Lords Sitting of 13 July 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

BRITISH AIRWAYS WEST LONDON TERMINAL
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the public interest and the large number of people affected, they will make a Statement on the proposed withdrawal of check-in facilities at the British Airways West London Terminal by the summer of 1973 prior to completion of the rail link with Heathrow; and whether they will indicate what action is proposed by the Government on this matter.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very concerned that adequate facilities should be provided for passengers to and from London Airport, and this matter has been brought to the attention of the Chairmen of British European Airways and the British Airports Authority. However, the decision to close the check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal must necessarily lie within the responsibility of B.E.A.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, that gets us no further. Concerning the letter which was sent to me by B.E.A., of which the noble Earl and other noble Lords have copies, does he not agree that only one short sentence referred to the point I have in mind and that it is a complete waste of time to write lengthy letters on other matters? May I now ask he noble Lord whether it is correct that 1,389,943 passengers used the check-in facilities at Gloucester Road over the last 12 months? Does he consider that the needs of these passengers should be ignored completely when they alight at Heathrow with their lug-
350
gage? Is he really telling the House that he thinks there will be enough porters and trolleys to service all passengers coming from buses to the check-in point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I saw a copy of the letter which the Chairman of B.E.A. sent to the noble Baroness, and I am bound to say that I did not think it was a waste of time; it explained exactly what was going to happen. In anticipation and apprehension of being roasted alive by the noble Baroness again on this subject, I asked B.E.A. whether I might come down and see the facilities and, as it were, have a dummy run through the Air Terminal and Heathrow. I asked whether I might bring the noble Baroness along hut, for reasons which I understood entirely, she could not come. Had she done so I think many of her fears would have been allayed. It is perfectly true that 1,389,943 passengers used the check-in facilities, but less than 60 per cent. of those people were travelling by B.E.A. The anticipated reorganisation is being done for the convenience of passengers as a whole as well as for the economic situation of B.E.A.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I put one other question to the Minister? Is he aware that had I gone to the airport with him he certainly would not have been satisfied? He was sidetracked from the main point, which has not been answered. Is it correct that to defer this unfortunate decision till 1976, when the rail link will be completed, would cost £600,000 per annum? Should not this be contrasted with the revenue that some 1,400,000 passengers would bring in taking a very low average fare of, say, £50? That comes to £70 million a year. Does not the Minister think that passengers bringing in that amount of revenue have at least a right to be considered?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, they have, and I agree that the saving is expected to be in the region of £600,000 a year. But the noble Baroness will, I know, appreciate that the facilities at West London Air Terminal will be more to the convenience of passengers in that they will have no further to walk and will negotiate only one floor as opposed to three.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the impression of some passengers that many of the buses operating from the terminal at present are not full can be confirmed?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, at present buses leave for specific connections. A bus holds 50 people, and the average load is just over 40.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, when the new arrangements are in force at Heathrow, how much further will passengers have to walk with their luggage than they have to walk at present at the West London Terminal?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, when they alight from a taxi at West London Air Terminal they walk 20 paces to the check-in place. I measured it myself. At London Airport the distance from the roadside to the check-in place is also 20 paces.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, under these new arrangements who will be responsible for luggage lost or stolen from the departure coach? Will it be the airline or the passenger?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is a question of detail about which I should prefer to write to the noble Lord. My guess is that if the luggage was carried in a B.E.A. coach it would be the responsibility of B.E.A.
THE EARL or LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on the question of baggage and porters, can the noble Lord confirm the impression of some acutely observant passengers that some porters tend to hide trolleys so that they get jobs and tips?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have no evidence of that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, has it escaped your Lordships' notice that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I am sure with no ulterior motive, is evading the point at issue? Is he aware that I am not concerned with the Gloucester Road Air Terminal but with the depositing of baggage at Heathrow? Can he assure your Lordships' House that there will be sufficient porters and trolleys to take luggage to the check-in points?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made this point very
352
strongly on a number of occasions, and I have made it my responsibility to bring it to the attention of the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, who wrote and told me that more porters will be provided. The words he used were, "This can and will be done". This is their responsibility.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, this is not good enough, and if I do not pursue this we are going to lose it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
BARONESS BURTON or COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl telling the House that he really believes that passengers deposited from these buses with their luggage at Heathrow will have no problems about getting their luggage to the check-in point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me whether there would be sufficient porters and trolleys. I can only reply to the noble Baroness that, while I fully appreciate her feelings, this is not the concern of the Government, any more than is the providing of wheelbarrows at railway stations. This is the concern of the British Airports Authority, and we have had a written assurance from the Chairman that sufficient porters can and will be provided.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend referred to twenty paces at Heathrow and the same distance of twenty paces at Cromwell Road. Can he confirm that there are no steps, and that the twenty paces at Heathrow will be entirely on the level?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the twenty paces at Heathrow will be on the level, as they will be at the West London Air Terminal, whereas at the moment passengers have to negotiate two flights of stairs.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether we are beginning to abuse a little the purpose of Starred Questions, and whether it would be possible for the authorities who govern these things to come to some agreement with the object of limiting them?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this is always a

353
matter of great difficulty in your Lordships' House. I think it is true to say that sometimes we do stray a little far. This problem is one that has exercised not only the usual channels but also the Procedure Committee. I have made it my responsibility, whenever I have thought it desirable, to intervene. I appreciate the concern of my noble friend, and I think it is one that is shared by most Members of your Lordships' House. But in all honesty, I must confess that, given the considerable public concern, not only in your Lordships' House but also in the Press, on this point, I did not feel that in the supplementaries on this Question there was an abuse of Parliamentary time.

RHODESIA: PROPOSED TIGHTENING OF SANCTIONS
3.15 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions they have made on the proposals endorsed by a majority of members of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee for consideration by their Governments regarding the tightening of sanctions against the illegal Administration of Rhodesia.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, at its meeting on June 29 the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee unanimously recommended that Commonwealth Governments consider proposing to the United Nations additional measures for ensuring that sanctions are more effectively implemented. Her Majesty's Government have only just received these proposals in their final form and are considering what further action is appropriate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that it was the British representative at the Sanctions Committee who secured an agreement that these decisions should be referred back to Governments rather than going straight to the United Nations, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should give early attention to the decisions? May I ask the noble
354
Marquess in particular about the foreclosing of loopholes in the breaking of sanctions: first, whether Her Majesty's Government will support the suggestion of an inspectorate to prevent goods destined for Rhodesia being catalogued for South Africa and Portuguese territories; and secondly, whether they will support the idea or instituting prosecutions against those who break the sanctions?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot at this stage give the noble Lord and the House a positive indication of Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the proposals that were made; as I said, we have only just received them in their final form. But I can assure the noble Lord that they are being looked at as a matter of urgency.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, can by noble friend tell the House which members of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee have themselves been trading with Rhodesia?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No. my Lords; I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend that information. I do not know the answer; but I take note of what he has asked.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that as many countries, including America, appear to be breaking sanctions, the whole question of sanctions is really rather a farce?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I had a feeling that my noble friend might ask me something on those lines. I think that all I can do is to refer him to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in the debate on the Pearce Commission Report in which she set out clearly Her Majesty's Government's present view as to sanctions.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question which seems to me to be very relevant to this matter and which does arise from the Question? Is it not an accepted fact that the only hope of a peaceful and fair solution of the problems facing Rhodesia is the establishment of friendly relations in which such a solution could be reached? And, arising out of that, is it

355
likely that any such position could be other than hopelessly prejudiced by the vindictive vendetta against that country which is at the moment being publicised by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is this in fact a question or is it an attack upon my noble friend?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHEPHERD: Is this a question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as I understood it, it was a question.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, it seems to me—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that on this occasion my noble friend is not putting a question to the Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am not quite certain which question I should be answering at the moment. I tried to explain Her Majesty's Government's position regarding the Question I was asked, and I have referred to what my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir said in her speech of three weeks ago, in which she made the position regarding sanctions perfectly plain.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Is it not true that in some cases where members of the Commonwealth break sanctions it is because they have to do so in order to live at all?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not know about that. I think it is perfectly plain to your Lordships that sanction-breaking is going on, but one could also say that, so far as this country is concerned, we have an admirable record in applying sanctions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the reference to myself, is the Minister aware that I am not concerned in a vendetta against anyone? I have been concerned to establish racial equality in Southern Rhodesia.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, is it not also relevant to say that—
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD MILVERTON: Is it not a reasonable question to ask how many
356
members of the United Nations or of the Commonwealth could possibly accept at home conditions which they are trying to force upon Rhodesia?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said I do not think that this is perhaps the occasion to get involved in another Rhodesia debate. I have tried to make plain the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's actions in this matter.

THAMES ESTUARY: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
3.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up a planning commission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to look into the many vast and expensive schemes being planned for Essex and Kent, chiefly near the Thames Estuary, for the next fifteen years; and if not, what are their reasons for not doing so.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, a planning inquiry commission would not be appropriate for the purpose to which the noble Earl refers. Long-term development of the region has already been studied in the Strategy for the South-East, endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. This envisages a major growth area in South-East Essex in conjunction with the proposed Third London Airport at Maplin, and a medium-growth area in Kent, taking account of a possible Channel Tunnel. Individual development proposals will be dealt with through the appropriate planning or other procedures.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that it was envisaged under this Act that a planning inquiry commission was a proper instrument for a Minister to use in a situation of this kind? That being so, may I ask why this course was not adopted?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it was not adopted for the reasons that I gave in my original Answer.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, would it not be reasonable to suggest that in view of the Buchanan Report concerning the Roskill Commission Report on Foulness Airport, the whole question of the planning of Essex be considered in relation to possible economic, residential and tourism development in East London, which holds out really shining possibilities for London as a whole?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, that was, as the noble Baroness may remember, very much in our minds and our debates when we were discussing the decision on the Third London Airport. The noble Baroness will also be aware of the Dockland Study which will be one way of giving effect to these Reports.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that co-ordinated planning of all our estuaries is long overdue, no matter by what means it may be undertaken, and not least in the interests of balanced regional development?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I agree that there is scope for improving our planning procedures; and the regional strategy for the South-East is the first major step in that direction.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to refresh the memory of the House by giving the date of the Roskill Commission's Report and the date of the South-East Planning Report?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would rather not answer any of these complex matters without notice; but I will certainly answer any Questions about specific developments covered in the area that is the concern of the noble Earl, if he or the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will put them down.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, did not the noble Lord say in his original Answer that the matters about which my noble
358
friend asked (which include, of course, the possible Maplin development) were dealt with in the Report of the South-East Planning Committee?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, what I said was that all the developments to which the noble Earl's Question referred—which, although he did not mention it, must include the Third London Airport—are being considered within the context and framework of the Regional Study for the South-East.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, but the Regional Study for the South-East was published before the Roskill Report. How, then, could it have taken it into account?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I did not say it did so. What I said was that it provided a framework for the consideration of this development.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is it not true to say that in Appendix C it did foresee the possibility of the Third London Airport at Maplin?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is so, but it does not alter the gist of what I said in my original reply: it provides a framework for this development.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask the responsible authorities to issue a plan which the Members of your Lordships' House could see, showing which property will be available to local authorities and which property will be sold to private developers?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, which particular area does the noble Lord have in mind?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, all the area which is to be developed for the benefit of the new Airport and Tunnel.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is early days for doing that; but as the various studies which lead to the development of London Airport mature, that kind of information will become available.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES
3.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there will be a free day at the Trustees' discretion if charges for admission to the national museums and galleries are introduced.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I am discussing certain aspects of the scheme for charges with the National Gallery. If appropriate, I shall make a Statement when the discussions are concluded.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask him whether he will consider granting a free day to the eight institutions who have asked for one, in view of the comparatively small sums of money involved, and the great cultural and educational advantages?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this is the subject of our discussions, and it is really a question of what is in the interest of the gallery and the public. When we have come to the end of our discussions I shall be glad to make a Statement.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the last Parliament there was a clear line of demarcation between the responsibilities and duties of the political Minister and the Trustees of our museums and galleries? Does he think that the obloquy he has brought on his Prime Minister and his Government by threatening Trustees with financial sanctions if they do not accept his dictatorship is worth while?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the powers of the Trustees are what they have always been, and we are not discussing them here. We are discussing whether a certain element in a system of charges would or would not be good for this particular gallery. There is no question of a conflict of powers.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I must disagree with him? Are we not undermining an extremely precious principle of the delegation of responsibilities from whatever may be the Government of the day or the particular Minister of the day in dealing with museums and galleries, if we do not respect the judgment and integrity of the distinguished men and women whom we appoint to run our museums and galleries?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the noble Baroness had better await the results of these discussions.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, provided the galleries meet his target of the "miserable million", it is not his business how they meet it?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it is not a matter of whose business it is but of whether we can agree with the gallery what is in the best interests of the public.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will the noble Lord seek to defer his decision about the free day as long as possible? In the meantime, will he allow the existing number of free days to continue?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, that is another question.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, has not the noble Lord considered this position in detail? What do the Government think about this proposal? That is what is being asked.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think I have given the Government's views on free days two or three times in the course of debates on charges. It would weary your Lordships if I repeated them now. Naturally, they are part of the discussions which are taking place.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the Minister said that he would make a Statement if it was appropriate. Does he not think in view of the general interest and publicity in this matter, that it would be appropriate to make a Statement after the end of his consultations? Is he aware of the words of Lord Melbourne: "God help the Minister who meddles with art"?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am very aware of that admirable quotation from Lord Melbourne. I anticipate that we shall make a Statement, but I wish to have that agreed with the National Gallery and therefore I am not going to pledge myself at this moment.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie will be making a Statement on the breakdown of the Icelandic fishery talks. Also at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be repeating a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Poulson bankruptcy proceedings.
CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TRADING REPRESENTATIONS (DISABLED PERSONS) AMENDMENT BILL
LORD HOY: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hoy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS BILL
3.34 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I feel it would be right for me to say a further word about the possibility of an interim review—a matter which we discussed at Second Reading and again at Committee. In reading
362
my remarks at the Committee stage I think I may have given the impression that the initiative for an interim review would rest squarely with Lord Boyle's Committee. I think that this was somewhat to mis-state the position, although I said at the time that I was speaking personally and off the cuff.
I see that at Second Reading on June 30, at column 1128 of Hansard, I stated the position with my habitual accuracy; I said that the limit of the Government's commitment was to accept Boyle
" and Boyle said a review in the lifetime of each Parliament, but did not preclude intermediate reviews ".
The position here, my Lords, is that formally and indeed in practice the initiative for any review would rest with the Government. However, in making this clear, I should like to make equally clear two other points. First, I have taken careful note of the views expressed by noble Lords at Second Reading and at Committee. Second, the Government's undertakings to bring certain issues to the attention of the Review Body for the next review will be carefully observed. In this context I have particularly noted that there was one matter—the treatment of the pre-1964 M.P.s—where it was represented that if anything was to be done, it should be done without too long a delay.
Moved, That the Bill be now reed 3a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl; we know that he is doing his best in this matter. We discussed this whole subject, including the pre-1964 non-pensioners, very thoroughly at the Committee stage and there is nothing more that I wish to say now.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I have not taken part in the debate on this Bill at any time because I have an interest in the matter; but I venture to ask the noble Earl a question. Is it the case that the next review will not take place until the year 1974? That is my information.
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords, that is not necessarily the case. I will read the concluding sentence of the Boyle Report:
" For our part we consider that there should be a major comprehensive review at intervals of four years, i.e. corresponding roughly to

363
once in the lifetime of each Parliament of normal length. However, we should not wish to exclude the possibility of an intermediate adjustment between major reviews ".
It was on that particular point that I was correcting any misconception which I might have left in the minds of your Lordships. But it would be a mistake on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to think that a decision has been taken on an interim review, for or against, at this stage, and by the same token that any date has been fixed for any such review.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, there appear to be conflicting statements about this. In conversation with the Chairman of the Trustees I was informed that the next review would not take place until 1974.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CULAG (LOCHINVER) PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, it may be convenient if I now make a Statement on the discussions which have taken place in Reykjavik on the intention of the Icelandic Government to extend their fishing limits to 50 miles. The Statement is as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that it proved impossible to reach agreement on an interim arrangement at the talks in Reykjavik this week. These talks were a continuation of Ministerial talks held in London in May and June. At every stage we have made genuine efforts to meet Icelandic concern about the conservation of fish stocks.
"We have also been willing to recognise a degree of preferential treatment to Iceland as the coastal State. We have put forward a number of proposals designed to limit the catch of British trawlers without asking for a corresponding limitation from Ice-
364
landic vessels. Indeed the final offer made this week could have had the effect of reducing the British catch by as much as 30 per cent. of the 1971 figure. I am sorry to say that even this proved unacceptable.
"The first proposal made by the Icelandic Government this week would have had the effect of reducing our catch by about 80 per cent. No British Government could tolerate such a proposal.
"At the final stage of the discussions the Icelandic Government suggested that they might be able to put forward further proposals which would be less restrictive but which included the right to exclusive fishing for Icelandic vessels in certain areas and full enforcement powers. They were not, however, willing to agree to our suggestion that experts should proceed to an immediate examination of this proposal.
"We remain ready to consider any further Icelandic proposals for interim arrangements, but meanwhile we have preserved all our rights in the area outside the present 12-mile limit. The Icelandic Government intend to issue regulations on July 14 to extend their limits to 50 miles. Her Majesty's Government propose to make an immediate application to the International Court for an indication of interim measures to be observed by both parties, pending a definitive solution of this dispute."
That is the Statement, my Lords.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House may I welcome the noble Baroness back, after what must have been arduous and difficult negotiations, and congratulate her personally on having conducted them in a manner a great deal better than some other business that is going on in Reykjavik at the moment.
I have one or two points to put to the Government. They are now taking us into a major row with one of our allies. This row is so major that it has become necessary to threaten the use of naval force. This would be to prevent the arrest of ships in a part of the sea which the Icelandic Government are arguing is a protected fishing zone and which we shall claim, when it happens in September, is part of the high seas. Should the Government not remember that we have

365
already ourselves taken the right unilaterally to arrest ships in part of the sea which all nations have agreed is the high seas? That is under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Act.
This is the age of creeping national jurisdiction. This was begun unilaterally by the United States in 1945, when they annexed their Continental Shelf, and has been carried on by Canada, Latin America, West Africa and Indian Ocean countries. Moreover, the Icelandic Government have already demanded that NATO forces leave the base at Keflavik. There is a strong Communist element in that Government. If the Soviet Union were to obtain the use of Iceland as an unsinkable aircraft carrier and as a submarine base in the North Atlantic, this would be an extremely serious matter. The Government must have good reasons to run these grave risks. At the moment, Parliament and the public in this country are in a complete fog on these issues. Iceland demands a 50-mile limit because of a possible reduction in fish catches and therefore in fish stocks. What is the evidence of that reduction? Is it connected with the increased technical capabilities and range of the fishing fleets and so on? What proportion of all the fish in the North Atlantic is caught by us, and what proportion is caught by other countries, including Russia? What proportion of the fish caught within 50 miles is caught by us and what proportion by other countries?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I should remind him that the Companion to the Standing Orders says that Ministerial Statements are made for the information of the House and although brief comments and questions for clarification are allowed, such Statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate. With diffidence I would suggest that the noble Lord is straying a little beyond that rule.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I accept instantly what the Leader of the House has said, and with the utmost confidence that all other noble Lords will accept it on other occasions. If I had been allowed to finish my improper battery of questions I should have terminated with this question: will the Government please publish a White Paper on this issue as
366
soon as possible, owing to its extreme complexity and gravity?
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement; I should also like to support the congratulations conveyed to her. I have only one short question, but I would preface it by saying that we all appreciate how serious a matter this is for the British fishing industry. Can the noble Baroness give any indication as to how long the proceedings before the International Court are likely to take?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for welcoming me back to this House. It was indeed an extremely interesting although difficult series of negotiations. First of all, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we have not threatened naval force. We have said that we cannot rule out the use of the Navy, but we hope that it will never come to this. Nor, so far as I am aware, have naval forces specifically been asked to leave Keflavik which is another question.
On the point about the actual proportion of the stocks taken by various countries, I should be happier if the noble Lord would put down a specific question. He referred to Russia. It is true that she has factory ships such as we do not possess. The noble Lord asked whether the Government would publish a White Paper. I shall certainly bring this request to the attention of my right honourable friend but I would say both to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we are still ready to continue negotiations, despite the issue of the regulations by the Icelandic Government and despite our application before the International Court. We understand that there is a possibility that the Icelandic Government might give us specific proposals. This was not the case at the last round of negotiations; but if they did we should, of course consider them carefully. On the question of the International Court, we have not yet finally devised the questions which we shall put to it, but we shall ask for interim measures that should be observed by both parties. We should hope to produce this before the end of the month, and we should certainly get a decision within two or three weeks.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that the decision of Iceland to break this agreement means that she is breaking an agreement which was signed by Great Britain and Iceland herself? That she is breaking it unilaterally is the thing we deprecate. May I ask the noble Baroness how long she thinks it will be before the Government are able to take this matter to the International Court and what the consequences will be—because the present Agreement, which was signed by both countries, was taken to the International Court? Secondly I would ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind also how important this section of the fishing industry is not only to the fleets on the Humber, at Hull and at Grimsby, and to the vessels at Fleetwood, but also to a certain section of the fishing industry in Aberdeen. May we have an assurance that, in these consultations, before any decisions are arrived at, Her Majesty's Government will at least call in not only the trawler industry, as represented by the trawler owners, but the trade unions, which are representative of thousands of workers whose livelihood depends on this industry?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is perfectly right in saying that we signed an Agreement between Iceland and this country in 1961. It was agreed that if any change was to be made, after six months' notice, it should be by agreement and that if no agreement could be reached then the case should go before the International Court at The Hague. We have lodged our application before the Court. What we are now seeking to do is to ask for a decision on interim arrangements until the final decision is taken, which may not be for about another two years.
I realise of course—and this is the whole point of the negotiations—the immense importance to the fishing industry in this country of the Icelandic Government's proposal unilaterally to extend the 12-mile limit to 50 miles. The fishermen of this country have had historic rights for fishing off Iceland for about 300 years. Therefore we agreed in London to set aside the question of the ultimate jurisdiction and to try to come together to produce an interim arrangement. I hope very much that in the
368
course of these consultations the Icelandic Government will be able to put forward further proposals. I have always understood that Iceland was a country which had an especial respect for law, whether international or domestic. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that, while we did not have representatives of the trade unions with us, I received a delegation headed by Mr. Jack Jones and heard his views some time before we left for Reykjavik.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I go a little further on this matter? I do not want to enter into a dispute with Iceland, which I had the pleasure of visiting just over two years ago and where I received great hospitality and friendship. But in a dispute of this kind it must be quite apparent just how much it affects trade unionists of this country as well as trawler owners. That is all I want to emphasise.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think it is evident that we realise the damage the proposed extension would cause the fishing industry from the fact that we could not accept the proposal for reducing the catch by 80 per cent. Nor can we accept further proposals which might prejudice the case before the International Court.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while joining in the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Baroness on the success of her mission—or, rather, perhaps, on the failure of her mission; but she certainly put up a strong fight—I would ask her to bear in mind that, while the 50-mile limit is quite obviously over the odds, the conservation of fishing in the North Sea is becoming a matter of desperate urgency. I wonder whether she could hold out some hope that negotiations between ourselves and Iceland could be resumed before the matter goes to The Hague Tribunal and that the Icelandic Government might put forward some fresh proposals which would allow our own trawlers some traditional rights within the 50-mile limit of their waters.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as sometimes happen between allies of long standing, while the Icelandic Government are issuing the regulation to extend the limits tomorrow, and while we are applying to

369
the International Court for an interim arrangement (which we must do because of the time factor involved), we have both said that we are always willing to consider any further measures between us.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, are we going alone to The Hague, or are there other countries which also consider that the proposed 50-mile limit is wrong?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that the German Government have in fact tiled an application before the International Court.

MR. JOHN POULSON: BANKRUPTCY EXAMINATION EVIDENCE
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I now repeated a Statement which I understand my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made in another place on matters arising out of the public examination in bankruptcy of Mr. John Poulson. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable and learned friends the Attorney General and the Lord Advocate, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, are considering the evidence given at the public examination and are awaiting the preliminary report of the Official Receiver, which is expected early next week."
The Prime Minister's Statement continues:
"I will make a further Statement next week."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. This is clearly an interim Statement and my own feeling on this matter is that it would be very unwise for any of us to speculate at this stage. It is not possible usefully to do so. Ultimately Parliament will clearly be concerned with the outcome of any considerations by anyone, but for the moment I certainly would not want to ask anything.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I can only endorse what he has said.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order, viz.:—
Clauses 1 and 2;
Schedule 1;
Clauses 3–17;
Schedules 2 and 3;
Clauses 18–23;
Schedule 4;
Clauses 24–26;
Schedule 5;
Clauses 27–50;
Schedules 6 and 7;
Clauses 51–81;
Schedules 8–11.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING FINANCE BILL
3.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 56 [Determination of fair rent]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert—
(" (4A) The authority shall deposit any report under subsection (1) or subsection (3) above, and any amendments under subsection (4) above of a report under subsection (3) above, at their principal office. ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 89, which I think it would be convenient to

371
consider at the same time, require authorities to publish any report made to them by the rent scrutiny board, whether confirming or amending the rents in the authority's provisional assessment, by depositing it at their principal offices and at any other offices where the provisional assessment, or part of it, was deposited. The Amendments result from the undertaking I gave in Committee, at columns 703 and 704 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of June 26, to consider whether publication of the board's reports should be a statutory requirement rather than something which local authorities could be expected to do anyway. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, at this late hour all I need to do is to thank the noble Lord for having been courteous enough to listen to the points that we made and to have acceded to our request. I am very grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 58, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) The authority shall notify in writing each individual tenant of a dwelling of the rent which has been determined for his dwelling ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment places a new duty upon authorities to inform each tenant in writing of the fair rent determined for his dwelling in accordance with Clause 56. As a list of the fair rents must be deposited at the authority's offices and made available for public inspection the Government had felt that it should be left to the discretion of authorities whether they should in addition inform tenants individually, although it was proposed to recommend them to do so by a circular from the Department. However, after further consideration following another undertaking given by me in Committee on June 26, it has been decided to make individual notification in writing to each tenant a statutory requirement on all local housing authorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we repeat our gratitude.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 35, leave out from ("assessment") to (" (8)") in line 40 and insert (" of fair rents for dwellings at any office other than their principal office, they shall also deposit at that office—

(a) any report on that assessment made by the rent scrutiny board under subsection (1) or (3) above;

(b) any amendments under subsection (4) above of a report under subsection (3) above;

(c) a list of the fair rents determined for the dwellings.

( ) Any report, amendments or list deposited at an office under subsection (4A), (7) or ").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Determination of a new fair rent in case of change of circumstances]:
3.59 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 59, line 21, after ("circumstances") insert ("(being circumstances unrelated to the general price level)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89A. We now return to an issue which was discussed previously. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at subsection (1) of Clause 58 you will see it reads:
" … it shall be the duty of an authority to assess from time to time "—
and I emphasise from time to time "—
" for any of their Housing Revenue Account dwellings for which a fair rent has previously been determined such a new fair rent as in their opinion will be sufficient to take account of any change in the condition of the dwellings or the terms of the tenancy, or in the other circumstances taken into account when the fair rent was previously determined."
We are here concerned with those other circumstances.
Clause 59 provides for a triennial review of fair rents and in that review all the circumstances are to be taken into account, including the general level of rents ruling at the time, and they would be affected by the general level of prices ruling at the time. It is clearly intended that Clause 59 would be the appropriate place for having regard to any inflationary effects which had altered the value of money, prices and the level of rents in the intervening three years.
That being the case, I was anxious to have clarified in Committee the fact that where one is determining under Clause 58 a new fair rent following a change of circumstances, one of those circumstances could not be the circumstance of inflation. It is of course a circumstance, but I felt sure that it was not intended to be inluded as one of the matters to which regard would be given in determining a new fair rent under Clause 58(1). It was to make that absolutely clear that this Amendment was tabled and which would insert the words
"… circumstances unrelated to the general price level …"
If the Amendment were accepted—I hope it will be; on the other hand, if the Government assure us that it is not necessary then my purpose will have been served—it would make perfectly clear that the time to take account of general price levels, and consequently of general rent levels, would be once every three years and not on every odd occasion when some sort of change in the dwelling had taken place—when, for example, an extra room had been added, a garage built on, a new roof installed or some other change made which would justify the rent being reconsidered.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I hope I can give the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the assurance he is seeking. It is the view of the Government that this and similar proposals are unnecessary in the context of the Bill because a change in the national level of prices or rental values could not be a change of circumstances which might lead to the determination of a new fair rent under Clause 58 or of a rent under Clause 66. Clause 59 is designed to take account of such things as national changes in rental values and price levels, and although under Clause 59 the periodic review will normally be a triennial one, subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to shorten the period between reviews. Clause 59 therefore adequately copes with the situation in which fair rents generally become out of date less than three years after they were last determined. I hope that this information meets the points which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whose remarks meet the points I put and go further by covering the points
374
I had in mind in relation to Amendment No. 92A, to which I would have referred had I been awake, so to speak. As the noble Baroness referred to Clause 66, there will be no need for me at a later stage to return to the subject of the Amendments which appear in the name of the Opposition to that clause. I am grateful to her for clarifying the position and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 30, leave out from ("provisional") to end of line 32.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 12, at end insert—
(" ( ) The authority shall notify the tenant of a dwelling in writing of any rent which has been assessed or determined for his dwelling under subsection (3), (4) or (6) above ").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Increases towards fair rents]:
4.6 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 64, line 16, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where the Secretary of State has considered an increase under the preceding subsection he shall give his reasons for either issuing or not issuing a direction to the authority.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this represents a request which I am sure the Government will accept in practice. I hope that the Government spokesman will be good enough to confirm this, for I always feel that not only is it right to have confirmation that the practice will be the normal and reasonable one of giving the reasons for what one is doing, but in view of the circumstances surrounding Part VI of the Bill and indeed of the whole Bill, it would be right for the Secretary of State to make clear his views for either issuing or not issuing a direction. This is a matter about which there is considerable interest and it is therefore right that

375
adequate publicity should be given to what is being done. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for moving this Amendment with clarity and brevity, and although I am able to give the assurance for which he asked—he asked if we accepted this in practice and at least I can give him that assurance in principle—I must say a few words to make certain that we are in agreement on this, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able equally to accept in principle what I have to say.
The Amendment covers two circumstances: first, where a direction is issued and, second, where one is not issued. If a direction is issued in accordance with the authority's own estimate, the authority will not want to know what are the reasons for the Secretary of State agreeing with them. Noble Lords will observe that in the two cases where the Secretary of State has agreed with the local authority about the direction which he would be willing to issue after the Bill comes into operation, he has specifically said that he does not necessarily agree with all their estimates. There have been another four indications—
LORD DIAMOND: Another four?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. Four further indications have since been given. I understand that the local authorities concerned have not taken exception to this. In none of the cases so far has the Secretary of State said that he will not issue a direction, but if he did not then he would, as a matter of courtesy, give his reasons. There then remains the third set of circumstances, where the Secretary of State issues a direction for a lesser amount to apply than is provided in the Bill, but for a different amount from that which the authority had estimated would be required, as he has indicated he will do in the case of Birmingham. In that case he has given the reasons.
It is clear from what I have said that where the Secretary of State issues directions there will be cases where the authority would wish to know the reasons for issuing them—that is, when the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a lesser amount but disagrees with the auth-
376
ority about the amount. There will also be cases where the authority will be content simply to have a direction agreeing with them about the amount. It follows that the Amendment is neither necessary nor appropriate. Nor do we believe that any Amendment is necessary because, as I explained in Committee, the Secretary of State would naturally give the reasons as a matter of ordinary courtesy wherever appropriate, and in particular where he disagreed as to the amount of or need for a direction. It has not been thought necessary in the past to place such an express duty on Ministers in this kind of situation and it does not seem to be appropriate now. But what the noble Lord has been concerned about so far is not the directions themselves but the way in which the Secretary of State will be exercising his powers. This has already been shown by the indications that have been given and the noble Lord has expressed satisfaction that these have been made public. It has also to be borne in mind that an authority in asking for a direction will not necessarily make an estimate of what it considers the amount should be; it may simply supply the data on which the Secretary of State may reach a conclusion, and in that case it would be expected that the Secretary of State would give reasons for his decision.
As I pointed out in Committee, Section 10 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1968 and Section 3 of the Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969, did not place a duty on the Minister to give reasons for his decisions on a local authority's proposals to increase rents. Yet in every case the Minister gave reasons where he did not approve an authority's proposals. Where he did approve them, the authority was content to assume that the reason for the decision was that the Minister accepted the reasons put forward by the authority in support of their proposals. It is the intention, in relation to the use of the power in subsection (4) to give reasons where a direction is of an amount significantly different from that proposed by the authority, but not necessarily to give any reasons where it is for the same amount, as the authority would not expect a list of reasons in such a situation. I hope that clarifies the intentions of the Government and I hope that it will meet the noble Lord's wishes.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I can certainly say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I think I can add that he should be grateful to me for giving him the opportunity of making a very carefully considered statement which will be read by all the local authorities concerned and that they will know where they stand in relation to these directions. It has been beneficial all round. I recognise that there are circumstances in which the Amendment goes perhaps a little too far and the noble Lord has made that all perfectly clear. We have been greatly helped in the meantime by the publication of the letters to Birmingham, and others, and we now see the way in which the Minister's mind is working and the kind of indication he will give. I would not say that in all cases the Minister has gone to enormous lengths to explain his own arithmetic, but I recognise that what is being done is not anticipating a fair rent but indicating what should be the immediate scale of progression towards a fair rent and that therefore precise arithmetic is not necessarily called for. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord and seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 [Increase towards fair rents before 1973–74]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 91B is a drafting Amendment to make clear the relationship of subsection (6) with subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 34, after ("1972–73") insert ("under subsection (2) above").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 66, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) above the termination of any such rebates from rent, or waivers of rent, as are referred to in subsection (8)above shall not be regarded as giving rise to increases of rent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment makes it expressly clear that, although the granting of rebates from rent or waivers of rent that are unrelated to the particular personal or domestic cir-
378
cumstances of the tenants count as decreases of rent for the purposes of subsection (5), the restoration of the original rent after any week when such rebates or waivers are granted will not count as a general increase in rent. Thus if an authority with an average rent of £3 granted a rent-free week, unconnected with reasons of administrative convenience, on March 27, 1972, there would be a decrease in rent from £3 to nil on that date, but when the rent went back to £3 again on April 3, 1972, this would not count as a general rent increase and would not affect the timing or amount of any increase towards fair rents in the year 1972–73 by the authority. I hope that explains the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Variations of rent apart from annual increases towards fair rents]:
4.16 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 70, line 23, leave out second ("a") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is generally this kind of Amendment which sets the roof off, but this is not one such. Subsection (5) at the moment reads:
" In determining a rent no account shall be taken of a tenant's means or resources."
We have already established that the general level of wages in the area is something to which attention can be paid and something which can be taken into account although it is by no means the most important element in the consideration of these matters. Therefore, this subsection clearly has to be read as not preventing that consideration and a tenant's means or resources should not therefore be read to mean his wages as indicating the general level of wages. Therefore it would be making what is not unclear even more clear if we had the definite article, so that "the tenant's means or resources" could make it absolutely clear that we are talking about that particular tenant and his particular wages. Even without this point, I should have thought it would not hurt to put in "the" instead of "a" because the Government are always making the point that in their philosophy particular individual circumstances are not to be taken into account.

379
It would make it even more clear if we said, "the tenant's means or resources". I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is the kind of Amendment which one can either say right away that one accepts or one has to scratch one's head a great deal to know why there was a difference from the normal expression throughout the page. After a good deal of head-scratching, the reason was remembered and that was that the house might not have a tenant at all and therefore, the word "the" tenant would not be appropriate. If the noble Lord looks at the previous subsection he will see that it is not only the rent under the previous tenancy but the rent of a dwelling not previously let that is dealt with. If it has not been previously let there has not been a tenant at all and that is why the indefinite rather than the definite article has been used. I shall certainly bear in mind and study what the noble Lord has said, but that is how I am at present advised. I am sorry not to be able to accept what seems so simple an Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, when one is challenged as to the difference between "a" and "the", one needs at least an hour to explain one's case fully, but as we lost an hour at the start of Business I think it would be easier if I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [The basic residual subsidy]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 93. This Amendment and Amendment No. 94 are consequential Amendments on hostels.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 9, leave out from ("is") to end of line 10.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.19 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 77, line 11, after ("multiplying") insert ("not more than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion about the withdrawal factor in the case of the local authorities the day before yesterday, July 11, when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, explained to your Lordships that in consequence of the Government's agreement to the representations from local authorities that their rent should be increased by some amount less than the £1 a week originally provided in the Bill, that the withdrawal factor of £20 originally mentioned was no longer appropriate. He suggested a figure of £10 and at that time I suggested it would have been better to substitute a variable figure. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, agreed with me. I think, but he said that obviously one could not have anticipated what the Government were going to do at the weekend, or that the amounts which were agreed in substitution of the £1 would have varied by as wide an amount as 35p to 75p; and last night we had another case mentioned of the Fulwood Council in Lancashire where the Government have agreed to accept a 40p average increase in rent as opposed to £1.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. I meant at an earlier stage to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who indicated that there had been four more such letters, to indicate the range of amounts involved. I forgot to ask, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would ask for that information.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I think it would be extremely useful to have that on the record because the only one announced yesterday was the one at Fulwood in Lancashire, so presumably there are three more at the end of the pipeline that could be divulged to the House now. It would be useful to know what range of variations have been agreed so far.
The point I was making is that instead of having a constant withdrawal factor of £20, or even a constant withdrawal factor of £10 in substitution therefor, we could have had a variable withdrawal factor which would have depended on the agreement by the Government to some lesser amount than £1 being substituted for a rent increase of that amount. What I

381
have to say in the case of the housing associations follows very closely on that argument, because here we have a withdrawal factor roughly analogous to that operating in the case of local authority dwellings. It is not as big an amount as in the year 1972–73, on which I have chosen to focus the argument, for the simple reason that whereas the local authority increases come into operation on October 1, in the case of housing associations the operative date is January 1, 1973, so that whereas the local authority which increases its rents by £1 a week on October 1 would receive another £26 per dwelling, as compared with a withdrawal factor of £20, the housing associations, which would normally increase their rents by 75p on January 1, only receive that increase for 13 weeks, making an addition to their rent income of £9·75p per dwelling in the current financial year. That £9·75p then has to be compared with a £5 withdrawal factor in the case of the housing associations, in the same way that the increase of £26 rent income in the case of the local authority has to be compared with the £20 withdrawal factor we were discussing a couple of days ago.
There is another difference between local authorities and housing associations, as far as I can see, and perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. Whereas he was arguing on the first day of our Report stage that the local authorities would be compensated to the extent that they did not increase their rent income by an amount sufficient to cover the withdrawal factor by reason of the transitional subsidy in the following clause, there is no such equivalent provision in the case of the housing associations; they do not benefit from any analogous subsidy to the transition subsidy which operates for the local authority so that they are in a relatively disadvantageous situation. One should not merely consider the relationship of the increased rent per dwelling and the withdrawal factor and say because the withdrawal factor is less in the case of housing associations than in the case of local authorties they must be all right.
The other factor that I would urge on the noble Lord is that housing associations do not work on the basis of a number of accounts between which amounts can be transferred. They do not have a general rate fund from which amounts
382
can be transferred to the Housing Revenue Account. They are doing nothing but provide housing for their tenants, and if there is a deficit on the account it cannot be made up from another source. I want to suppose for the sake of this argument that the housing association is not able to put up its rents by 75p because it is already approaching fair rent level, and it is reasonable to assume if there are 19 local authorities where more than 2 per cent. of the tenants would be exceeding the fair rent level if they had to pay this £1 a week, similarly in the case of the housing associations it is conceivable if you ask them to pay a 75p increase on January 1 more than 2 per cent. of them would be above fair rent level. Under Clause 84 if the increase required to bring the rent up to fair rent level is less than 75p the increase which is to be imposed on the tenants on January 1 is that lesser amount required to bring them up to the fair rent level. It is only where the present rents are more than 75p below fair rent level that this amount is to be imposed on them.
The arithmetic the noble Lord was good enough to send us in his letter of July 5 is this. I am sorry I have to refer to this letter which not all your Lordships have, but since the noble Lord has given me some figures I think it would be convenient to follow through his example. May I say en passant that where such figures as these are given it would be for the greater convenience of the House if they were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because the only noble Lords who have access to these figures, apart from myself, are the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who took part in the previous debate. It may be that a few of the remarks I have to make will seem a little incomprehensible to the rest of your Lordships who have not got this letter. The noble Lord has made certain assumptions in this hypothetical example of what is going to happen to housing associations. Some of these are rather important. He takes a housing association which at the moment has 22 dwellings, and for the year 1971–72 it receives £150 each in subsidy for these dwellings under the 1967 Act, making £3,300 in total subsidy for the financial year recently ended. The noble Lord also assumes that the average

383
rents for these dwellings is £3·50p a week, which yields an annual rental income of £4,004. The total income of the housing association for that year is £7,304. Then he says let the total expenditure including loan charges, maintenance and management equal £300 per annum per dwelling for the 22 houses, making £6,600, and he shows a profit on the year 1971–72 of £704.
Here is the first comment I want to make to the noble Lord. Generally speaking, according to the experts I have consulted, housing associations work on very narrow margins, and it would be most improbable to find a housing association making a profit of £704 on 22 dwellings. It is much more likely that they would he £20 or £30 in the red or £20 or £30 in the black. So that it is an improbable assumption that he has made for a start. Let us go on to 1972–73 and see what happens. In place of the 1967 Act subsidies, the housing association receives basic residual subsidy amounting to £3,190, a drop of £110 on its subsidy income for the previous year. Then, he says, let us assume that all the 22 dwellings qualify for the 75p increase, so that the rental income goes up to £4,219, an increase of £105 during the financial year.
The next improbable assumption he makes is that the expenditure—the maintenance charges and so on—remains constant between the years 1971–72 and 1972–73. I must ask the noble Lord: is he seriously pretending that management, maintenance and so on, have remained static for the whole of the past year? If that is the case, it is about the only thing that has remained static during a period of rapid inflation when prices, I am told, have increased by something like 10 per cent. The wages of employees who have to maintain these buildings and the salaries of those engaged in the management of housing association dwellings will all have gone up by something like 10 per cent. Therefore, in place of the figure of £6,600 which the Minister has given in his example I would suggest that one substitutes £7,260. If one does this, the housing association, instead of making a surplus as he claims, is in serious deficit for the year 1972–73. If it has not been in the black the previous year, which I suggest is the normal situation, it will
384
have no resources whatever to meet this deficit and it will go bankrupt. Therefore I am suggesting in the Amendment that, instead of having a hard and fast figure of £5 for the withdrawal factor, as we have in the Bill, he should at least take the power to make this figure more flexible.
I think he has a greater knowledge of the relationship between the housing associations' fair rent and the total expenditure which they will incur in the current year. If I had had the time, I should not have limited myself to 1972–73; I should have enlarged the Amendment to consider the situation which will occur in the year 1973–74, when the withdrawal factor is increased to £20. Of course, if the increase of 75p per dwelling has been effective for all houses owned by the associations it would be operative for the whole of the financial year, instead of for the three months from January 1, which occurs in this one instance only. I think it would have been valuable to do some arithmetic for the years ahead. I have tried to make the example as simple as possible and only to establish the principle, but I hope that it has commended itself to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
As I have been arguing, since we have little knowledge of what is going to happen in the housing association field, we have no representations of the kind referred to in the local authority sector, where capital valuations have been done by directors of housing, by treasurers, and by the Government, have some idea what fair rents will be. I suggest that at the moment we have no knowledge of this kind in the housing association field, and therefore we ought to confer on the Government the flexibility that would be achieved by replacing this figure of £5 withdrawal factor with such amount as the Secretary of State may determine, subject to the approval of both Houses. In doing that I have been very careful, as my noble friend Lord Diamond always is, to consider the effects on the public purse. I am not suggesting that one should bring the figure of £5 down to some lesser amount and thereby place an additional burden on the Exchequer without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I feel that the noble Lord will agree that this is reasonable. If he did decide to spend more money in

385
this way, the 15 housing associations would meet the deficit which they might incur in the current year. It is only just and proper that this House and another place should have a say in the matter before it goes through. I hope that I have explained the situation of the housing associations in sufficient detail to enable the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to get the point I am driving at, and that he will accept that it will be a valuable way of assisting the housing associations to meet what otherwise might be a difficult situation in the current year.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, fortunately your Lordships' Rules of Order are so flexible that I can respond at this point to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and answer, while we are discussing Clause 72, something relevant to Clause 62(4). The answer to the question I was asked is that further indications have been given by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the steps that authorities might be directed to make, when this legislation is in force, in their first step of progression towards fair rents. In the case of the London Borough of Bromley it is 95p; Seaton Valley, 80p; Seaham, County Durham 60p; Fulwood Urban District Council 40p.
I now turn to the Amendment and it might be convenient (I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if he has already made this suggestion) that we might consider Amendments Nos. 95, 98 and 100 together. I am grateful to him for setting out his intentions in this matter so fully. I agree that what he has proposed is desirable and necessary in the case of housing associations. But his Amendment, I believe, is not necessary, because the flexibility which he rightly says is desirable is in fact provided for in Clause 74(1) at lines 22, 23 and 24, where power is given to the Secretary of State to make a direction allowing the rate of withdrawal to be modified and adjusted, in the way the noble Lord has suggested, after representations have been made to him by a particular housing association and he is satisfied that the income from dwellings and hostels will be inadequate for their purposes. I fully realise the point the noble Lord was seeking to make. It is met in a simple and straightforward way.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the narrow margins on which housing associations operate. This is particularly true of the majority of their dwellings within the last five to seven years. I think it is just worth emphasising again the point the noble Lord made about their not having a rate fund to subsidise housing operations. Again, he put his finger very much on an important point when he mentioned the rapidly rising maintenance costs. Having said all that, I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford point out that the Secretary of State has a reserve power to deal with any difficulties arising out of the withdrawal of subsidies in the case of a housing association. There was a further point mentioned by Lord Avebury, about the addition of 75p per week to rents. So far as I can see, that is covered by Clause 84 which, as I read it, makes certain that the increased rent will not in any case exceed a fair rent. So I, for one, am satisfied on these points.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It would perhaps serve to increase the assurances I gave if I added that the National Federation of Housing Societies is also satisfied.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and for telling the House that the point I have made is fully met by Clause 74(1). In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 96, which is consequential on Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 12, leave out from ("under") to end of line 17 and insert (" subsection (7) above ").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 19, leave out from ("is") to end of line—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 21, leave out from ("under") to end of line 25 and insert (" subsection (7) above ").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 100A:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:
Operational deficit subsidy

"—(1) This section has effect as to the circumstances in which operational deficit subsidy is payable to a housing association.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, a housing association shall be entitled to operational deficit subsidy if for the year 1972–73 the housing association sustain an operational deficit.

(3) For the purposes of this section a housing association sustains an operational deficit if its reckonable expenditure for the year 1972–73 exceeds its income from all sources in that year, and the operational deficit shall be equal to 100 per cent. of the excess.

(4) For the purposes of this section reckonable expenditure means so much of the expenditure debited to the housing association's revenue and expenditure account as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine as being reasonable and appropriate having regard to all the circumstances."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the point raised in Amendment No. 100A is also covered by the provisions of Clause 74(1) to which the noble Lord has already referred us. However, the local authorities of course benefit from the operational deficit subsidy, and I thought that it was only fair that the same kind of provision should be available to housing associations if they got into difficulties. It seemed to me that it was even more necessary in the case of housing associations for the reason that I mentioned on the last Amendment, that they do not have other resources to fall back on, such as the general rate fund, which can be used to top up the Housing Revenue Account if it goes into deficit. Therefore, I have suggested a provision in this new clause which is very similar to, and in fact the wording is taken from, the operational deficit subsidy as it applies to local authorities, with of course such modifications as were necessary to fit these slightly
388
different circumstances. It seems to me that over the next few years it is going to be very difficult to predict what will happen to housing association finances as a result of the coming into force of a completely different system of subsidies, and that it would be only fair if, in the Bill, we had some provision to take into account unforeseen contingencies which would get these associations perhaps into financial difficulties through no fault of their own, but merely through the difference in benefit which they would obtain from the new subsidy system as compared with the old.
Very simply, what the new clause does is to confer on the housing associations a subsidy which is equal to the difference between their reckonable expenditure (that is, the expenditure on their accounts which is approved by the Secretary of State as justifiable), and the total amount of the income which they have received from all sources—that is to say, their rents and the subsidies payable under the Bill. If there is a negative difference between these two, the amount would be made up in the form of operational deficit subsidy, so that they could not make a loss and go out of business.
Since the Government believe that housing associations have an important contribution to make towards the total needs which have been identified—and I entirely endorse that conclusion; I believe that many housing associations are doing extremely valuable work—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would be as concerned as I would be to see any housing association going out of business as a result of losses incurred by the changeover in subsidies. Therefore, if this point has not already been met in another place in the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will accept this new clause.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, once again I can certainly accept what the noble Lord wishes and intends and rightly thinks should be done, but I would once again confirm that the discretion given to the Secretary of State in Clause 74 does enable him to produce the same effect by arrangements which, in all the different circumstances of the housing associations, are simpler and more appropriate for them, but do achieve what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [The special residual subsidy]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 101, and speak to Amendments Nos. 102 to 106, all of which are concerned with hostels and are consequential on Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 31, leave out from first ("for") to ("completed") in line 32 and insert ("dwellings (in this section called "relevant dwellings") which—

(a) were approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Part I of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 before the coming into force of this Act, and

(b) were ").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 102.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 34, leave out subsection (3).—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 7, leave out ("works") and insert ("dwellings").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 104.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 15, leave out from ("those") to ("had") in line 16 and insert ("dwellings under Part I of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 if the said Part. I").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 5, leave out subsection (9).—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Residual subsidies—supplemental]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 106.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 16, leave out ("and hostels").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [The new building subsidy]:
4.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 81, line 11, leave out ("is attributable to the scheme, and includes") and insert ("in the opinion of the Secretary of State is attributable to the scheme and reasonable and appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, and, without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, may include").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 107. This is little more than a drafting Amendment to relate more closely to subsection (7) the definition in subsection (5)(c) of reckonable expenditure for the purpose of calculating the initial deficit on a scheme on which new building subsidy will be based. The Amendment makes it expressly clear that the Secretary of State has power to apply the same kind of limitations to a housing association's reckonable expenditure as will apply to a local authority's reckonable expenditure under Part I. The National Federation of Housing Societies accepts this provision. The Secretary of State is required by subsection (11) to consult with the bodies representing housing associations before giving a general direction under subsection (7) as to the method of estimating reckonable expenditure.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the Minister is to be congratulated on listening to the case made to him, and he has moved an Amendment to this Bill which is acceptable to the National Federation of Housing Societies. The fact that the Secretary of State is required under subsection (11) to consult with the bodies representing housing associations is, of course, sensible and welcome. For this reason, I am glad that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Extension to all housing associations of Housing Corporation's power to make loans and extension of power to make loans to Corporation]:
4.51 p.m.
LORD SANDIFORD LORD SANDIFORD moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 84, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In subsections (1) and (5) of section 2 of the Housing Act 1964 (power of Housing Corporation to make loans to housing societies) and in section 8 of that Act (building society advances to housing societies to which the Corporation has made loans) every reference to a housing society shall include a reference to a housing association (within the meaning of section 12 of that Act) which is not a housing society.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. This Amendment is designed to enable building societies, in conjunction with the Housing Corporation, to lend money to housing associations which are not also housing societies as defined in the Housing Act 1964, without their lending in this field forming part of their quotas of special advances. The intention to put down this Amendment was stated by me during the Committee stage on June 27. In connection with it I offered to write, and I did write at very great length and in enormous detail to the noble Lords, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Avebury, and invited them to raise any issues which were causing concern or doubt. Neither of them has indicated that he wishes to pursue the matter; so, on the assumption that that letter has dealt with the issue satisfactorily, I suggest that I do no more than move this Amendment. On the other hand, I have another two and a half pages of closely typed foolscap to read, which would elaborate this point if any noble Lord wishes me to do so. Noble Lords will probably prefer that I move the Amendment without further ado. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his courtesy in responding in such detail to the point that I made during the Committee stage. He is quite right in saying that his letter to me was both long and detailed; in fact, I am almost completely blinded with
392
science. Nevertheless, the important point is that during the Committee stage we drew the Government's attention to a flaw in the existing arrangements, and Amendment No. 108 goes a substantial way towards meeting the problems which I mentioned.
This is of course a most valuable letter and it gives a substantial amount of information about the Government's proposals. I am not quite certain what should be the mechanism to inform housing associations and building societies about the contents of the noble Lord's letter, which is almost a policy statement in itself. Presumably, it can be circulated in one form or another. While thanking the noble Lord for the consideration which he has given to the point I raised, I should be grateful if he would let the House know how the information in the letter will be circulated to those people who will be interested in his proposals.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Amendment which opens a new source of finance to housing associations. It may be particularly valuable in that rather limited number of cases where some local authorities are still not willing to lend to housing associations, or in the rather more frequent cases where they are willing to lend but not to use their powers to the maximum; that is, not to lend 100 per cent. and so on. While I am on my feet, I should like to thank the Government once again for the very many detailed improvements which have emerged from consultations ever since these matters were first put forward in the form of a White Paper.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, so far as I am concerned the letter was most helpful and I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said. It seems to me that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has moved is a valuable one, but I endorse the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that the thorough explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been good enough to send to us should be made available to a wider audience. I suggest, with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that one way of making it available is to send a copy to the National Federation informing them that they can

393
make whatever use of it they see fit, leaving it to them to copy the letter for those housing associations which will need the information. Certainly, I should be very happy if the noble Lord agreed to do that, and I am convinced that it will be to the benefit of housing associations to have the full information which we have been given.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, as one who has not had many good words to say about this Bill in general, may I be allowed this afternoon to change key very sharply and thank the Government for this Amendment? Anything which makes the path and the work of housing associations and housing societies easier, and which gives them access to more sources of funds to finance their activities, is very much to be welcomed and will, I am sure, result in the provision of more houses in this voluntary sector which is becoming increasingly important. I should like my thanks to the Government for acceding to this request to be added to those already expressed.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, for the welcome they have given to this Amendment and for being content with a short debate instead of a rather lengthy and involved one. Noble Lords are perfectly right, and it is important, that the policy elements in that long letter should now be published to a wider audience. We shall indeed tell the National Federation, and we also have it in mind to send a circular to the housing associations.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Power to increase rateable value limits for Rent Act 1968]:
4.57 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 96, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(" (b) as the relevant amounts for dwelling-houses elsewhere, such sums exceeding £200 as are so specified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment merely substitutes the plural for the singular in the provision dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State to increase rateable value limits for the purposes of the Rent Act 1968. During the Committee stage, we had a full dis-
394
cussion on this matter and the Government's proposals were made clear. They went on to tell us what was in their minds; namely, broadly to maintain the status quo with regard to existing houses being protected and new houses of a similar character being similarly divided between protected and unprotected.
That is not the point to which this Amendment refers. During the course of that earlier discussion, I indicated that that might be a convenient time to give thought to a matter which need not await a general Bill dealing with all of the Francis Committee recommendations; that is, to the problem of whether the division of all properties into two categories only by rateable value is any longer appropriate. The figures of £400 and £200 might have been appropriate in the past, but the figures are getting very much higher now and property values and rateable values are increasing in various parts of the country. Although one does not want to see an administrative nightmare of some highly complicated formula dealing with each locality, I think we are in danger of having oversimplified our administrative arrangements and of creating a certain amount of injustice, rather than rough justice, by continuing with an over-simple division into only two categories.
The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to enable the Government—again, it is purely permissive—to have more than the two categories. I repeat, that as the Bill stands it is provided that the Secretary of State shall have power to alter the rateable value limits, and the order under subsection (1) shall determine:

"(a) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house in Greater London, such sum exceeding £400 as is specified in the order, and

(b) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house elsewhere, such sum exceeding £200 as is so specified ".

By this Amendment, paragraph (b) would now read:
" (b) as the relevant amounts for dwelling-houses elsewhere, such sums exceeding £200 as are so specified ".
This is certainly not a Party issue, nor is it a tremendous issue; but I should have thought that it was convenient for the Government to take power at this stage to look ahead and to be in a position to have more than two categories if at a later date the Secretary of State decided that that was appropriate. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord in the interpretation of his own Amendment; and this is something which I said we would have a look at between the Committee stage and the Report stage. The noble Lord is of course quite right that the factor by which rateable values will increase on April 1, 1973, may vary slightly from area to area, but I think the overriding factor here is the desirability that the rateable value limits should be simple and easily remembered and understood by all concerned. It is a fact that in a half-century of rent legislation the rateable value limits for protection in England and Wales outside London have never varied from one area to another. There has always been a very broad brush painted as regards these limits, as illustrated by the present round figures of £200 outside the London area and £400 within it, set by the Opposition in 1965.
There are arguments, of course, for further refinements, but the Government believe that the arguments against outweigh them very considerably. In exercising this new power, which relates to newly constructed hereditaments first entered in the valuation list on or after April 1, 1973, the intention would be simply to preserve broadly the present field of protection in this interim period. In this context, it is relevant to bear in mind the considerable dangers involved in having a patchwork of different rateable value limits scattered across the country. Protection is such an extremely important matter, and it is certainly of the utmost value here. Any doubts, misunderstandings or mistakes could have very serious consequences, and, frankly, we do not think that in this comparatively short period it is worth risking that. As it is by way of being an interim measure, we think it would be better to stick to the pattern of the past 50 years.
LORD DIAMOND: I understand that point of view, and the noble Lord describes it well when he says it has been the custom to deal with it with a very broad brush. The only point I am making is that the brush grows broader year by year, at all events in nominal terms if not in real terms. I gather from what the noble Lord is saying that, although he does not think he will need to exercise these powers between now and the time the legislation giving effect
396
to the Francis Committee recommendations comes into effect, nevertheless he will consider this in relation to those recommendations; that is, he will consider whether there should be more than two simple divisions at that later stage. That being so, I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 [Information about service charges]:
5.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 98, line 14, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I think it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 108B, 108C and 108D together. These three Amendments are tabled as a result of comments received on Clauses 90 and 91 from the National Association of Property Owners, and I should like to say that the Department is most grateful for their helpful and constructive comments. I think that, for the Record, it would be desirable to say a word about these Amendments. As a start, I would only say that, after studying them, the Government recommend them to your Lordships, and I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Clause 90(5) requires the landlord to comply with the tenant's request for an audited statement not later than one month after the service of the request or four months after the end of the accounting year, whichever is later. The National Association of Property Owners take the view that in some cases it would not be always possible to rely on the accounts being completed by the four months after the end of the accounting year. The Department, for its part, has seen typical leases in which a service charge is not required to be notified to the leaseholder until six months after the end of the relevant accounting year. In these circumstances, if your Lordships will agree, the Government are prepared to accept that the landlord should be given six months instead of four months to produce the statement before he becomes liable to prosecution under subsection (10). That seems a reasonable proposition on the part of the property owners.
Secondly, the National Association of Property Owners pointed out that, in the case of a subtenancy, where the subtenant's immediate landlord has to serve a request on the superior landlord under subsection (6), he clearly cannot comply with the request within the time limit mentioned in subsection (5) if the whole of that time is used up by the superior landlord in getting the statement to the immediate landlord. In those circumstances, the Amendment to line 22 of page 98 allows the immediate landlord such further time as is reasonable in order to carry out his own obligations, which clearly he cannot do until the superior landlord has carried out his obligations. I have ventured to go into a little detail here, my Lords, because this information has given rise to quite a large amount of interest, and I thought I ought to explain this in some detail. I beg to move Amendment No. 108B.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think this is entirely sensible. The word "prosecution" was used, and what is two months if there is a risk that, because of inability to get accurate accounts at a time in our life when accountants are extremely busy, someone should be under threat of prosecution for a delay which is one that could be covered by the additional two months given to the landlord? I am certain that this is a sensible Amendment and should be supported.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108C.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 19, after ("incurred") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108D.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 22, at end insert—
("and
(b) it shall be the duty of the landlord (that is to say the immediate landlord) to comply with the tenant's request, or the part of the request relating to the relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of the superior landlord, within the time allowed by subsection (5) above or within such further time, if any, as is reasonable in the circumstances.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Hostel Subsidy]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 109 with which we could take Amendment No. 110 as both are consequential upon Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 10, leave out ("dwellings") and insert ("premises").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 110.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) No amount shall be payable under this section in respect of any premises approved for the purposes of section 15(1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 (which relates to hostels and is repealed by this Act), or provided or converted under arrangements entered into before the coming into force of this Act under or by virtue of section 120 of the Housing Act 1957 or section 9 of the Housing Act 1961.").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Financial assistance towards tenants' removal expenses]:
5.11 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 102, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order apply the provisions of subsection (1) to a tenant or an owner of a dwelling which lies within a clearance area or an area designated by the authority for compulsory purchase by that authority whether confirmed or not.")
The noble Lord said: During the Committee stage we discussed subsection (2) of Clause 93 which is a very useful addition to existing housing legislation. It enables expenses to be paid to a tenant or an owner of property when they move to another dwelling within the area of the same authority. During the Committee stage I moved an Amendment which would permit these useful provisions to be extended to a tenant or the owner of a dwelling who might be subjected to a slum clearance order or whose property might be in a slum clearance area or an area designated by the authority for compulsory purchase. I explained that a person in such an area, if he waited until the compulsory purchase was made, would have all the expense

399
involved returned to him. On the other hand, if he moved voluntarily before compulsory purchase, recognising that eventually he would have to move, then the opportunity to recoup his expenses would not be available to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, as is customary, was more forthcoming in the second part of her speech on that occasion. She indicated that the Government recognised the merits of my Amendment but were not yet ready to accede to our suggestion because the matter was being considered by the Urban Motorways Committee. I do not know when that Committee is likely to report but it may well be that the report will come well before the next major housing legislation. Therefore the purpose of this Amendment is not to make it mandatory that these provisions should apply but that it would be permissive; that the Secretary of State might bring about the provisions by an Order.
This Amendment is similar to one that I moved in relation to furnished tenancies which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, undertook to consider. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can go further to-day and accept this Amendment which gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to provide what I think constitutes very useful assistance to owners or tenants. If she is not, perhaps she might say whether between now and Third Reading she would consider the matter in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, undertook to consider the matter relating to furnished tenancies, without giving any assurance about the result of such consideration.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, during the Committee stage we had a long discussion on this point, which the Government recognise is a real and important one: the question of compensation to owners or tenants affected by compulsory purchase orders or clearance orders. However, I am advised that at this stage it would not be appropriate to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. The matter has been considered very carefully during the intervening period and I can only reiterate what I said in Committee, that the Department is currently engaged on a comprehensive review of the compensation code and included in it is an examination
400
of the problems facing owner-occupiers and private tenants who are displaced by public acquisition.
It is difficult to add anything further, except to say that as soon as this work is completed a White Paper will be published and will be followed by legislation. I should like to repeat my assurance that the Government take this matter very seriously and are considering it, but I am further advised that this Amendment does not cover the same point as the Amendment which my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, has undertaken to look at.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, says that the Government do not think it is appropriate. What does she mean by "appropriate"? This is a most reasonable Amendment and no one could object to it. To use the word "appropriate" simply because the Government are going to have a comprehensive review is not good enough.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not understand the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It seems to me that the Government are being asked only to take powers to do something by Order; not that immediately the Bill becomes an Act they should pay the removal expenses of anyone involved in a clearance scheme. But, following the consultations, about which the noble Baroness has told the House, it might be that as a result of the majority recommendation of this Committee she, or her noble friend, would need to introduce fresh legislation in order to accomplish that object. With the Government's Parliamentary timetable as clogged up as it is, I should have thought that the noble Baroness would have welcomed an opportunity to avoid subsequent legislation. Why not have it on the Statute Book ready for introduction when the Committee has reported and the Government have accepted its deliberations? I cannot understand why she does not take this opportunity.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if one reads the complete Amendment, one realises that it is not just asking that there should be compensation for a tenant or an owner of a dwelling in an agreed clearance area; it refers also to property in an area which is to be designated as a clearance area. That, of course, opens

401
up a whole range of possibilities. I can only say that I have been advised that at this stage it would not be appropriate to accept the Amendment because it would open up the possibility of further legislation on matters still being discussed. When the Committee has reported there will be legislation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that I had better address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is in charge of this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said on two occasions that in the view of the Government it would not be appropriate to accept the Amendment. When she was asked what was the reason, she said, "I have been advised". The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is an experienced Minister and he knows that such a reply is completely and utterly unsatisfactory either to the House of Commons or to the House of Lords. When a question is put to a Minister who is defending a position one expects to receive a reply. It is completely and utterly inadequate—in fact it is to treat Parliament with contempt—when the basis of the Government's case is that the Minister has been advised. It may be that the noble Lady has been advised. It is for her to decide whether her advice was adequate.
I should have thought that since this is not a matter of high national security the House could be given the reason for the rejection of what is meant to be a helpful Amendment which in no way commits the Secretary of State to any course of action but merely makes it possible for him to act without further legislation if he thinks he ought to act in the light of an inquiry which he himself has set up. The Amendment stands on its own merits, and I do not believe the House can accept the response of the noble Baroness. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is in charge of the Bill, to intervene. Clearly, the noble Baroness has not gone any further since the Committee stage. She has not offered to reconsider the Amendment, as I asked. The difficulty is that, since this is the Report stage, one is rather limited. If Ministers are not forthcoming, it places those who are responsible for examining legislation in a very difficult position. However I do not want to pursue the matter. I am not in any way being critical
402
of the noble Baroness. She has tackled a very difficult Bill extremely well. Is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in a position to tell your Lordships' House why this advice was given? If not, will he undertake to have the matter reconsidered, as he did in connection with a previous Amendment under which I sought to obtain the same permissive powers for the Secretary of State in relation to tenancies?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is it not contrary to the practice of both Houses for Government spokesmen to say that they have been "advised" on matters of policy, as opposed to matters of fact? It is perfectly legitimate to make such a remark in relation to a matter of fact, but wholly improper in relation to a matter of policy.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think that is so. It is for Ministers to defend their own positions and not to lean on the advice they receive from their officials; but I did not want to pursue that matter. One understands the noble Baroness's difficulties in relation to this Bill, and that is why I am inviting the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to intervene. If he cannot do so, will he please undertake to reconsider this Amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree fully that the Amendment is intended to be helpful. I would not dispute that for one instant. Of course my noble friend is not a Minister in the Department of the Environment, and so the words she used are probably acceptable. In any case, I hope the noble Lord will not hold them against her—
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —or against the Government. The noble Lord is asking us to take power to do something while policy is being considered; in other words, at a time when we do not know whether it would fit into the legislation. I think your Lordships will agree that it would be very unusual indeed to take power in such circumstances.
My noble friend has made it clear that the area into which we are being asked to go is rather nebulous. It is not one in which houses have actually been acquired for clearance. The noble Lord is talking about designation. I doubt

403
whether it would be desirable in those circumstances to take order-making power. Under existing legislation, where dwellings are acquired or demolished, owner-occupiers may be entitled to compensation for disturbance. That includes removal and other expenses, as well as legal expenses in connection with the purchase of other dwellings. In the case of tenants displaced either as a result of slum clearance or of the exercise of planning powers, local authorities already have power to pay removal expenses—for example under Section 63 of the Housing Act 1957, and Section 130(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. So at any rate some of the cases dealt with in the Amendment are already covered by legislation. Whether other cases could or should be covered at the present time is another matter. This new provision goes quite a long way in the payment of expenses—beyond the purpose of the clause as it now stands—so I do not think we ought 10 extend it. I hope I have
said enough to show that there are good reasons for the advice given to my noble friend and that the noble Lord opposite will not press his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I refer the noble Lord once again to the Amendment? It is not, as he said, nebulous. It refers to the application of certain provisions to the owner or tenant of a dwelling lying,
" within a clearance area or an area designated by the authority for compulsory purchase by that authority whether confirmed or not."
It is clearly a designated slum clearance area. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord is still unwilling to reconsider this matter as he most generously did on a previous occasion, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.28 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 111) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Royle, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Samuel, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Walston, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Alport, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lothian, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Elles, Bs.

Luke, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mansfield, E.

Balfour, E.

Ferrier, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Milverton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, V.

Grenfell, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Reay, L.

Camoys, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reigate, L.

Colyton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Denvent, L.

Killearn, L.

Strange, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Terrington, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Young, Bs.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 95 [Default by local authority]:
5.35 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 106, line 11, at end insert—
(" ( ) A Housing Commissioner appointed under subsection (7) above shall, not less than once in each year from the date of his appointment, make a report to the Secretary of State as to the discharge of any functions conferred on him in accordance with the provisions of this section, and the Secretary of State shall forthwith lay a copy of any such report before each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion during the course of the Committee stage on the powers of the Housing Commissioner and the controls that would be exercised over him, which in the opinion of some of us are totally inadequate, bearing in mind the immensity of the tasks that he is called upon to undertake. Perhaps I may read out one sentence from Clause 96. Subsection (1) says:
" A Housing Commissioner shall have power to do all such things as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the performance of the functions he is appointed to discharge, and he may in particular—
(a) do anything which the authority would have power to do in the performance of those functions …"
In other words, he can do not only all the things that the local housing authority is at present undertaking, but he can extend his activities into areas where they may not have ventured hitherto. The particular example that we discussed on the last occasion was the sale of council houses, an important and controversial step. A Housing Commissioner might take a decision in defiance of the wish of the elected representatives who hitherto had served on the housing committee of the local authority. But it may go wider than that. The sale of council houses is only one aspect of the problem.
I put down this Amendment in order to secure that there shall be at least some supervision over the activities of the Housing Commissioner, who otherwise would continue until the end of the term of his office before, under Amendment No. 116 tabled by the Government, (I do
406
not know whether it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 116 along with this Amendment), having to submit a report on the performance of his functions to the local authority which he had replaced.
It is impossible for us to guess how long a Housing Commissioner might remain in his office: it could be one, two or three years, depending on the acceptance or otherwise by the local authority of the duties imposed on them under the Bill. I ought to say that I sincerely hope it will not become necessary for any Housing Commissioner to be appointed; but I think local authorities would be well advised, however much they dislike the provisions of this Bill, to avoid the even worse situation of a Housing Commissioner being appointed, usurping their functions, and leaving their tenants with no elected authority to defend their rights. I think that that point should be strenuously urged on those local authorities which, quite rightly, feel indignant about the provisions of the Bill: that it can only make matters worse for their tenants if they allow this Commissioner—this commissar, as he was called in another place—to come in and usurp their functions. As I say, I hope that no Housing Commissioner will have to be appointed, but since his powers are dealt with in the Bill, we have to make provision for the discharge of his functions and for what happens in the case that he may be appointed for one, two or three years. In the meantime, there is practically no right of redress for the tenant against any decisions that he may make.
In the course of the proceedings in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, said that perhaps the tenants could go to their Members of Parliament and get Questions raised on the Floor of the House relating to the discharge of the functions of the Housing Commissioner.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but it was not the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am looking at column 894 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 27. The noble Lord,

407
Lord Shepherd, was discussing the redress which the tenant might have against decisions of the Housing Commissioner, and the noble Baroness said—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene? I think the noble Lord is placing the noble Baroness in some difficulty. I speak without having the Rules of the House before me, but the noble Baroness is now sitting as Deputy Speaker and I think she would be inhibited from speaking in the place where she is now sitting. I wonder whether the noble Lord might feel, having made his point, that he could leave it there, perhaps out of kindness to the noble Baroness?—because although I know that the noble Baroness is quite capable of looking after herself, she may not be able to do it quite so well from where she is at present sitting.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I was not in any way intending to be critical of the noble Baroness. I was merely remarking as a matter of fact that this was one possibility of redress which the tenant might have against what he considered to be an unjust decision of the Housing Commissioner. I wanted to go a little further than that and make quite certain that Parliament has the right to oversee not only the individual decisions which the Housing Commissioner may have made on particular tenancies but also the totality of the way in which he has discharged his functions in a particular year. The only way of accomplishing that, so far as I can see, would be to require him to lay reports before both Houses of Parliament, so that debate could take place on any decisions of his. I would emphasise that I mean "any decisions", and not just those concerning tenants, bearing in mind that the Housing Commissioner is responsible for any function which the housing authority may or could have discharged: not merely those in relation to tenants but also functions in relation to the placing of contracts with builders, and so on.
All this should come before some elected authority, in the same way as the decisions of the housing manager or of any of his employees could be questioned through the housing committee, had that remained in existence. It is certainly inadequate to have merely an
408
annual review of the functions of the Housing Commissioner, when in the normal situation a tenant, or any other person aggrieved by the decisions of the housing manager, could have brought the matter before the next committee meeting—which would normally be within about six weeks.
Therefore what I am asking for is really very modest: in other words that an annual review should be held of the functions performed by the Housing Commissioner. That is the least that can be asked for. When the Government say that the Housing Commissioner should report only at the conclusion of his period of office—and then to the local authority—I must say that I consider this grossly inadequate. If it is conceivable that the Housing Commissioner may remain in office for a period of years, it is essential to have some intermediate redress or review of what has been happening during his term of office. Moreover, since the Housing Commissioner is an appointee of the Secretary of State and not of the local authority, I think it is to the Secretary of State and not to the local authority that he should make his report. Further, that report, in the serious circumstances of removal of the housing committee and the appointment of this commissar, should be discussed at the highest possible political level; that is, in both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I sincerely hope that a concession will be made in this case. It is a fact of modern living that somehow we are decreasing the powers of Parliament as we increase authority in local areas and elsewhere. Those of us who have seen two world wars will recall the power of billeting officers to billet soldiers upon us during those wars. They had the power to do this, and there was a necessity for it. But here in our national life we seem to be throwing away our sovereignty so far as the Common Market is concerned, and at the same time on the sidelines we seem to be throwing away the sovereignty of Parliament, because it seems that we are not asking these people to make a report until they reach the end of their period of office; and this can mean a period of years. This seems a strange power to give. I do not want to make any cheap cracks about Fuhrers

409
or leaders with powers of dictatorship, and I do not want to repeat at length arguments that have already been made by the noble Lord, because that would simply bore the House. They are there for your Lordships to read. The powers given in Clauses 95 and 96 to a Housing Commissioner over a local authority are powers which have never before been given to anybody in the history of the development of British local government.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one second? The powers have not been given in this country, but they certainly existed in the old British India, because a friend of mine was such a commissioner.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: God forbid that we should take the example of British India! I happen to have swanned around British India in my day as well, and I would never suggest that we should pedal backwards towards the tough kind of basha hut—because that is what the proposed Housing Commissioner is going to be—that I saw in India. All I want to point out is that these steps are foreign to the nature of British democracy. While I could make a long argument, I will not do so, because noble Lords are familiar with our philosophy and concept of democracy. Therefore I would beg the House not to throw away this power of checks. All we are asking is to construct a check—a check which would mean that every 12 months a report should be tabled which an alert Member of Parliament could make use of and ask for accountability. I think the argument is clear to every one of us. Having said that, I think it would be wise to sit down, because even if I spoke for another hour I could not do more than emphasise the point that we are here throwing away accountability and giving a human being too much power over local authorities.
5.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, complains that the step of appointing a Housing Commissioner would be foreign to the traditions of British democracy. So, too, of course would be a local authority which failed to carry out its functions in accordance with the law. One trouble of that kind is likely to meet another trouble. In any case, some means
410
has to be found of solving the first trouble should it arise. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and indeed I am very grateful for what he said when he expressed the hope that no Housing Commissioner will need to be appointed and that local authorities will carry out their functions in accordance with the law. I very much agree with that. But here we are concerned with what happens if a Housing Commissioner is appointed.
The noble Lord has proposed that an annual report should be made from the Housing Commissioner to the Secretary of State and laid before both Houses of Parliament. I think one has to bear constantly in mind, as I said before—and I do not think I can put it in better words—that the Housing Commissioner will merely be stepping into the shoes of the housing authority in so far as the functions of the housing authority are transferred to him. Local authorities are not required to make statutory reports in the exercise of their housing functions to either the Secretary of State or to Parliament. So there is no prima facie reason why a Housing Commissioner, exercising those functions in place of a defaulting authority, should be required to do so either. But there is undoubtedly a case for ensuring that when the housing authority resume the functions conferred on the Commissioner they should receive a report from him on how he discharged those functions. That is why we are proposing in Amendment No. 116 that he should do so.
We hope that should a Housing Commissioner ever be appointed his tenure of that appointment would be brief and that the local authority would be anxious to resume its functions at the earliest possible moment. But should the tenure last for a little time it is not to be supposed that there will be no accountability whatsoever. The Housing Commissioner will be open to all the usual sanctions of a person appointed by the Crown: questions can be asked in Parliament, debates can take place in Parliament, representations can be made by another local authority, or by the same local authority, to the Secretary of State and even by private people. The Housing Commissioner will be working just as much in the open as the local authority is working; he will be working with the same staff

411
and carrying out the same functions. Admittedly, there will not be a council to consider changes in policy, but one has to bear in mind that these functions are conferred upon him because the normal way of working is no longer open. They are conferred on him only so long as the normal way of working is not open. He steps into the shoes of the local authority.
The local authority do not have to make a statutory report to Parliament and we think that the right way to work in these circumstances is the way which I have indicated; namely, that he should give an account to the local authority on how he has conducted his work. One has also to bear in mind that every housing authority is in constant touch with the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Environment will not be entirely ignorant of what is going on. The Housing Commissioner is accountable all the time to the Secretary of State, who has appointed him, and the Secretary of State can be questioned at any time on what the Housing Commissioner is doing.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, it is a strange kind of legislation whereby the Government are appointing people in the hope that they will not be needed. There is something "spooky" about it. The Government also did this in the Industrial Relations Act. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that the Housing Commissioner is stepping into the shoes of the local authority. I used a rather ruder word; I called him a "Gauleiter". I do not think that word is too strong. The local authority are subject to criticism and are subject to being turned out. These are strong measures that we can use against them. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that questions can be asked in Parliament with regard to the Housing Commissioner; but that is very different from removing a local authority council.
5.55 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has rendered considerable service to the House, and also to the Government. I do not think the Government can be too careful. I think I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues—I know it is the attitude of
412
my Party nationally—when I say we hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, that there will be no need to appoint any Housing Commissioners. The advice that has been given to Labour-controlled authorities throughout the country by my right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Crosland is that in the interests of their tenants and ratepayers they should do the best they can with this miserable Bill. To fail, and to allow the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, could be considerably to the detriment of their tenants and ratepayers.
Having said that, may I return to the question of the Government giving further and sympathetic consideration to the spirit of this Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has dismissed it far too lightly. If any Housing Commissioners are appointed we are likely to see, in some instances at any rate, the development of a situation that nobody who cares for democratic Government would desire. I shall come back presently to that, because I am talking about the strain that will be imposed on the loyalty of men and women which nobody at the present time has ever had reason to question. Let us consider the situation if a Housing Commissioner is appointed. So far as the man in the street is concerned, he will have all the powers of the local authority.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, he will have transferred to him such powers as the Secretary of State considers desirable.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: And it is possible for the Secretary of State to confer on him all of the powers enjoyed by the local authorities.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, all of the housing powers.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: All of the housing powers, of course. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong in this. The Housing Commissioner will even be able to use the seal of the local authority. The keys to the seal are held generally by the clerk and the chairman of the local authority and nobody else. The Housing Commissioner is going to have access to the council seal. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking that there should be seen to be some machinery whereby automatically the actions of this individual, if appointed, will be subject to

413
public and democratic scrutiny. It is no use saying that he will work in the same way as the local council. When he goes into committee who is he going to sit with? What will constitute a quorum? How many will he need to establish a majority? He is on his own. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will say that the Secretary of State can call him to account. What is wanted is public accountability.
We ought to try to get the message across that there exists considerable doubt in many parts of the country as to whether reliance can be placed on the Secretary of State to make judgments which will he in the interests of tenants, local authorities and ratepayers, since quite clearly he is no lover of public enterprise in the sense that housing by local authorities has been conducted for so long as a social service. I think it is right that we should say that the Secretary of State, because of his attitude on housing policies generally, and on the attitudes that he has adopted from time to time, has caused many people to feel that the Housing Commissioner, being responsible to him and to him alone, is nothing like good enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wants this matter brought openly before Parliament so that if Housing Commissioners are appointed periodically such reports as they prepare on their work can be submitted to close and critical scrutiny. Even if that happens it will be nothing like the consideration that is given to the development of policy and the administration of housing estates by local authorities. The noble Lord said that he would be working with the same staffs. I had not intended to touch on this aspect but, as I have stated in your Lordships' House, I have an association with the National and Local Government Officers' Association. I had the privilege of attending part of their annual conference at East-bourne. The noble Lord's right honourable friend who went down to speak to them told them that they were a responsible body of people; and he said that the Government liked dealing with responsible people. At the conference there was a debate on this very Bill. The National Executive of NALGO made clear its view; it was trying to make a constructive approach. Probably the noble Lord will be aware of what happened as a consequence.
414
An emergency Amendment was put before the conference:
" That this conference takes note of the fact that a large number of local authorities have now decided not to implement the Housing Finance Bill. In view of this NALGO will give full support to those of its members working in those areas who consider their first allegiance is to their employing authority."
The Amendment was moved by someone from Tower Hamlets. He made clear the view of his branch: if Tower Hamlets refused to implement the Bill his colleagues would be put under intolerable strain and a situation might well develop where they would refuse to accept the instructions of the Housing Commissioner. The National Executive of NALGO endeavoured to persuade the conference that they ought to go easy on pledging full support. The point was made in the conference that they were not in the habit of instructing their members and that their members were not in the habit of disobeying orders.
As I said, the National Executive endeavoured to persuade the conference to be careful in their approach. But the feeling was so strong that in the end the National Executive accepted the Amendment. If the Government have not taken note of the strain on loyalties that is likely to be created they would do well to think about it carefully. I can see no good coming out of such a situation if it develops. We may deplore its development and say that it should not happen, but I do not believe that the Government have calculated fully the pressure that is being placed on local authorities and local authority staffs who have had a most amicable, co-operative and constructive relationship with their employers.
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to address himself to the way in which the Housing Commissioner is to be limited. If he gives orders to local authority employees to do one thing and a committee of the properly and duly elected members of the council says that it wants the officers to do something else, what will the position be? None of this need arise. Perhaps we can say more about it at a later stage of the Bill. One hopes that a little more understanding will be shown than has been shown, because one has the fear that the Government are heading for a collision with powerful bodies of local

415
government and that no good will come out of it. I hope that it will never happen.
I realise, and so do those in local government generally, that the development of this situation would, as the noble Lord himself said, be foreign to British experience. Now is the time to think about these things. As the local government relationship with national Government on this issue has been strained to breaking point it is important that if these appointments have to be made such democratic checks as can be created and made to operate should be introduced. As. I understand the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that is its purpose. It would he a pity if the Government indicated this afternoon that their minds are closed to further thinking on this point.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has almost admittedly been on rather hypothetical ground for a long time. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising the matter of periodic accountability of Housing Commissioners. If I may make a suggestion to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, he could go a long way to meet this point if he would enlarge Amendment No. 116 to include annual reports by the Housing Commissioner to the local authority in question.
6.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I appreciate the statesmanlike approach of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to this matter. It is plain that we all feel that the law, whatever it may be and whether we disagree with it or not, has to be carried out. The fact remains that if a council is not prepared to carry out its functions of giving the usual housing service to the inhabitants of the area for which it is responsible, some arrangements have to be made. There is nothing unprecedented about this. The change is that an individual is designated, instead of the Secretary of State himself taking power to take over the functions of the housing authority, as has been the case in similar legislation in the past. I must make it clear that there is nothing unprecedented in this. Default powers
416
exist in most legislation. It is proper that the House should be concerned with accountability. What I am pointing out is that accountability in these circumstances is not just annual but day-to-day. To add the need for an annual report is something which is unprecedented. There was no requirement in previous legislation that the Secretary of State should make an annual report of his carrying out of the functions which he transferred to himself. In this case he is transferring them to a Housing Commissioner under his control. I do not think this Amendment is necessary.
I am perfectly prepared to look at this further, to see whether we might alter Amendment No. 116—though not when we come to it to-day, of course. I hope very much not only that it will not be necessary to appoint a Housing Commissioner, but that if one is appointed he will not have to carry on his duties for more than a year. But, as I say, I am quite prepared to look at this matter again and to consult my right honourable friend about it.
We feel that all the sanctions and safeguards already exist, as I say, from day to day. But if things are going to be so horrendous as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has indicated, there may be quite a story to tell at the end of the year. We are not really concerned with that; we are concerned with the reporting of the activities of the Housing Commissioner for his period of office. One has to bear in mind, I repeat, that we are discussing cases where the elected representatives are in default. Those who give the normal day-to-day service will expect, and I should have thought would want, to go on providing their housing service in their areas, and the only difference will be that the person then responsible temporarily will be the Housing Commissioner. Having said that, I am quite prepared to look at this matter again because, quite honestly, I do not know what my right honourable friend thinks about it in this new circumstance and I should like to discuss it with him. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend's right honourable friend will consider this matter rather carefully when he looks at it, because it seems to me a fairly harmless kind of

417
provision. I hope that the appointment of a Housing Commissioner will not in fact be necessary at all, or at most only very seldom. My own experience in these matters, of course, is where a recalcitrant municipality has been completely superseded by a commissioner, generally because they would not raise the necessary rates and taxes and so on. In such cases, the tenure of office of that commissioner was never very long because the authority was only too anxious to get him out, start obeying the law and return to the right and proper method. Therefore I should have thought that any Housing Commissioner appointed would be there for a period of well under a year, so that there would be no need for this report.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for undertaking to look at this matter again? In the light of his remarks, I certainly shall not press the Amendment to a Division. May I, however, take up just one or two points he made? He said that the Housing Commissioner was merely stepping into the shoes of the local authority. That is true in so far as his responsibilities are concerned, but there the matter ends. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has reminded your Lordships, the housing authority would normally operate through a committee meeting in public; the Press would be present and they would hear what decisions were made from one period of six weeks to another. Those decisions would be fully covered by the local paper, and therefore would be available to the tenants and anybody else in the area who might be affected by the decisions of the authority.
But while the Housing Commissioner may be in day-to-day contact with the Secretary of State to whom he is responsible, as the noble Lord has said, the Secretary of State is not going round to the offices of the Leek Gazette, or whatever the local paper is, and say: "I have some very good news from the Housing Commissioner so far as his activities in Leek are concerned." If he did that, then I am sure that the Secretary of State would find his hands very fully occupied if there were more than one or two Housing Commissioners—though of course we hope there will not be. We have not made provision for that even-
418
tuality. That is the reason why we are discussing the clause. Unfortunately, the horrendous situation (as the noble Lord puts it) might arise, and it would be foolish for the House not to take account of that and make such provision as it can.
I would say also that even from a theoretical point of view the Housing Commissioner is in a different position from the normal housing committee which has operated hitherto in the authority. If I may give the noble Lord a business analogy, there may be a holding company which operates through a board of directors of a subsidiary and which finds that that board of directors are not properly carrying out their functions. As a result, it sacks those directors and appoints a general manager to replace the board. It might well be that in those circumstances the managing director of the parent company would say, "I wish you to report to me from time to time, and of course I shall lay your reports before the shareholders at the annual general meeting". Is not that rather the analogy which makes it appear, if the noble Lord accepts it, that a similar situation occurs with the local authority when a Housing Commissioner takes over the job of the committee, in the same way as you would not have such a parallel in the case of a manager taking over from a board of directors of a subsidiary company? I hope that that example is not too far-fetched. I should not like to say that the parallel is an exact one, but it helps to illustrate that the Housing Commissioner is not quite "stepping into the shoes", as the noble Lord has said. However, I do not want to pursue this matter any further. I think I have said enough to assist the Secretary of State when he comes to look at this matter, as the noble Lord has undertaken he will do. So I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 [Housing Commissioner: Supplemental provisions]:
6.18 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 106, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions contained in subsection (10) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendment which includes the proposed subsection (10), which is of course Amendment No. 117A, which reads:
"Provided that the Housing Commissioner shall not, without the written consent of the local authority, perform any act the performance of which lies entirely within the discretion of that authority and does not fall within any of the duties laid upon the authority by Parliament."
I say right at the beginning that I suspect that that drafting is full of errors, being my own humble work, as Grimes used to say. But it deals with a very important issue, and in the mood in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, fortunately is at the present time I hope he will be as helpful as he can about what I regard as a most important issue. We have just discussed, on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the question of reporting. An advantage of reporting frequently, as opposed to infrequently, is that one can pick out acts of which one disapproves and criticise them as soon as possible. The purpose of this Amendment is to try to eliminate a category of acts which are unwarranted and undesirable before they are actually committed.
Having regard to the discussion which has just taken place, one knows the background full well. I move straightaway, therefore, to the legal position upon which I suggest your Lordships' House needs the most careful and precise advice. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has frequently said about "stepping into the shoes". It is that which I want to examine very carefully indeed. A Housing Commissioner is given various powers in this Bill, and we all hope that the Housing Commissioner will not be appointed—there is no need for me to go over that ground. But I am bound to say in that context that the Government will have been advised by the Association of Municipal Corporations, or, if not, a letter is en route for them. The Secretary of the A.M.C., in a letter dated July 11 to the Secretary of State wrote:
"I have been instructed to convey to the Government the Committee's view "—
He was referring to the Housing Committee of the A.M.C.—
420
"that even at this late stage the Bill should be withdrawn and not pressed to the stage where legislation will require local housing authorities to implement the provisions at present contained in the Bill."
Those are the most serious words I have seen on record from the representatives of local authorities to a Government in relation to activities which that Government will require local authorities to perform. One cannot entirely exclude from one's mind the possibility of very serious difficulties arising, and any Government who put local authorities in that situation will be subject to very severe criticism and blame because they should not have allowed any confrontation to go on until such a situation had been reached.
The noble Lord must realise that the view of many local authorities is not that they are unwilling to fulfil the proper decisions of Government and Parliament but that they should not be required to visit on their citizens the sins of Tory policy. A most serious situation indeed may be reached and, if it is, one is led to wonder what will be the limit of the Housing Commissioner's powers. Will he be entitled to do those things which are duties laid on local authorities by Parliament? That I could understand. Will he be able to go further and do those things which are outside that area but which the housing committee or local authority could do within its own discretion?
There may be many examples but I will give only one because it is before all our minds—namely, the sale of council houses. The Minister has made the Government's position quite clear. It is the policy of the Government to urge local authorities to sell council houses. There is no order and no sanction, we have been told, and it is perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has no power to require local authorities to sell council houses. It is equally clear, however, that when the Secretary of State appoints a Housing Commissioner he may or may not—this is the question we are asking—be in a position to say to the Commissioner, "You know what the Government's policy is in regard to the sale of council houses." That is an example of something that a Housing Commissioner might be in a position to do. Albeit he could not claim it to be within the power of the person appointing him—namely, the

421
Secretary of State—and it would be a very odd situation indeed if an appointee of the Secretary of State could do more than the Secretary of State himself. This is not impossible and there are parallels. The noble Lord was thinking of company law. I am thinking of the appointment of a receiver and manager.
One gets into all sorts of difficulties when one uses the phrase, "standing in the shoes" because it means that one can do everything that the live person who normally wears those shoes could do. It means that the noble Lord is saying that the Housing Commissioner could, when the Secretary of State could not, sell local authority houses although it was not the policy of that local authority to do so and although that authority could have refused to do so had the Housing Commissioner not been appointed. I give that merely as one example of the dividing line. The essence of the principle behind the dividing line is those matters which are within the discretion of the authority and those duties which are laid on the authority by Parliament.
In order to raise the matter and make certain that the full meaning of the phrase, "standing in the shoes" should not apply—the noble Lord has used this phrase many times—I am proposing an Amendment which would prevent, if its wording is adequate for the purpose, a Housing Commissioner from doing things which the local authority does not want done. Of course if the local authority gives written consent to the performance of an act which is within its own discretion, then it cannot complain about the Commissioner performing that act. But if there is no such written consent, then clearly one is usurping the rights of the discretion of the local authority and is substituting for local democracy central bureaucracy—a bureaucrat appointed by the Secretary of State with full powers to do things in public and not be accountable to the citizens of the area. This is a simple substitution of bureaucracy for local democracy at a time when local democracy is much under attack as a result of the Local Government Bill.
All these things are happening at the same time. I am sure that the noble Lord is seized of the facts. I regard this issue as fundamental to our sense
422
of local democracy and I hope that the noble Lord will either accept the Amendment or say that it is totally unnecessary because a Housing Commissioner could not stand in the shoes of a local authority to the extent of doing things which that authority would not wish to do and could not be compelled by the Secretary of State to do. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Diamond. It is vital to consider Clause 10 in conjunction with Clause 96 because the latter provision states:
"The acts of a Housing Commissioner shall be valid notwithstanding any defect that may afterwards be discovered in his appointment."
I interpret that to mean that anything he does, including serving notices to quit and selling council houses, will be considered valid despite any defect that may later be discovered in his appointment. This is stepping not into shoes but into jackboots. It is one thing to talk about oceans of power. We are here on the rim of the universe. I trust that the Government will take another look at this whole issue.
6.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is one thing the noble Lord has a gift for and that is restoring the good humour of the House at times when it begins to get a little tense. His pungent expressions are very enlightening but I must say that I got a little confused between "bureaucracies" and "jackboots" and one thing and another in this particular Amendment.
We all know the difficulty here. I am afraid I must say one or two things that I have said before. Where an authority—and that means the council of course—decides not to operate the law or where it fails to operate the law for one reason or another, then in the same way as previous legislation has provided, the Secretary of State may step in. In this case he steps in and appoints a Housing Commissioner whose powers are set out in Clause 96. I would draw the attention of the House to subsection (1) in particular because there it says:
"A Housing Commissioner shall have power to do all such things as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the performance of the functions he is appointed to discharge"—

423
and they will be defined
"and he may in particular—
(a) do anything which the authority would have power to do in the performance of those functions …"
That is absolutely clear and specific, and I do not see how he could possibly operate in any other way. I suggest that, if it should come to the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, it would be very unwise to limit in advance the functions which a Housing Commissioner could discharge for the purposes of remedying a default. It is very likely that he would not be able to remedy a default unless he could also discharge a wide range of the authority's housing functions.
Many of the housing responsibilities of a local authority are indivisible. Some of these responsibilities are statutory duties involving no discretion, some involve a statutory duty which is to some extent subject to the discretion of the authority, and some involve a completely discretionary power. To try to separate those functions which are completely discretionary from those which are not would lead to enormous confusion and difficulties which would make the Housing Commissioner's task quite impossible. He could not possibly carry out the functions he was appointed to carry out. After all, many of the day-to-day acts and decisions of housing management are entirely discretionary. For example, the actual allocation of tenancies is wholly discretionary. Yet, without exercising such a discretion, the Housing Commissioner would not be able to manage the housing stock he was appointed to run, or to remedy the authority's default nor could he efficiently carry out other statutory housing functions of the authority which the Secretary of State had conferred on him for the purpose of remedying the default.
It would really be quite inappropriate for the Housing Commissioner to rely on the permission of the defaulting authority in order to perform discretionary functions when it is the defaulting authority's failure to comply with the law which has caused the Commissioner to be appointed. This would be quite outrageous and an impossible situation. Once an authority puts itself in a position where it obliges the Secretary of
424
State to confer any of its housing functions on the Commissioner, it is in effect abdicating from many of its housing responsibilities. It could not expect to continue to exercise or maintain control over the use of discretionary powers while failing to exercise statutory duties.
The noble Lord asked me about the sale of houses. Whether or not the Commissioner was empowered by the order appointing him to sell the defaulting authority's houses of course would depend on the circumstances of the case. He would not necessarily be empowered to do so, but the Secretary of State could confer that power on the Commissioner only if he thought that the function of disposing of the authority's dwellings was necessary or expedient for the discharge of the functions in Parts I, II, V and VI of the Bill, specified in the order appointing the Commissioner. But if that function was conferred upon the Commissioner, there is no reason why his freedom to exercise it should be more limited than the freedom of the authority was to exercise it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord is on this interesting point and since I have an Amendment to this clause, could he indicate what is his view in regard to my Amendment which would provide that where a Housing Commissioner was to dispose of dwellings he would do so only after the prior agreement of the Secretary of State?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I would willingly do that. I was referring to this because the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised this, but obviously the Housing Commissioner for the purpose of this function, if it was conferred upon him, would have the same powers to discharge it as the authority would have had if the function had not been conferred on him.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is double talk.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. my Lords. The noble Lord says that this is double talk, but it is absolutely clear talk, if the noble Lord will allow me to complete what I want to say. At present all local authorities have the power to sell houses as provided or appropriated in Part V of the 1957 Act either at unrestricted market value or at a price up to 20 per

425
cent. below unrestricted market value if they are sold subject to restrictive covenants limiting resale price and giving the right of pre-emption to the council to buy it back. That is the circular which the noble Lord referred to yesterday, Circular 54/70. But, if a Housing Commissioner were to be given power to dispose of dwellings which tenants wished to buy, he would have to exercise this power reasonably although he would not have to have regard to the policy of the defaulting authority on this issue if he were given this power. Nor would he have to follow any advice given to local authorities on this issue but, like the authority, he would consider such advice and might take a different view from the authority about accepting it. That seems completely reasonable if—and I say again "if"—the Commissioner was empowered by the order appointing him to sell a defaulting authority's houses. This would be consequential on the general transfer to the Commissioner of these powers.
I am sorry that I cannot meet the noble Lord on this point. I hope I have made plain the reasons. It is quite impossible to sort out what is discretionary from what is statutory, and the Bill itself makes plain that the Housing Commissioner will have these full powers. I would suggest to the noble Lord that, much as we should all dislike the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, it would he impossible to do less than give him the power to do anything which the authority would have power to do in the performance of the particular functions allocated to him. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord sufficiently.
6.39 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord has answered the question with complete and absolute clarity. What he is saying is that where this extremely regrettable situation is reached, for which in my view local authority and Government would be equally responsible, he seems to think that the Government would have no responsibility if we got to a situation where local authorities felt so incensed about Government policy that they were refusing to co-operate. I would say that in a situation like that both Government and local authorities have to do some hard thinking. What he is saying is that in a situation like that where a Housing
426
Commissioner has to be appointed, it is more important that the Housing Commissioner should be freed from any inconvenience in his "Gauleiterish" function to get the consent of the local population as expressed by their elected representatives—be they Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Independent; that it is more important that he should be free to exercise his administrative function without any inhibition, and that he should have regard to the wishes of the people of that area as expressed in the phrase "the discretion of the local authority". I dissent from that view utterly. That is the wide gap between the two sides of the House or, at all events between the Government and myself on this side of the House, on that issue. I would not have imagined that the noble Lord, with his wide Parliamentary experience and deep tradition of democracy, would for a moment put the convenience of this official higher than the need to co-operate and understand and take note of the views of the local authority.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I am not putting forward the convenience of the official; I am putting forward the interests of the inhabitants of that area, which that council exists to serve and is declining to serve.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that, and I listened very carefully. I am not attempting to twist the noble Lord's words; I am saying what those words mean. The noble Lord said in his first speech that it would be quite impossible. He means there would be a lot of practical difficulty. The Commissioner would have to consult the local authority. The local authority continues in existence. The councillors continue as councillors. The Housing Commissioner has no power to poison off all the councillors—not yet; that will be for the next Conservative Government, if we ever have one. The councillors will be there; they can be consulted. The members of the council who perform the duties of the housing committee can be consulted. The Housing Commissioner can find out what they want, and, if this Amendment were adopted, anything that was in the interests of the local people, as expressed by the councillors, could

427
be performed, with the written agreement of the councillors.
What the noble Lord is saying is that rather than go through these checks, the same kind of checks that every Minister has to go through in this House and in the other place in order to test whether what they are proposing to do is satisfactory to the electorate who put them there, which is the exact parallel with the electorate who put the councillors there locally, all that should be side-stepped and the Government enabled to empower an official to do things which the Government themselves could not do, such as selling houses. This is absolutely intolerable. It is no good the noble Lord smiling. I have understood exactly what he is saying. He says that if the Secretary of State desires to give these powers to the Housing Commissioner to sell council houses for example, he can do so. The Housing Commissioner can sell council houses, notwith-
standing that it is not the wish of the local population, as expressed in the election of their councillors, that that should happen. I am absolutely right in repeating the noble Lord's own words, that there is no power at the moment for the Secretary of State to do that himself. He can merely, through his circulars invite local authorities to sell houses a little more keenly than they are doing at the moment. At the moment they are selling something like 2 per cent., some tiny percentage. That is sufficient indication of how popular the idea is. Of the total stock of houses, between 2 and 3 per cent. are being sold up to date. The noble Lord has made his position absolutely clear, and I think we can only do the same.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 113A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Diamond, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Avebury, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Byers, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Champion, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Alport, L.

Elles, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Barnby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gainford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shannon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hailes, L.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Young, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 107, line 36, after ("him") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I counted the number of noble Lords opposite when my noble friend was winding up his remarks before the Division and I think there were 12 noble Lords present. Yet 57 voted to take away the democratic rights of local people as a consequence of the appointment of a Housing Commissioner. I hope that those who in the past have spoken of the grass roots of democracy to be found within local authorities will feel a bit ashamed of themselves. I now turn to Amendment No. 114. This requires that where a Housing Commissioner is appointed the officers of the local authority concerned shall obey his orders. I can well understand the necessity that officers who belong to the housing department as such should obey the orders of the Housing Commissioner. I wonder whether I could have the attention of the House. I am not certain which noble Lord is talking, but I hope the noble Earl. Lord Ferrets will take note of what I have said. May I direct the attention of the noble Earl to paragraph (c). Here it is a case of officers who may not belong to the housing department and in fact all officers of the local authority who are required to carry out the orders of the Housing Commissioner. This is very important. There are some fairly penal sanctions by way of fines in the event of an officer failing to carry out an order.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make it clear that when an officer receives an order from a Housing Commissioner, and there is any possibility that in the event of failure to carry out that order he will be subjected to a fine, such an order shall be given in writing. I do not suppose that in this case a Housing Commissioner would say: "Right, Mr. Smith, I want you to do so-and-so" and would give the order not verbally but in writing, but I am suggesting that if there is any question of doubt between the Housing Commissioner and the officer concerned, then the order ought to be in writing, so that it is quite clear what the order is and what is the responsibility of the officer concerned. There is another reason—and my noble friend, Lord Garnsworthy, was
430
not in any way exaggerating the difficulty and the stress under which local authority officers would be placed if a Housing Commissioner was appointed. No one, apart from the local officers, will ever know how long a Housing Commissioner may be there. It may be two years or only six months, depending upon the solution at which the local authority and the Secretary of State arrive.
It could be that an officer who may not belong to the housing department has been given an order which he has carried out, but, having carried out the order, he may well find himself in difficulty with his employer, the local authority. I should have thought, therefore, that the position of the officer would be that much more secure if, should his actions be questioned, he is able to say: "I received an order; it is in writing, and it is on the file". I believe that if this Amendment or the spirit of it, was accepted—it may well be that we should need to spell it out a little more—where a Housing Commissioner has been appointed it would give a greater sense of security to the local officers concerned, not only in terms of immediate security but in terms of long-term security and in their feelings in regard to promotion. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that something needs to be done and that we cannot just leave it as obeying an order; there should be sonic more formal approach. The only way I can think of is by giving an order in writing. I hope the noble Lord can accept this Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Amendment and I apologise to him if I appeared to be discourteous when he was speaking; I was in fact discussing his Amendment. I understand that he is concerned that the Housing Commissioner should have adequate but not over-sufficient powers. Of course there is nothing new in default powers, and it is when one has to put in default powers that one puts into the Bill provisions which one hopes will not have to be used. The noble Lord was concerned that the Housing Commissioner is entitled to give orders to people in departments other than housing—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not I who is anxious; it is in the Bill in paragraph (c).
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord was anxious about the fact that the Housing Commissioner would be able to give orders to people other than those in the housing department, but under paragraph (c) the Housing Commissioner may use or share the use of the service of officers in any department of the local authority. The purpose of the duty to obey the Commissioner's orders, which subsection (4) places on the authority's staff, is to protect the staff in a situation where they may receive conflicting orders from the Commissioner and the authority. It further protects the staff who have obeyed the Commissioner's orders, from any action which their authority may subsequently take against them on the grounds that they have obeyed them contrary to the wishes of the authority. If the subsection were to apply only to written orders, as the noble Lord's Amendment suggests, the protection which the subsection gives to the staff would be unnecessarily reduced. It would also cause great practical difficulties, I would suggest, if the Commissioner were to give orders to the staff which they were bound to obey only if they were in writing. Obviously he would put certain orders in writing, but on small day-to-day matters on which officers sought his instructions a verbal order would normally be the most practicable. To reduce all orders to writing would unnecessarily hold up the day-to-day management of those functions of the authority which are transferred to the Commissioner. If a verbal order given by the Commissioner were to be misunderstood, the Commissioner's remedy would be to make it more explicit and if necessary to put it in writing. He has no power to dismiss or discipline the staff; this power of course remains with the local authority.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, without being discourteous to the noble Earl, and I acquit him of any discourtesy towards me, I was trying to put a constructive point of view, and it is a little bit worrying as to whether one is in fact getting across. I recognise from long experience in this House, at least on matters where there is a degree of Party political content, that it is next to impossible, if not impossible, really to get beyond the Front Bench opposite. Therefore, one has to direct one's attention to
432
the noble Lords who are the Ministers to seek to persuade them, because it is only they who can take action. I fully understand what the noble Earl has said, and I thought that I made it clear that all orders would not have to be in writing. This would be taking protection, which was the purpose of my Amendment, to the depths of stupidity.
The noble Earl will accept, will he not, that there are heavy penal sanctions in the Bill if an officer fails to carry out an order. Will he not accept too that, so far as an officer who works in a housing department is concerned, the Housing Commissioner would be his direct superior; he would be like the housing manager. But there are officers in the local authority who are responsible to other senior officials and to committees. Therefore, their position is not as easy as that of those officers who work in the housing department. They may receive orders, as the noble Earl himself has said, which could conflict with what are the views of the local authority to whom that official is still responsible for perhaps 80 or 90 per cent. of his activities. It may only be in a small area that he is required to take an order, and it puts him into serious difficulties.
What I am suggesting is that where an officer is placed in that sort of position, or where clearly the orders are such that they ought to be put in writing not only in the interests of the official but also perhaps of the Housing Commissioner, then such orders should be given in writing. I have a feeling that I have seen this in past legislation, so as to put it beyond any form of doubt as to whether an order was given, the character of the order, and what was the purpose of the order. Therefore, if the man failed to carry out an order given to him in writings, the matter was quite clear. It seems to me that unless you have this particular provision in the Bill you are going to have very considerable doubts in the minds of local authority officers. I think that this is something we should seek to avoid.
I do not intend to press this Amendment. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to give the matter consideration. I am not suggesting that all orders should be in writing, but there are certain orders where there may be a real clash between the local authority and

433
the Housing Commissioner, and there may be officers who are really between the two. In that particular case I would have thought, recognising the penal sanctions that are in the Bill, that such orders under those circumstances should be in writing, so that the position of the local authority officer is perfectly clear. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment if the noble Lord would undertake to consider not what may have been the full impact of the Amendment that I have on the Order Paper, but what I am seeking to achieve by moving this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says. It is plain that he recognises that the Amendment as he has drafted it, as he said in his opening speech, is not perfect. In fact if we did accept the Amendment as it is, as my noble friend has said, it would actually reduce the protection and not increase it. I entirely see the point that he is after. He is after the protection of the staff, and particularly those who are not wholly housing staff. They may be partly housing staff, or they may not be housing staff at all but, if I may put it this way, staff who have certain housing functions.
I feel basically that this is so much an administrative matter that it would be very difficult to put it into law. The other side of it, on which of course I am on much shakier ground, is if there is a legal aspect to this, of enforcement. The noble Lord did talk about heavy penal sanctions. Sanctions are only for failure to produce documents so far as the staff are concerned, unless they are obstructing, although they are much more likely to be the people obstructed. I shall certainly have a look at this. I am not at all hopeful of being able to reach a decision for the reason I gave, that it seems to be an administrative matter and it has implications regarding evidence, and that sort of thing. I will gladly discuss it with my advisers, but I am afraid that I am not terribly hopeful of being able to find a solution to it. The situation really is as my noble friend stated.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has been unhopeful in the past but he has sometimes—in fact quite often—been able to find a way out. I
434
beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.8 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 107, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following words:—
'Housing Commissioner appointed under section 95(7) of the Housing Finance Act 1972.'")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 115. This is quite simply to make the Housing Commissioner subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 in the same way as any other public official within the limitations there set out. I should like to remind your Lordships of some words that were spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the time of the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill in another place, when he said on October 18, 1966, at col. 63:
" The points at which the individual can come into contact with what he is inclined to call bureaucracy are increasing in number, and the consequences to the individual can be extraordinarily grievous, as we all know from our constituency experience, even without the smallest intention on the part of the Government of the day to harm the individual complaining, and sometimes even without their knowledge. Therefore, in the multifarious actions of authority, grievance machinery of some kind is an essential part of modern administration."
Those wise words spoken by the noble and learned Lord are even truer to-day.
The opportunities for complaint have been very widely seized by individuals under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, although not always have they had the sort of redress which they expected from the legislation. I found this out when I placed some cases before the Parliamentary Commissioner myself. Nevertheless, it was an addition to the grievance procedure that had existed hitherto, and many Members of another place have found it useful as a further weapon in their armoury against bureaucracy on behalf of their constituents. Nowhere can it ever have been more essential for this weapon to be placed in the hands of Members of Parliament than in the extraordinary circumstances of the

435
appointment of a Housing Commissioner over the rest of a local authority, replacing them in all their housing functions, as the Secretary of State may see fit, in order to exercise responsibilities which a local authority refuses to discharge.
That is not to say that there is any suspicion that Housing Commissioners will be guilty of maladministration, or that there is any reason to suppose that they will be the subject of more complaints than any other person who is responsible to a Government Department. But I rather suspect that, even if they were not guilty of maladministration, there would be an immense number of cases requiring investigation. After all, what we are talking about is the right of the citizen to go through his Member of Parliament to the Ombudsman, as he is popularly called, and to have further inquiries carried out when a Member of Parliament has not been able to obtain satisfaction through the normal procedures of Questions, Adjournment debates and so on.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, say in a previous debate that a Member of Parliament would be able to put down Questions to the Secretary of State about the discharge of functions by a Housing Commissioner, because that, in itself, is a valuable safeguard, and I am sure that the noble Lord said that after taking advice and with due consideration. If it is true that a Member of Parliament has the right to question the Secretary of State about the activities of a Housing Commissioner, then I suggest that it ought to follow from that that if he is not satisfied with the answer from the Minister, he can go to the next stage, as he can with all other civil servants, and take the matter up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will say that since the Housing Commissioner is merely, as he put it, stepping into the shoes of the local authority, one should disregard the fact that his behaviour can be questioned on the Floor of the House, and that for the purposes of considering whether he ought to come within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act we ought to treat him as if he were a housing
436
authority. I would disagree very profoundly with that point of view, because a housing authority is answerable to the local electorate, whereas a Housing Commissioner is responsible to the Secretary of State. I presume—although I cannot see it mentioned anywhere in the Bill—that he will be a civil servant. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's confirmation of that point. Naturally, when a Housing Commissioner is appointed local citizens will feel grave anxiety about the way in which he will discharge his functions. We have already covered that point at some length, so I do not think I need go into it any more at this stage. But it would be some reassurance to those citizens to know that, in the last resort, they can go through their Member of Parliament to the Ombudsman to see that their grievances are properly raised and considered. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not want to go over all the arguments which we put earlier, but I think this Amendment is important Those of us who have had long experience of dealing with the grievances of people, irrespective of their politics, find nothing sadder than seeing some individual, who may often have had quite a good education, absolutely flabbergasted and sunk in a mass of form-filling and legal language when he has tried to correct a grievance with local authorities, or with Governments. Every Member of Parliament, whatever his politics, has met that kind of individual who has felt that he had a grievance. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on putting down this Amendment, which provides a real opportunity to give a safeguard to those who feel that the power given to the Housing Commissioner is really dangerous, and to give an individual the right, through his Member of Parliament, to approach the Ombudsman.
The Housing Commissioner can
"execute any deed or other document, which shall be valid whether or not expressed to be executed in the name of the authority, and for that purpose use the seal".
That phrase alone shows the whole gamut of this individual's power. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, who deals most courteously with the House, will try to find an answer to this Amendment which will give some satisfaction to those of us who have tried very sincerely to

437
ameliorate the powers of the Housing Commissioner, so that an individual who meets the rugged hard-core of local and national government will feel that he can breathe in this society which is growing more and more bureaucratic.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, have made, and the fact that the Amendment is designed, as the noble Lord put it, to be yet another weapon in the armoury against officials. We would all be entirely sympathetic about that, in so far as one does not want any official to have an unduly free rein. But we are in some difficulty over accepting the noble Lord's Amendment because to include the Housing Commissioner in the list of Departments and authorities in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 would be contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of that Act, which determines which bodies may be included in the Schedule as subject to investigation. The Act applied initially to those Government Departments and other authorities listed in Schedule 2. Subsection (2) of Section 4 provides a power to add to the list by Order in Council, but it expressly states that
"nothing in this subsection authorises the inclusion in that Schedule of any body or authority not being a department or other body or authority whose functions are exercised on behalf of the Crown".
The Housing Commissioner is appointed to discharge certain functions of a local authority, as Clause 95(7)(a) states,
"in the name of the authority and at their expense".
He would not exercise these functions, therefore, on behalf of the Crown, and by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act he cannot be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the Commissioner would be a civil servant. He could be a serving civil servant, but he would not necessarily be. He might just be a person appointed by the Secretary of State, and would not be or become a civil servant by virtue of that appointment. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, this does not, however, mean that the Commissioner is not answerable to anybody. Of course he is.
438
As the Secretary of State appoints him determining his terms of service and remuneration, and can terminate his appointment by revoking or varying the order appointing him, the Commissioner is clearly answerable in that respect to the Secretary of State. While the Secretary of State may be expected not to interfere with the Commissioner's day-to-day discharge of the functions conferred upon him, obviously he could not disinterest himself in what the Housing Commissioner was doing and in the way he acted, and he would certainly have to take notice of any complaints about the Commissioner made to him in good faith, whether in Parliament or outside it. Indeed, the Secretary of State may well be questioned in Parliament on these subjects. For those reasons, I feel that—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him one question on the phrase that he has just used, that the Secretary of State could be questioned on those subjects. I want to be absolutely clear that the Secretary of State can be properly questioned in Parliament, not only on his appointment of the Commissioner but on the Commissioner's daily activities.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as the Secretary of State appoints the Housing Commissioner he can be questioned on what the Housing Commissioner is doing and has done.
LORD SHEPHERD: But does that also mean the day-to-day functions of the Housing Commissioner?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl could not have heard my noble friend Lord Diamond's question. Could the Secretary of State be questioned on the appointment of a Housing Commissioner?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, he can be questioned on this appointment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl answer my question? I thought my noble friend was letting the noble Earl of the hook, and I am not letting him off the hook. Is the Secretary of State answerable to Parliament for the day-to-day conduct, the work, of the Housing Commissioner?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, what I said was that the Secretary of State may be questioned by Members of Parliament on the appointment of a Housing Commissioner.
LORD DIAMOND: And on his activities?
LORD AVEBURY: I am afraid, my Lords—
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, the noble Earl says he may be questioned. A Minister can always be questioned. I asked: is he responsible for his work? Can he be questioned, and is he answerable for it? That is the question, and the noble Earl cannot get off the hook.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would not wish to get off the hook, particularly. The Secretary of State can be questioned on the appointment and on the day-to-day management which is conducted by the Housing Commissioner, appointed by the Secretary of State.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I say that it by no means follows from the fact that the Secretary of State has appointed somebody that he is answerable for all the activities of that person. If I can point this out to the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appoints the chairman of B.O.A.C., for example, but the day-to-day activities of the chairman of B.O.A.C. cannot be questioned, as the noble Earl is well aware. This is the practice which applies to all the nationalised industries and, I would imagine, to many other appointments which are in the gift of the Government. Presumably anyone in either House is entitled to question the appointment of that person, and it would be possible to take up matters concerning the individual powers that were given to the Housing Commissioner in the instrument of appointment. For example, to take up the point which has already been ventilated, Members could say that they did not see why it was necessary for the Housing Commissioner to have power to sell the council's stock of houses if that was included in the matters which were to be dealt with by the Housing Commissioner. But once he is appointed and
440
has started his work in loco parentis, in the place of the local authority, I would say with great respect to the noble Earl that it is no longer possible for matters to be raised on the Floor of the House concerning his day-to-day management activities.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, and will allow me to ask him whether he thinks that, supposing for a moment the Government are not going to accept his Amendment about the appointment of a Housing Commissioner, he is best serving the interests of democracy and the powers of Members of Parliament in both Houses to ask questions by trying to enable the Minister to withdraw from a very valuable statement he has made. To my surprise, as well as to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the Minister has made a statement saying that the Minister can be questioned on the day-to-day activities of the Housing Commissioner. I was very content to hear that statement, particularly as one knows the general rule that no Minister can be questioned on any matter where he has no ministerial responsibility. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider what he is saying.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a difficulty. Obviously, the assurance that we have been given makes a considerable difference to my attitude on the Amendment itself. It would be far more necessary to have this additional safeguard if it had not been for what the noble Earl has just said to us, and perhaps it would be best if I sat down quickly before he receives any other pieces of paper from the Box. That is what I will do. I will certainly accept the point that the noble Lord makes, that technically it is impossible to do what I have suggested because of the restriction in subsection (2), so that subsection, in addition, would have to be amended as well as the Schedule. All the same, I think it is desirable for us to consider at some stage—perhaps this is not the time for it—whether the restrictions in subsection (2) do not impose too great an inhibition on Parliament when we are continually multiplying the bureaucracy, as we are doing in this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 108, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Where, in pursuance of an order under the said subsection (9), a Housing Commissioner ceases to perform the functions which he was appointed to discharge, he shall prepare a report on the discharge of those functions, and submit it to the authority; and he shall include in the report any information which, in his opinion, may assist the authority in resuming the functions which he has been discharging.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment ensures that the Commissioner prepares a report on his activities and that the report becomes available to those who are most directly concerned with these activities, who are of course the local authority. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn discussed this point when dealing with Amendment No. 112. It enables the authority to make the report available to local ratepayers, to their tenants and to the public at large. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 108, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise a Housing Commissioner without prior approval of the Secretary of State to sell dwellings in a Housing Revenue account, and before giving his approval the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority concerned.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope the House will accept from the beginning that the housing stock of a local authority does not belong to the State. It does not belong to the Secretary of State. It is an asset of the local authority and of those who live within the local authority area. With the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I hope that no Housing Commissioner will ever be appointed; but, if he is appointed, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State may or may not provide in his instructions to the Housing Commissioner authority for the sale or otherwise of local authority housing. I hope the House will feel that an asset of a local authority should not be disposed of against the wishes of the people of the area concerned. I accept that there may be occasions when houses need to be disposed of, perhaps because,
442
when the Housing Commissioner is appointed, the sale may have already reached an advanced stage. But I would take the view, which I hope the House will share, that where a housing stock is going to be disposed of it should be disposed of only after the Housing Commissioner has obtained the consent of the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State has consulted the local authority about its views on the sale. Before the noble Lord seeks to criticise the Amendment may I point out that the Secretary of State is, by the Amendment, required only to consult. If the local authority disagreed, it would still be open to him to proceed and to give authority to the Housing Commissioner. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that substantially we have discussed this matter already and have come to this narrow point about whether the Secretary of State, having empowered the Housing Commissioner to sell houses, should again have to be consulted by the Housing Commissioner before the sale of a particular house. I do not think this is a reasonable proposition. Either the Secretary of State confers powers or he does not; if not, the Commissioner would have no power to sell houses unless he applied to the Secretary of the State, and the Secretary of State then conferred that power additional to the powers he already had conferred. So I do not think that this Amendment adds anything. It merely puts one more step in the way of a power already conferred.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right. It is one more step in what are the very sweeping powers of the Housing Commissioner to act contrary to what may be the views of the local authority and the electors. The housing stock belongs to the people, who in the main have contributed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is saying that the Housing Commissioner shall be appointed with these sweeping powers so that he may dispose of 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 25 per cent., 50 per cent.—perhaps even the entire housing stock of a local authority without having to obtain any prior agreement or consent from the Secretary of State.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, must not put

443
words into my mouth. I did not say that, and I am not saying it. I am merely saying that the Secretary of State will have the option either to confer the powers or not, and no doubt when arriving at his decision he will take account of what has been going on in the past. I said also at an earlier stage that the Housing Commissioner would be expected to act reasonably. If, as is happening just now, the sale of houses is running at a level of—whatever it is—2 per cent. a year, the Housing Commissioner would not be acting reasonably if he sold off 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the houses. Surely that is quite clear.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have the noble Lord's assurance on that point, but it is not in the Bill, and what matters is what is in the Bill. This will be the only constraint we can have on the present Secretary of State or any future Minister or on any Housing Commissioner who is appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, seems to think that his assurance matters a row of beans; it does not. The noble Lord should know that. I think he is misleading the House in this matter. I am in the difficulty that we have been discussing these matters for so many hours now, but whatever we argue, whatever case we make, in the end we are defeated by one thing—a flood of noble Lords from the passageways, the dining rooms and other places, who vote for the Government when there is a Division. I question whether it is worth while going on. I may come back to this on Third Reading.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will reconsider this matter? All practical operations require a practical approach. How can a Housing Commissioner, on the same day, decide whether to sell property in Woking and more property somewhere in Lancashire and property somewhere in Scotland? Surely local authorities should be consulted and their advice obtained. As I read the Bill, they do not have to be consulted at all. I consider that an insult to the local authorities and a negation of the things in which we believe, including the delegation of responsibility to local authorities. It is not practical to have a Housing Commissioner sitting in
444
Whitehall deciding the prices of property in different parts of the country. I wish that the noble Lord would reconsider this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House I think I ought to answer the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and to point out that a Housing Commissioner would be appointed to exercise the functions of a particular authority. He would not be appointed to exercise functions all over the country.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, it does not seem to me that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has applied his mind to the end of this Amendment. To me it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State should give, among the other powers which are given to the Housing Commissioner, the power to sell property; but at the same time he should be able to say to the Housing Commissioner: "You must not exercise this power without coming back to me, because I am going to consult the local authority before that is done." This is the way in which it is sought to arrange that the local authority is consulted before action is taken. It does not seem to me unreasonable that the broad power should be given, but I think that the Housing Commissioner should be told, "Before exercising this power you must come back to me and I must consult the local authority before I authorise you to act."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Viscount, I think that this Amendment is open to more than one interpretation. On one interpretation it would mean that before conferring the power to sell the houses in the first place the Secretary of State would have to consult the local authority. One has to bear in mind that the local authority would be one which had refused to carry out its functions under the Act. I think that the Secretary of State must make up his mind whether to confer the power. It would be unreasonable to expect him to consult a local authority which was refusing to co-operate with him in carrying out its functions. I think that is the answer to the noble Viscount.
If one takes a different interpretation, I think it could be read as requiring the Secretary of State, despite the fact

445
that he had already conferred a general power, to confer with the local authority about whether that power should be exercised. Again I think this is very difficult. I do not think it would be likely to add in any way to the circumstances. The Secretary of State would decide on all the facts whether to give this power or whether not to. If he gives it, I think it would fetter the Housing Commissioner too much in the exercise of the functions he had been appointed to carry out if he were asked to come back to the Secretary of State to get approval for the exercising of this particular function.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 99 insert the following new clause:
Appeals procedure: local authority
".The Secretary of State may by regulation provide an appeals procedure by which a tenant shall have a right of appeal against the decision of a local authority or where a tenant believes he has been affected by maladministration of the local authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 were to be our last effort to find some form of appeal system not only against decisions but also against maladministration by a local authority or Housing Commissioner. I do not see any merit in seeking to argue this Amendment, so I will just give notice of my intention to move it on Third Reading.
Schedule 7 [Enactments relating to certain subsidies and other payments]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I wish to deal with Amendments Nos. 122 to 134 together, since they are all consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 122.
Amendment moved—
Page 154, line 26, column 2, leave out ("Section 40").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 123 to 132.
Amendments moved—
Page 154, line 35, column 2, leave out ("Section 15")
Page 154, line 38, column 2, leave out ("Sections 21 and 22") and insert ("Section 21")
Page 155, line 2, column 2, leave out from ("for") to end of line 5 and insert ("subsection (2) (grants for building experiments and for hostels)")
Page 155, line 8, column 2, at end insert ("except so far as they relate to hostels")
Page 155, line 12, column 2, leave out ("Subsections (2) and (3) of section 9")
Page 155, line 16, column 2, leave out ("Section 41(2)")
Page 155, line 18, column 2, at end insert ("except so far as it relates to hostels")
Page 155, line 22, column 2, at end insert ("except so far as it relates to hostels, or relates to the enactments mentioned in section 77(2) of the Housing Act 1969 (contributions in respect of conversion or improvement of dwellings)")
Page 155, leave out line 34.
Page 155, line 37, column 2, leave out ("Section 15(2)").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Termination of certain provisions about housing finance]:
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments 133 and 134.
Amendments moved—
Page 162, line 20, at end insert—
("Payments for hostels
(1) No payment shall be made under section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 or, so far as it relates to hostels, under any provision of the New Towns Act 1959 or the New Towns Act 1965 except in the case of—

(a) premises approved for the purposes of subsection (1) of the said section 15 before the coming into force of this Act, or

(b) premises provided or converted under arrangements entered into before the coming into force of this Act under or by virtue of section 120 of the Housing Act 1957 or section 9(2) of the Housing Act 1961.

(2) Except as respects payments falling to be made by a Minister for the year 1971–72 or any earlier year, for Schedule 2 to the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 (annual subsidies which may be reduced, discontinued or transferred under section 14 of that Act) there shall be substituted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 2

  PROVISIONS AUTHORISING PAYMENT OF ANNUAL SUBSIDIES
  The Housing Act 1949.
  (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 60)
  Section 40.
  The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 42)
  Sections 15 and 22.
  The Housing Act 1961
  (9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 65)
  Section 9.
  Any provision of the New Towns Act 1959, or of the New Towns Act 1965, so far as it relates to hostels.
  This Act
  Section 14(6)."")
  Section 14(6) line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Baroness Young.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment I have already outlined. It is similar to previous Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 164, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert (" the day after the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, this is the last of a series of Amendments which the noble Lord has moved, the reason for which has been expressed to be the assistance of local authorities. I do not believe the local authorities are assisted in this way, or that by splitting up the period available one is going to help. There is here a fundamental problem of the Government trying to do too much too quickly. No matter how much they wriggle about it they will not make it possible for the local authorities and their staffs to carry out their function properly. This is a very substantial issue, and we do not have time to deal with it adequately to-night. In these circumstances, I will not seek to divide the House but will return to the principle on Third Reading.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is speaking to a different Amendment. We are dealing with Amendment No. 135, and the noble Lord seems to be talking about Amendment No. 136. However, I suppose we can take his remarks as applying to the latter Amendment when we come to it.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords the noble Lord is quite right. All that I need do is to ask that my remarks be held to apply to Amendment No. 136. I do not seek to comment on this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  LORD ANNAN LORD ANNAN moved Amendment No. 135A:
  Page 112, line 35, at end insert ("or an association established for the purpose of constructing, improving or managing the construction and improvement of houses for the residence of students and other persons who have reached the age of majority and have not yet passed their 25th birthday.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I must declare an interest in that I am an unpaid director of Student Co-operative Dwellings. I move it because I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, during the Committee stage. The noble Lord will remember that he rejected the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the grounds that he was confirming the position which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had taken in the debate on the 1969 Act. This is to neglect what happened after the Committee stage of the Housing Bill of 1969.
  As a result of the representations then made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, other noble Lords and myself, there was a very significant shift in the attitude of the Government. This shift was referred to by Mr. Freeson, who was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and who spoke during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. He said that, in exercising his right as a former Minister to examine the files now in the Department of the Environment, he noted that in February, 1970, he was expecting an announcement that housing associations providing for married students should be eligible for local authority loans and Exchequer subsidy. He also noted that it was the intention of the then Government to give publicity to the fact that housing associations which provided hostel-type accommodation were eligible for support, whereas in the debate I pointed out that up till then they had specifically been excluded from this benefit. Finally, Mr. Freeson noted that two months before he went out of office he had circulated a memorandum in the Ministry proposing that a working party should be set up. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and Mr. Freeson had managed to thaw the hearts of officials in the Ministry of Housing, but naturally they froze again

  449
  once the present Government came to power. That is perfectly understandable, because the present Government could not have taken these initiatives further as the new Secretary of State and his team would naturally want time to reflect on the position. Is there any chance that the Secretary of State might look back at his own speech in 1969 and, in the light of recent developments, consider the matter again?
  May I press the noble Lord on a further point? He has said that he would not decry the idea of a research project on student housing. There are research projects and research projects. If the noble Lord meant that some academic research should be undertaken on the feasibility of student housing associations, I can assure him that all the research which is needed has already been done. But I hope that he had in mind that the Government might throw their weight behind a practical housing project on behalf of students and similar young people. The truth is that no one is going to believe that students can get a housing project off the ground until he has seen it done.
  Therefore may I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the Department of Education and Science has agreed to consider a scheme put up by Student Co-operative Dwellings which is to build new housing in the borough of Lewisham? Would it be possible to treat this scheme as part of the research project deserving Department of Education and Department of Environment support? It would, of course, be possible for Student Co-operative Dwellings to apply as a housing association whereby it would get a subsidy amounting to the difference between the fair rent and the economic rent. But I think it would be much more appropriate if Students Co-operative Dwellings could apply as a housing society and obtain from the Housing Corporation 50 per cent. of the cost of the scheme, and then apply to a building society for the other 50 per cent. The benefit which they could then obtain as a housing society would be an option for mortgage subsidy which would effectively reduce the interest rate.
  I recognise that it may be difficult for the noble Lord to reply immediately as there are other considerations which affect another Ministry, namely, the
  450
  Department of Education and Science; but could he give me an assurance that he will make an inquiry of this kind and perhaps refer to it on Third Reading? In spite of all the protracted negotiations with the former Government and this Government on the possibility of student housing associations getting benefits which appear to be possible under the Act, these are never obtained. If only we could show, by a concrete example, whether or not a scheme of this kind would work I think it would clear the air. What I am asking for is merely a pilot scheme, something which really would not be held to breach any principle if the Government decided that they preferred to go on with the scheme which obtains at present, whereby all student housing has to be looked after by the Department of Education and Science through the University Grants Committee. I am suggesting that the present Government, which is well-known to believe in competition, should exercise a little competition between schemes put up through the U.G.C. from universities to the Department of Education and Science for support and schemes put up by the Student Housing Association to the Department of the Environment. I beg to move.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister in the course of his reply to deal with one small matter which gives me some anxiety. If the Student Housing Association put up dwellings and they are subject to the provisions of this Bill, then the minimum rent which they can charge is 40 per cent. of the fair rent, if the means of the students are sufficiently low to justify that. It could be that the cost of renting student dwellings in this day and age might justify a fair rent of something like £10 a week in some of our major cities, so the minimum rent which could be charged would be £4. That, I suggest, is a large amount to impose on a student who is having to live on a grant. If that is the case, and if my calculations are correct, I wonder whether the noble Lord has anything further to say about the provisions of the Bill in so far as they affect the future of the Student Housing Association movement.
  LORD BALERNO: My Lords, it was with some regret that I was unable to

  451
  be present when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage, and I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his proposal. While a great deal of lip-service is paid to the matter of student housing, no immediate action seems to be taken. The debate on the shortage of student accommodation has been going on for far too long. I am connected with a university, the Heriot-Watt University, which is having to move to a completely new site eight miles out of Edinbugh, where the problem of student housing is going to become extremely acute. We have no endowments, as the older universities have, which can alleviate the problem of student housing. We are entirely dependent for our student housing on the amount of money that we can borrow from the bank. I wonder if it is correct for a new university to be put in the position of having to use overdraft facilities in order to put up student accommodation. The amount of grant that is obtained from the U.G.C. for student accommodation is—well, I cannot remember the figure exactly, but it is something of the order of £250 per student place, plus a ceiling which is put on the total amount that can be spent of about £1,500, and this, with the continuously escalating costs—prices go up monthly—makes it extremely difficult to provide adequate accommodation far students. Having made that small protest about the present position and the lack of adequate provision by the Government, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
  7.53 p.m.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to the debate to-day. Although we think that we are now getting a little late, it was much later when we debated this subject on the last occasion, but we understand how his other duties prevented him from being present then. I have no doubt that he has gated himself for the night. The noble Lord has raised important issues here. He ended on a fairly jocular note as to competition almost between two Departments, and he must appreciate that it is exactly here that the difficulty lies. The noble Lord knows better than most of us the difficulties of responsibility for
  452
  financial control in the educational sphere. In general terms, one must say that there must be one Minister responsible for the provision of accommodation, and we have taken the view, at any rate, that this should be done as part of the educational provision as a whole. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has the responsibility in the main for the co-ordination of the provision of housing for students.
  I need not go back over the difficulties here. The noble Lord knows well that his Amendment is technically unnecessary, and he has put it forward not in order to get it accepted but in order to state the case, which is quite understandable, that the same hostel facilities and grants should be available to students as are available to other sections of the community from the Department of the Environment hostel grants. But of course the money all has to come eventually from the same purse, and one has to see that this is co-ordinated. There is absolutely no distinction, so far as married students are concerned, in their claims for housing. If they are in housing need, the local authority has the responsibility for meeting that need, and in such cases, under the Bill, they would be entitled to rent rebates and the like. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised one of the pertinent points here in asking whether, as I understood him, a housing association could put up houses with grants, and whether in that case the students would be entitled to rent rebates, rent allowances and the like. It is just because of complications of this kind that the whole question is being thoroughly examined by my right honourable friend. The student accommodation needs in any one city or town, and also the housing situation there, may be very different from what it is in another, and in effect we have to deal here with a number of local issues rather than a truly national one. As I pointed out in our last debate, this is the approach that we are making.
  There are many existing forms of student accommodation, and so, too, there will be a variety of ways of dealing with the increasing needs of a growing student population. It is not just a matter of residential accommodation of one kind or another. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the idea that

  453
  rather more students might live at home, and a new and important factor here is that in the last two weeks the Vice-Chancellors Committee have, on their own initiative, written to the universities suggesting that serious consideration should be given to the idea that more students should live at home. This is an important issue, because in this Bill we are really dealing with dwellings as homes, whereas one of the problems in regard to student accommodation is that students occupy the accommodation for only six or eight months in the year, and not as their homes. As I say, this matter is very much under consideration at the moment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Annan, talked about a research project. As I explained in Committee, the Department of Education and Science are planning to undertake studies into students' accommodation requirements and these are likely to be related to the situation in particular places. The problem is a difficult one and full weight must be given to all the considerations. The number of residential places for students has been increased by one-third between 1966–67 and 1970–71 to a total of more than 86,000. A further increase of one-third to a total of about 120,000 is expected in the present quinquennium. The Secretary of State is also, as I said at an earlier stage, considering the confidential advice of the University Grants Committee, both on the general development of universities in the 1972–77 quinquennium and on the provision of further residential accommodation related to that. She is also considering the local authorities' proposals for higher education projects likely to start in 1974–75—
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a question before he goes too far beyond the reference that he made to a research project. Could the noble Lord make clear whether or not the possibility of a pilot scheme for a students' housing co-operative could be part of that project?
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know exactly what the content of the research project is going to be; but I can tell the noble Lord that a joint application from Brighton is being made for a housing association project there, to be shared between the university and
  454
  the local authority. This indicates the sort of experimentation that is going on. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Annan, also mentioned the prospect of another private project.
  I hope I have said enough to let it be seen that this is a very live issue at the present time and that no national approach has yet been reached. Many issues will have to be decided in the light of the 1972–77 quinquennium "award"—if that is the right expression—and until that is done I do not think I can go any further than I have already done. The fact is that it is possible for student associations to make an application and receive a grant if this is considered to be the right thing to do in the light of the general priorities for the provision of accommodation. This has not been done of late, but the whole subject is now under study, as I said, and I hope that before very long—but not by the next stage of the Bill—it may be possible to give the House some further information on this matter.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, there has been unconscionable delay over this, and both Governments have been responsible. The most encouraging thing that I heard my noble friend say just now was that the Secretary of State was herself giving serious attention to it, because what is now needed is a decision by Ministers. It is a good thing that the Department of Education and Science should be considering setting on foot various research projects, but this ought to have been done three years ago, immediately after the 1969 debate in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I both raised this subject and went to see the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it then was. Mr. Freeson, the then Parliamentary Secretary at that Ministry, speaking in Committee the other day, said rather mysteriously that decisions had been taken by officials and not by Parliament. As a Minister in the Department concerned, it would appear very odd that he should allow decisions to be taken by officials and for them not to be taken at least by a junior Minister, if not by the Minister in charge of the Department. It is ministerial decisions that are needed now.

  455
  I find it strange that further inquiries on projects have to be undertaken, because the field for these has been wide open during the last three years, and the housing situation in a number of university towns and in their immediate vicinities has been growing more serious all the time. I know, as well as my noble friend does, that this Amendment is not technically necessary in order to enlarge the Bill so that it would give the necessary powers. The point is that the powers are there and, by the decision of somebody, they have not yet been used. What I think we are all asking in your Lordships' House to-day is that decisions should be given by one senior Minister, if not by two senior Ministers, and that something should happen about this matter.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I should like very much to carry on from what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. I realise that hostel provision for students or for people moving around the country is becoming an ever-increasing need. There is no provision whatever in the Scottish Bill for this. I was informed that as Glasgow is the only city in Scotland which has hostels it would be very difficult to bring in all the legislation that has been moved—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for the many Amendments in respect of hostels which he brought forward at a late stage in the proceedings on this Bill. I think he has done an excellent job. I do not want to say anything more at this stage of the day, but if possible I should like something to be done about it in the future.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I rise only to say how happy it is that after something like nine days on the Committee stage and nearly three days on the Report stage it is possible for the same message to be sent to the noble Lord and his Government from all sections of your Lordships' House.
  LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's gentlemanly rebuke that I was not in my place at 2 a.m. at the Committee stage. I am afraid I was misinformed about the time. I should like to reply to one remark which he made about research projects. The noble
  456
  Lord, Lord Brooke, put his finger on the point. In 1967, in my first year on the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, I asked that a study of student housing problems should be made, and suffered the immediate penalty for making such a request by being made chairman of the committee which was to look into it. We did two years of research and we reported to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee. The report went in due course to the University Grants Committee. It was never published—there was no reason why it should have been—but I should like to assure the noble Lord that there has been a good deal of research on this matter, and more is now being commissioned. I do not know whether more research necessarily means better research, but I have every confidence in the team of the University of Kent which is going to carry out this project. Of course I know very well that this is also a way of lengthening the time taken to arrive at a decision.
  The only thing I should like to ask of the noble Lord is this: would he please bear in mind, if and when there is a move in the Department of Education and Science on behalf of certain projects—the one from Brighton and the Lewisham one to which I referred—this discussion in your Lordships' House, because when those applications come forward I think it would be of great interest if one could single out just one or two to see whether in practice this is a sensible way of dealing with what I think everybody admits is a serious problem.
  May I make just one last point? When the Minister in another place replied in Committee to the points made to him, he quoted Hilaire Belloc as follows:
  "The accursed power that rests on Privilege (And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)
  Broke—and Democracy resumed her reign: (Which goes with Bridge, and Women, and Champagne)."
  This was meant to indicate that whichever Government was in power the same answer would be given to this particular request.
  This is not a way of impressing our students. The students who are concerned in this matter are exceedingly earnest and it is not a way of impressing them that democracy works. I would

  457
  far prefer it if the Government in power—whichever Government it were—said, "In no circumstances will we permit student associations, housing associations, or whatever organisations they have, to benefit under the Housing Act". If we had an answer of that kind at any rate it would be an answer. What I believe to be fatal from the point of view of morale is to leave people hanging in mid-air. I do not think it is good government; it undermines belief in government. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 105 [Exclusion of housing authority property from provisions of this Act]:
  8.11 p.m.
  LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 135B:
  Page 114, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(5) A direction under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: I should like to refer to some important words in Hansard of June 27, 1972. It says:
  "House adjourned at ten o'clock".
  Not at one minute past 10, nor at one minute to 10 but at 10 o'clock. This was the occasion when, having undertaken at the Committee stage to terminate at 10 o'clock, we terminated at 10.00 hours. It is for that reason that the new clause which was then introduced (and which is now Clause 105) could not be discussed.
  Clause 105 is a clause which on the face of it apparently grants enormous powers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be good enough to say whether I am right in assuming that these are powers of the kind one can only relate to driving a double-decker bus through the whole of the Bill. The noble Lord will not remember what a double-decker bus looks like—I can tell him that it is a very large bus. If I have misread the clause, and the powers are very moderate indeed, there would be no need for me to press the Amendment. But if the powers are as they seem to be, very considerable indeed, then the power should only be exercised subject to Parliamentary supervision, and that is all the Amendment is about. I beg to move.
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I recall the occasion the noble Lord refers to, and we were moving at a brisk pace through the later stages of the Bill. When we came to this clause I believe that I gave an explanation, but it was a very brief one, as to the purpose of this direction. I do not think I need g3 much farther now; but I hasten to confirm that this is a power for which there will be only a limited use on a few special occasions. The only case when its use is envisaged at the present time is in dealing with the Barbican scheme built by the Common Council of the City of London. The dwellings in this scheme were built without subsidy for letting to persons with incomes sufficient to meet the high rents charged and it would he inappropriate for such dwellings to attract subsidy under the new system. The Common Council of the City of London do not wish to claim subsidy on the dwellings and the new clause will make it possible to avoid any subsidy being payable in respect of any deficits in the Common Council's Housing Revenue Account which is attributable to the Barbican scheme.
  It is possible that other types of case may arise, but never on a large scale. Directions under the clause would deal only with very special situations. It does not seem appropriate to trouble Parliament with the very minor and special issues involved which will only concern certain dwellings of a few particular local authorities in a few exceptional circumstances.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I hope now that he will help us on the powers of this clause, not on the exercise of those powers. He has repeated what he previously said, which lulled us into a quiescent acceptance of the clause, about this clause relating only to one or two houses in the City of London, and so on. But when one examines it—albeit it is the Government's intention at present only to use the powers in the clause in a very limited way—one cannot see anywhere in the clause where the Government are limited to using these powers in a very narrow way. If the clause therefore permits the Government—as it seems to do—to use these powers, either in relation to the Barbican scheme, or any other scheme in any local

  459
  authority, these are very wide powers indeed. I am not asking the noble Lord what is the present intention of the present Secretary of State—that is always interesting and valuable, but it is always irrelevant to the Statute. I am asking whether I am right in thinking that this clause gives very wide powers indeed. If it does, then they are totally excessive to be exercised by a Minister on his own "say so" and he ought to come to Parliament and get confirmation. I am not seeking to stop him using the powers; I am seeking to remind the Government that we still are a democratic body and if you want to exercise powers as wide as these appear to be you should come to Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will say whether I have misread the clause and have assumed that there are powers which are greater than in fact exist.
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that these are wide powers. They are designed to embrace a number of special circumstances, such as the Barbican scheme. Another case may be where a local authority receives a gift of money with which to erect houses which, under the terms of the gift, they let at special rents. I think the noble Lord will see that there is a range of possibilities between the existing Barbican type of scheme and one such as I have just mentioned, and we need wide powers. The noble Lord will also agree that circumstances such as those do not justify recourse to the Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure in Parliament. The width of the powers is certainly there, but it is required in order to meet a wide range of exceptional circumstances.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if I may speak again, that is a totally unsatisfactory answer. The noble Lord is confirming that the powers are as I thought, wide; but he is not proposing that the Minister should have to go through the normal hoop of getting Parliamentary consent. Having regard to the clock, I do not propose to do anything more than register my strong disapproval—
  A NOBLE LORD: Negative it.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am being offered advice which I am told
  460
  is sometimes against the normal traditions of your Lordships' House. This is an excessive use of power and we should have been told when the clause was introduced that this was a very wide power which the Government proposed to exercise in a narrow way. We were not told that and it makes it difficult for us to deal with it at this late stage. I have made our views quite clear, and I now seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Amendment?
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I sought leave but I am perfectly content if the leave is not granted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.20 p.m.
  LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 135C:
  After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
  Annual Housing Estimates
  ".The Secretary of State shall publish each year, so as to coincide with the publication of the annual White paper on Public Expenditure, the like information in relation to Housing in the private sector as is contained in that White paper in relation to Housing in the public sector.".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a proposal to add to the information which the Government provide at present and which they will provide regularly each year in order to give a total instead of a partial picture of housing. The Government produce each year a Command Paper on public expenditure. I am looking at page 40 and subsequent pages of the public expenditure paper 1975–76. It sets out a great deal of information about public sector housing. Some of the information has to be estimated very generally. Paragraph 1 refers to the White Papers Fair Deal for Housing and the Reform of Housing Finance In Scotland. Later it says:
  "Because of the radical nature of these policy changes the forward estimates in the table are more than usually tentative."
  The point I am making is that in the public expenditure paper on housing there are great difficulties in arriving at estimates, nevertheless the Government recognise that it is of great value for figures

  461
  to be published for Parliament and the interested public relating to public sector housing. How much more valuable it would be if we had figures relating both to public and private sector housing. Then the whole picture would be available for Parliament and all interested parties. All the Amendment seeks is to invite the Secretary of State to publish each year at the same time as this public expenditure paper similar information in relation to the private sector. In this way we would have a total picture of housing.
  I am sure this information will be made available by some Government at some time. I hope the present Government will see how valuable it would be, especially as they are involved in major housing reform, for all concerned to have the same information as lies within the knowledge of the Government as to the likely development in housing in both public and private sectors. I beg to move.
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord's idea of the Government publishing private sector forecasts five years ahead on the same lines as those for the public sector is a new one and has never been previously fully considered or worked out. The nearest official approach was the Labour Government's national plan of 1965 which included the broad forecast of future expenditure on housing as a whole but not in anything like the detail of the Public Expenditure White Paper. There is much to be said for looking at housing as a whole. We have been doing that throughout this Bill. In so far as that approach underlines the purpose behind this Amendment it is welcome. I think the noble Lord would agree that in terms of forecasting investment there is no straightforward parallel between the public and private sectors. Governments can control public expenditure directly though this one has not sought to keep expenditure on housing within specified financial limits. But the Government's relationship with the private sector is different.
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has close and continuing liaison with the interests concerned such as the Building Societies Association and other bodies through his regular national consultative machinery. In this sector the Government cannot do more than provide a favour-
  462
  able climate for these bodies. How they respond depends on their assessment of market demand. It is not essential that this welcome and valuable idea should be fully worked out here and now for incorporation in this legislation. Equally it certainly does not deserve to be rejected. All I have sought to do in answering the Amendment is to acknowledge that we see the merit in it. I do not think the noble Lord would want me to go any further at this stage into the details of the difficulties. He can probably see them as clearly as any of us. I confirm that it will continue to be studied.
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. I recognise the difficulties; I also recognise that there is regular contact between his Department, the Treasury for example and the private sector on housing. It would be valuable for all concerned. I am grateful for his sympathy with the idea. It may be that the parallel cannot be precise, in which case half a loaf is better than no bread. Having said that and repeating my gratitude I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 [Citation, etc]:
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is an Amendment which the noble Lord has said he will raise at another time. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 116, line 2, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two weeks").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I rise only to say that the noble Lord is quite right. I have no objection to this Amendment going through now. If it is of any help to noble Lords we on this side of the House would have no objection to the remaining Amendments being taken en bloc. If the Government want to make statements that is for them to decide.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if it would be convenient, perhaps the Lord Chairman could put the remainder of the Amendments en bloc. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 137 to 147.
  Amendments moved—
  Schedule 9, page 168, line 3, leave out from ("rent") to end of line and insert ("which is

  463
  eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance as defined in section 25 of this Act.")
  Schedule 10, page 172, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( )After the date of repeal of the said Part III, section 37(3) of this Act shall apply to a conversion under the said Part III as it applies to a conversion under Part III of this Act.")
  Schedule 11, page 175, column 3, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
  (" Sections 1 to 8.
  Section 13.
  Sections 16 to 21.
  Sections 23 and 24.")
  Schedule 11, page 175, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("Section 46(5)(b)")
  Schedule 11, page 175, line 50, column 3, leave out ("subsection (2)(b)")
  Schedule 11, page 175, line 54, column 3, leave out ("section 7") and insert ("sections 7 and 9")
  Page 176, line 3, column 3, after ("10") insert ("the following provisions, except as respects hostels, that is")
  Page 176, column 3, leave out lines 10 to 12.
  Page 176, line 13, column 3, leave out ("15") and insert ("16")
  Page 176, line 15, column 3, leave out ("Schedules 1 and 2") and insert ("Schedule 1")
  Page 176, line 46, at end insert—

  PART V
  PAYMENTS FOR HOSTELS

  6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

  The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958.

  Section 15.

  7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 62.

  The New Towns Act 1959.

  Section 4(2)(b).

  9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 65.

  The Housing Act 1961.

  Section 9.

  1965 c. 59.

  The New Towns Act 1965.

  In Schedule 10 the following provisions, so far as relates to hostels, that is, in paragraph 4 sub-paragraph (1), and in sub-paragraph (4) the words from "and there shall" to the end of the sub-paragraph, and paragraph 6(2).

  1967 c. 29.

  The Housing Subsidies Act 1967.

  Section 15.

  The repeals in this Part of this Schedule do not have effect in the case of premises approved for the purposes of section 15(1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 before the coming into force of this Act, or in the case of premises provided or converted under arrangements entered into before the coming into force of this Act under or by virtue of section 120 of the Housing Act 1957, or section 9(2) of the Housing Act 1961.")
  Page 177, line 44, at end insert—
  ("Subject to paragraph 9 of Schedule 6 to this Act, the repeal of Part III of the Housing Act 1969, and of Schedules 2 and 3 to that Act, takes effect at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on July 11 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.