§ 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 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 DIAMONDMy 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 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 DIAMONDMy Lords, we repeat our gratitude.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
372§ LORD SANDFORDMy 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—
( ) 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 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.
373
§
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 YOUNGMy 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 DIAMONDMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 DIAMONDAnother four?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, 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 DIAMONDMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 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 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 DIAMONDMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 moved Amendment No. 95:
380§ 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 DIAMONDMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 SANDFORDMy 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 HYLTONMy 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 SANDFORDMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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.
387§ BARONESS YOUNGMy 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 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 SANDFORDMy 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 AVEBURYMy Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 73 [The special residual subsidy]:
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy 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—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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.
390§ Clause 74 [Residual subsidies—supplemental]:
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy 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 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 WINTERBOTTOMMy 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.
391§ 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 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 WINTERBOTTOMMy 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 HYLTONMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 FISKEMy 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 SANDFORDMy 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 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:
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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 DIAMONDI 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 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.
397§ 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 WINTERBOTTOMMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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.
398§ Clause 92 [Hostel Subsidy]:
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 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 YOUNGMy 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 GAITSKELLThe 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 AVEBURYMy 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 YOUNGMy 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 SHEPHERDI 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 DRUMALBYNI 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 SHEPHERDNo.
§ 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 SHEPHERDMy 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.
405| 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 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 AVEBURYMy 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 LEEKMy 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 HAWKEMy 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 LEEKGod 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 GAITSKELLMy 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 GARNSWORTHYMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy Lords, he will have transferred to him such powers as the Secretary of State considers desirable.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYAnd it is possible for the Secretary of State to confer on him all of the powers enjoyed by the local authorities.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, all of the housing powers.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYAll 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 HYLTONMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 HAWKEMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 moved Amendment No. 113A:
§ Page 106, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions contained in subsection (10) below").
419
§
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 LEEKMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 definedand 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 DRUMALBYNYes, 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 SHEPHERDThis is double talk.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNNo. 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 DIAMONDMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 DIAMONDMy 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.
427| 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 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 FERRERSI 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 SHEPHERDMy Lords, it is not I who is anxious; it is in the Bill in paragraph (c).
EARL FERRERSThe 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 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 LEEKMy 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 FERRERSMy 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 DIAMONDMy 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 FERRERSMy 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 SHEPHERDBut does that also mean the day-to-day functions of the Housing Commissioner?
§ LORD BERNSTEINMy 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?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy 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 FERRERSMy 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 DIAMONDAnd on his activities?
§ LORD AVEBURYI am afraid, my Lords—
§ LORD SHEPHERDIf 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 FERRERSMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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 DIAMONDMy 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 AVEBURYMy 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.
441§ 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 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 SHEPHERDMy 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 BERNSTEINMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 SIMONMy 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 DRUMALBYNMy 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 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 YOUNGMy 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 YOUNGMy 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")
446§ 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 YOUNGMy 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—