. I do not think there is any curb on his normal citizen's right in that respect. To that extent he can perfectly well take the initiative; and in many cases I dare say he will do so, if the local authority is slow in getting round to his house. But to take the matter a step beyond that, and as far as the noble Lord does in his Amendment, is, I suggest, a very different thing.

If any member of the public who feels he is not housed as well as he should be is enabled to oblige the local authority to inspect his house and take action within three months, he could throw into disarray the whole of the organisation of the council concerned. After all, the local authority public health and surveyors' departments are going to have extra work to do as the result of Parts II, III and IV of this Bill in regard to compulsory improvement areas, assistance grants and the compulsory orders made to take over houses and manage them for up to a period of five years. There is going to be a great deal of work entailed in these matters. The local authorities are bound to phase their policy and to allocate their limited resources of manpower. To have the whole of this machinery upset at the demand of somebody who might be quite an eccentric person, not to say a frivolous one, or somebody who is never satisfied with his conditions, and to force the local authority to put the whole phasing out of gear to deal with his particular case, is really asking too much. Any genuine case, of course, will be inspected by the local authorities as soon as they can arrange it.

I am sure that, knowing their areas as well as they do, they are not going to be far behind any complaint which they hear about and will make the inspection within a reasonable period; but to give a private citizen the power to force them to do something within a limited period and thereby perhaps to put out a carefully phased programme, would be going too far. After all, the Minister has got default powers which he can exercise in extreme circumstances against a local authority which breaks down completely in performance of a statutory duty. But it is asking too much to allow a citizen not only to put the machine out of gear but to go over the head of the local authority and appeal direct to the Minister and thus put him in a position of constantly breathing down the neck of an authority which is struggling under many difficulties to do its best. I do not think that the noble Lord himself would really wish to put the local authorities in such a position.

Finally, if the Minister were appealed to and should by any circumstance make an order, which could happen in only the most extreme circumstances, then an anomalous position would be created in the court. If that decision were appealed against in court, the local authority would be in a position of having to defend something which both the judge and the appellant knew perfectly well they did not want to do in the first place. With all respect to the noble Lord, I think that he is making a mountain out of a molehill in this matter, that the private citizen will be able to make his complaints known perfectly well and that the local authorities will be only too anxious to inspect the dwellings and to take action under Part IV. Let us remember that they are having some drastic new powers put into their hands. I do not think that we need worry that they will fall down on the job in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This is something the Government could not accept, and, in parenthesis, I feel on quite safe ground in saying that the local authorities themselves would not welcome this at all.

LORD AIREDALE

I feel that the Minister is painting rather an unrealistic picture here. He seems to suggest there would not be any difficulty in a tenant's seizing the initiative and taking up the matter with his local authority. I dare say the Minister himself would easily be able to go and have a straight talk with his local authority surveyor, but there must be a great many tenants who could easily be fought off by a busy local authority surveyor saying, "We are very busy, and as soon as we can we will come round and look at your house"—and it may be several years before they have time to do so. When eventually they do look at it, they may well find that it is in a condition which makes them wish that they had known about it earlier and given it greater priority.

As to the eccentric people mentioned by the noble Lord, one might introduce a clause which said that once inspected no further complaint should be entertained from that tenant for two or three years or something of that kind; but this Amendment is only enabling a tenant to require the council to come and have a look. I should have thought that there is a great deal to be said for it, and that the picture painted by the Minister is in some respects not realistic.

LORD HASTINGS

I must say that I feel my picture is more realistic than the noble Lord's, which I should call somewhat impressionistic. His picture is painted in unduly sombre colours. These powers have been given to the local authorities, they want to operate them, and are going to do so. They know their areas and will inspect them as soon as they can. I am sure the procedure will work perfectly well in the way it is laid down in the Bill at the moment. I do not think that we can put any more onerous burdens on the local authorities than we are doing and make them run at the beck and call of everybody. I do not think that we can suggest, as the noble Lord has suggested, that local authorities are not going to inspect a bad house for a matter even of years. I doubt very much if it would amount even to months, and in fact it will probably be only weeks before they get round to look at the case. I do not feel that we can put an absolute statutory obligation on them to do something and then involve the Minister personally if the complainant is not satisfied. This would be adding altogether too many difficulties to the procedure, and in any event it will be quite unnecessary.

LORD AIREDALE

I wish that a clause of this kind were introduced to require the local authority simply to go and inspect when requested. I think then they would get their priorities right; they would deal with the houses in the proper order of priority. There is a danger that without a provision of this kind the local authority will not get its priorities right.

LORD TAYLOR

I would agree with the Minister that we were wrong in this clause to suggest that the tenant should invoke the Minister and also to stress the word "action" so much. The local authority will have to take its action as and when it can, and we would agree about that. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that it is rather a different matter for the ordinary citizen in a big borough—for example, in the borough of Islington, where I happen to live, in which there are 300,000 people living and where our relations with the town hall are very distant affairs. I can remember trying to get permission to put up a garage, and this required a number of personal visits before we could get anything to happen. I think it is not unreasonable to specify the tenant's or lodger's right to notify, and the duty then to inspect and report the result of the inspection.

The public health inspectors are inspecting all the time, surely, when a tenant reports a nuisance, that there is a smell coming up from the drains, or whatever it may be. In many cases they will know where houses are grossly defective, but where 60,000 or 70,000 or even more premises are involved, as in Islington, I think they cannot know the details. It is not unreasonable, I think, that we should ask that the ordinary citizen should have the right of inspection and the right to know the result of inspection. If we could get those two points established I would feel that was very reasonable, although I would agree with the Minister that we have asked for too much here.

LORD HASTINGS

I would just say that I am willing to consider subsections (1) and (2) of the Amendment, which cover the points which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was raising about inspection and the report of information, but certainly excluding subsections (3) and (4). Whether one can come to any conclusion about that before Report stage, I am not sure. Even if it were acceptable that these subsections should find a place in the Bill, the period of three months might have to be changed and it might become six months. However, I will look into that particular aspect, which of course from my point of view is a much more minor one than the whole Amendment taken together.

LORD SILKIN

I myself did not put the case too strongly. I felt that the language was not such that I could justify on a Division, but I felt that the principle ought to be accepted. I know that anybody can write a letter to the town hall, and that the town hall can file it or lose it and is under no obligation even to reply. My noble friend pointed to Islington, but he did not make the case as strong as he could, because under the London Government Act Islington is being merged with other authorities.

We are now getting colossal housing authorities with populations which might run up to a million in extreme cases. It is quite obvious that they cannot know the condition of all the houses in their area, so we must accept that a person should have written into the Bill the right to ask the local authority to look at his house, and he should be entitled to a reply—we can discuss in what time—and he ought to have some action taken if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord will really look at that—and I do not even ask him to give any assurances—I am quite willing to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

I have said that I will look at subsections (1) and (2)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 65 to 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Restriction on recovery of possession after making of compulsory purchase order];

6.34 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment concerns the period of time which limits the possibilities of eviction of a tenant by a landlord, if a compulsory purchase order has been made but not confirmed, without applying to the county court. It means that the landlord must apply to the county court. He is barred from using either his right at Common Law to evict by direct action, which might already be an offence if carried out with undue force, or by means of a specially endorsed writ of the High Court. The clause already says that he must apply to the county court, but the period he was given to do that was after nine months. After discussion in another place my right honourable friend undertook to extend that period to twelve months, so as to give more time for the compulsory purchase order to be completed and confirmed and to give more time to the tenant. That has now been done by this Amendment which alters the period from nine to twelve months, as a result of that undertaking given in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 32, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 34, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 [Making of control order]:

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1)(b) to leave out "those sections". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 go together. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is running away, but I want to refer to what he said on Second Reading. On Second Reading I dealt with the question of what is becoming known as Rachmanism; that is, the action of certain unscrupulous landlords in intimidating tenants to such an extent as to force them to give up possession. This would apply to tenants who are subject to rent control, and when they give up possession the premises become decontrolled and the landlord can then charge whatever rents he can obtain.

In the course of discussion on Second Reading the noble Lord sympathised with what I said. I pointed out that this Bill does not deal satisfactorily with this particular question. I was referred then to Clause 69 and was told—this is on record in the debate on the Second Reading—that the meaning of Clause 69 was that the landlord who was proved to have intimidated his tenant would be liable to have a control order made against him, with everything that that involved, and it did involve protecting the tenant against eviction. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the expression, safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house. He thought that those words meant that, if anyone evicted persons living in the house or threatened their safety, welfare or health by intimidation, then such a case was covered. I then said that I presumed that we were in agreement that such a case ought to be covered under this Bill, and that if the language were not adequate to cover it then the Government would be prepared to look at the language again, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to say that that was the position.

I still do not think that the language in this clause covers the case of intimidation, and, together with my noble friends, I have tried to incorporate in this Amendment words which would cover the case of intimidation. Without my trying to explain the details exactly, I think the noble Lord who is going to deal with the Amendment will see how this clause will look if it is amended. But the purpose of the Amendment is to secure that any threat to the safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house shall be as much the subject of a control order as are the other matters, (a) and (b), mentioned in the clause. It does not involve any great amendment of the clause, and if it is really the Government's intention that a physical threat to the tenant, or intimidation, should be subject to a control order, then I think that this series of Amendments carries out that intention, whereas the words in the clause as it stands do not. I hope that the Government will assure me that it is their intention to cover the case of intimidation, and that since the language of my Amendment covers it they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 6, after ("sections,") insert ("or").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD MOLSON

I understood that one of the main purposes of this Bill was to deal with the abuses which had been disclosed in what are normally known as the "Rachman cases" of last year, and I had certainly understood that this control order would be at the service of the local authority if it could be shown that abuses such as are associated with the name "Rachman" were taking place. It appeared on Second Reading that the inclusion of the words "living conditions" might mean that the control could be applied only if the structural condition of the building itself was unsatisfactory, whereas I had certainly understood that the intention of the Bill was to deal with cases where menaces, violence and pressure were brought to bear. I hope that the Government will be willing either to accept this Amendment or to make it plain that the present words are not as limiting as they appear to be. I have very great sympathy with the general line that has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I hope that, if it is the case that a control order can be applied only where the structural conditions of the house are unsatisfactory, the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment.

6.43 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

I should like very briefly to remind the Committee of some of the background to this clause. I think that for some time past many of us, both inside and outside this House, and of all shades of Party opinion, have been worried about the squalid conditions, in some of our larger towns and cities, of houses, especially what are called multi-occupation houses, in which a number of families live, sharing certain common facilities. Part II of the Housing Act, 1961, was, of course, designed to help local authorities to strengthen their powers in dealing with these problem houses, and these provisions have, I think, worked and been useful. However, it became clear as a result of the Rachman revelations last year, and as a result of my right honourable friend's consultations with local authorities, that still stronger powers were required. That is why, as I tried to explain on Second Reading, we are taking powers in this Bill to strengthen the existing machinery of Part II of the 1961 Act, and to introduce this new pro- cedure for control orders. In the Bill as it stands at present the local authority must be satisfied of two things: first, that the house is subject to action under Part II of the 1961 Act, or is susceptible to that action; and, secondly (and this is one of the points at which the noble Lord's Amendment drives), that the living conditions in the house are such as to make a control order necessary for the protection of the residents' safety, health or welfare.

As I understand it, the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken to would have the following effect. The first two of his Amendments would mean that a control order could be made even when a house was not subject to Part II of the 1961 Act, or not liable to be so subject. The third Amendment would remove from the local authority the obligation to base its judgment on the need for a control order on the living conditions which could actually be observed in the house. Taken together, as these Amendments are being taken, they would enable a local authority to make a control order, in the first place, if in any respect, however minor, the house was subject or susceptible to action under Part II of the 1961 Act. A control order could, therefore, at least in theory, be justified by the mere fact of a leaky washbasin, or a chance accumulation of litter, or anything else which could trigger off the management code of the 1961 Act. Alternatively, a control order could be made if it appeared to the authority, for any reason whatsoever, that it was necessary to protect the residents' safety, health or welfare. Thus, an order could be made—I am not saying that it would be so made; but it could be made—on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint from a tenant or lodger, or simply because the council did not like the "cut of the jib" (if your Lordships will forgive a nautical expression) of a particular landlord.

I am sure that we in this House are all anxious to cut at the root of what is sometimes, I think, loosely termed "Rachmanism". The Government believe that the Part II powers of the 1961 Act, strengthened as they will be by this Bill, and reinforced where necessary by this new control order procedure and by the compulsory purchase order machinery, give local authorities the means to do so. But the Amendment which the noble Lords opposite have tabled goes a good deal further; and, sympathetic though I am to their objectives, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. My reasons, which I will seek to explain—I am sorry to be speaking at some little length on this Amendment, but it deals with a very important point—are as follows.

In the first place, if the Amendments were carried a control order could be made, as I have shown, where there was nothing in the situation that in any way endangered the safety, welfare or health of the persons living in the house, but where there had been merely a very minor or technical breakdown, bringing the house, at least in theory, within the ambit of Part II of the 1961 Act.

LORD AIREDALE

May I interrupt the noble Earl a moment? Is it not fair to say that under subsection (4) there is the right of appeal against a control order? Surely, that would act as an insurance against control orders being made for trivial reasons.

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, I think that is so; but it would go into effect straight away. It is, of course, a very severe sanction, and even where there is a right of appeal I think one should be very cautious about making severe sanctions possible in a case where the offence may be very trivial. I cannot believe that this very severe sanction—and this control order is severe—should be available for the sort of minor breakdown which I have described, which could trigger it off, even though there is this right of appeal.

Secondly, a control order could be made even where the living conditions in the house were perfectly good and the house was well managed, and the house was therefore not subject to Part II of the 1961 Housing Act machinery. I myself strongly suspect that where we find Rachmanism—and I think this has probably been the case in London; it certainly gives that impression—we should also find conditions bringing the house within the orbit of Part II of the 1961 Act. I think that is what my noble friend Lord Hastings had in mind in his exchange with the noble Lord at Second Reading.

But, even admitting that the tenants could be intimidated by "Rachmanesque" methods in a house which is well-run, well-maintained and well-managed, then the tenants, if an attempt is being made to evict them either through victimisation or some trick or jiggery-pokery, already have existing remedies. The individual has his legal rights and the local authorities can also go for a compulsory purchase order. I mentioned at Second Reading that my right honourable friend has clearly indicated that he is prepared to endorse a compulsory purchase order where threats of homelessness result from this type of eviction.

LORD MOLSON

May I interrupt the noble Earl? The trouble is that in many cases the tenants are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to know what are their rights at law. That is the great disadvantage in relying exclusively on the courts for enforcing those rights.

EARL JELLICOE

I was saying that the compulsory purchase order operated at the instance of the local authority just as this control order would be operated if applicable. I also mentioned at Second Reading that there was already written into Clause 68 in another place a strengthening of the compulsory purchase order machinery.

I would put two further considerations to the Committee. The first is the need in legislation of this sort to try to establish really objective criteria. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Hastings explained at Second Reading, we think it desirable to attach the control order power firmly to physical and living conditions. Living conditions can go wider than the purely physical. These are the sort of conditions on which local authority officials, by their experience of day-to-day work, are accustomed to pass judgment, Noble Lords opposite, in their Amendments, by whittling away the objective tests to which I have referred, would make it possible for a control order to be made by reference to purely subjective criteria. They would open this possibility. The result would be that local authorities could formally dispossess an owner of any multi-occupied house—I am not saying that they would; but they could legally do so—on the basis of a passing whim or fancy or purely subjective consideration.

In making my second point, I am not in any way suggesting that we do not trust the local authorities to act reasonably. That is not my point at all. All I am saying is that where we have strong powers we need very strong safeguards. I think in this control order we are introducing very strong powers indeed. Because of that, I think it is all the more necessary, when this Bill enables us to vest the powers of dispossession in some 1,500 local authorities whose judgment and discretion are bound to vary in 1,500 different ways, to keep our safeguards strong. I am sure we must try to maintain a balance here.

We all wish to strike at Rachmanism where possible; but at the same time I think we must, wherever possible, safeguard the liberties of the subject. Speaking from memory, I think that The Times said in a leader when this Bill was published that the powers in this part of it were drastic, if not ruthless. Since then these powers have been sharpened in another place, and this control order machinery is a very sharp weapon indeed. I feel, therefore, that we must put it into the hands of the local authorities with all due and adequate safeguards. I believe that these Amendments would unduly diminish the safeguards that are written in the Bill and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press them.

LORD SILKIN

I should like to continue this discussion because, in my view, although the noble Earl has discussed this subject with his usual ability, he has really concentrated on the language of the Amendment rather than on the content. I still adhere to what I said in moving the Amendment. There was never any difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and myself on Second Reading as to the intention. The noble Lord actually gave examples of savage dogs being put on to tenants. I gather he wanted to deal with cases of that kind and to enable the control order to be made. Now, as I understand him, the noble Earl is going back on that. Rather cleverly, he is dealing with what is admittedly a defect in my Amendment, as it is equally a defect in the clause itself, because I take it the word "or" ought to be "and" in all cases. Even in the clause itself you can get a control order either on (a) or (b). That is one of the defects to which he drew attention. I say "or on (c)." But if we had the word "and" it would make it clear.

I would suggest that we all think about this matter. We have sat on this Bill now, with the greatest concentration, for a good many hours. I suggest that we defer consideration until Thursday and do not try to dispose of this clause at the moment. That is my suggestion, because I have by no means finished, and some of my friends would like to say something on it. It is probably the most important of the matters that remain to be dealt with, and I would remind the noble Earl that on Third Reading my friends in another place complained that the one matter about which they were dissatisfied was that this Bill failed to deal with Rachmanism. We still think that it fails in that respect. When we talk about Rachmanism, I would define it particularly as the evil of intimidation of tenants by one means or another so as to get them out. I think it is worth a discussion, and I think we could continue this discussion on Thursday. I suggest, therefore, that we might adjourn now and continue this discussion on Thursday. I believe that this is almost the only outstanding important question which remains on the Committee stage.

EARL JELLICOE

I had hoped that we could deal with these particular Amendments this evening; but we have been going for quite a long time and we have made very good progress at this Committee stage of the Bill. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the importance of these Amendments, and indeed of this clause, and of this Part of the Bill, and of the evils with which it deals. I do not wish in any way to curtail our discussion of these important areas of the Bill although, as I have said, I had hoped that we could get through, and if this is the wish of your Lordships, we shall be willing to fall in with it. In these circumstances, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment No. 62 be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate on Amendment No. 62 be adjourned.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.