HL Deb 13 July 1972 vol 333 cc446-63

The Housing Act 1949.

(12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 60)

Section 40.

The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 42)

Sections 15 and 22.

The Housing Act 1961

(9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 65)

Section 9.

Any provision of the New Towns Act 1959, or of the New Towns Act 1965, so far as it relates to hostels.

This Act

Section 14(6)."")

Section 14(6) line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.


My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment I have already outlined. It is similar to previous Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 164, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert (" the day after the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)


My Lords, this is the last of a series of Amendments which the noble Lord has moved, the reason for which has been expressed to be the assistance of local authorities. I do not believe the local authorities are assisted in this way, or that by splitting up the period available one is going to help. There is here a fundamental problem of the Government trying to do too much too quickly. No matter how much they wriggle about it they will not make it possible for the local authorities and their staffs to carry out their function properly. This is a very substantial issue, and we do not have time to deal with it adequately to-night. In these circumstances, I will not seek to divide the House but will return to the principle on Third Reading.


My Lords, I think the noble Lord is speaking to a different Amendment. We are dealing with Amendment No. 135, and the noble Lord seems to be talking about Amendment No. 136. However, I suppose we can take his remarks as applying to the latter Amendment when we come to it.


My Lords the noble Lord is quite right. All that I need do is to ask that my remarks be held to apply to Amendment No. 136. I do not seek to comment on this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

LORD ANNAN moved Amendment No. 135A:

Page 112, line 35, at end insert ("or an association established for the purpose of constructing, improving or managing the construction and improvement of houses for the residence of students and other persons who have reached the age of majority and have not yet passed their 25th birthday.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I must declare an interest in that I am an unpaid director of Student Co-operative Dwellings. I move it because I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, during the Committee stage. The noble Lord will remember that he rejected the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the grounds that he was confirming the position which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had taken in the debate on the 1969 Act. This is to neglect what happened after the Committee stage of the Housing Bill of 1969.

As a result of the representations then made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, other noble Lords and myself, there was a very significant shift in the attitude of the Government. This shift was referred to by Mr. Freeson, who was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and who spoke during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. He said that, in exercising his right as a former Minister to examine the files now in the Department of the Environment, he noted that in February, 1970, he was expecting an announcement that housing associations providing for married students should be eligible for local authority loans and Exchequer subsidy. He also noted that it was the intention of the then Government to give publicity to the fact that housing associations which provided hostel-type accommodation were eligible for support, whereas in the debate I pointed out that up till then they had specifically been excluded from this benefit. Finally, Mr. Freeson noted that two months before he went out of office he had circulated a memorandum in the Ministry proposing that a working party should be set up. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and Mr. Freeson had managed to thaw the hearts of officials in the Ministry of Housing, but naturally they froze again once the present Government came to power. That is perfectly understandable, because the present Government could not have taken these initiatives further as the new Secretary of State and his team would naturally want time to reflect on the position. Is there any chance that the Secretary of State might look back at his own speech in 1969 and, in the light of recent developments, consider the matter again?

May I press the noble Lord on a further point? He has said that he would not decry the idea of a research project on student housing. There are research projects and research projects. If the noble Lord meant that some academic research should be undertaken on the feasibility of student housing associations, I can assure him that all the research which is needed has already been done. But I hope that he had in mind that the Government might throw their weight behind a practical housing project on behalf of students and similar young people. The truth is that no one is going to believe that students can get a housing project off the ground until he has seen it done.

Therefore may I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the Department of Education and Science has agreed to consider a scheme put up by Student Co-operative Dwellings which is to build new housing in the borough of Lewisham? Would it be possible to treat this scheme as part of the research project deserving Department of Education and Department of Environment support? It would, of course, be possible for Student Co-operative Dwellings to apply as a housing association whereby it would get a subsidy amounting to the difference between the fair rent and the economic rent. But I think it would be much more appropriate if Students Co-operative Dwellings could apply as a housing society and obtain from the Housing Corporation 50 per cent. of the cost of the scheme, and then apply to a building society for the other 50 per cent. The benefit which they could then obtain as a housing society would be an option for mortgage subsidy which would effectively reduce the interest rate.

I recognise that it may be difficult for the noble Lord to reply immediately as there are other considerations which affect another Ministry, namely, the Department of Education and Science; but could he give me an assurance that he will make an inquiry of this kind and perhaps refer to it on Third Reading? In spite of all the protracted negotiations with the former Government and this Government on the possibility of student housing associations getting benefits which appear to be possible under the Act, these are never obtained. If only we could show, by a concrete example, whether or not a scheme of this kind would work I think it would clear the air. What I am asking for is merely a pilot scheme, something which really would not be held to breach any principle if the Government decided that they preferred to go on with the scheme which obtains at present, whereby all student housing has to be looked after by the Department of Education and Science through the University Grants Committee. I am suggesting that the present Government, which is well-known to believe in competition, should exercise a little competition between schemes put up through the U.G.C. from universities to the Department of Education and Science for support and schemes put up by the Student Housing Association to the Department of the Environment. I beg to move.


My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister in the course of his reply to deal with one small matter which gives me some anxiety. If the Student Housing Association put up dwellings and they are subject to the provisions of this Bill, then the minimum rent which they can charge is 40 per cent. of the fair rent, if the means of the students are sufficiently low to justify that. It could be that the cost of renting student dwellings in this day and age might justify a fair rent of something like £10 a week in some of our major cities, so the minimum rent which could be charged would be £4. That, I suggest, is a large amount to impose on a student who is having to live on a grant. If that is the case, and if my calculations are correct, I wonder whether the noble Lord has anything further to say about the provisions of the Bill in so far as they affect the future of the Student Housing Association movement.


My Lords, it was with some regret that I was unable to be present when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage, and I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his proposal. While a great deal of lip-service is paid to the matter of student housing, no immediate action seems to be taken. The debate on the shortage of student accommodation has been going on for far too long. I am connected with a university, the Heriot-Watt University, which is having to move to a completely new site eight miles out of Edinbugh, where the problem of student housing is going to become extremely acute. We have no endowments, as the older universities have, which can alleviate the problem of student housing. We are entirely dependent for our student housing on the amount of money that we can borrow from the bank. I wonder if it is correct for a new university to be put in the position of having to use overdraft facilities in order to put up student accommodation. The amount of grant that is obtained from the U.G.C. for student accommodation is—well, I cannot remember the figure exactly, but it is something of the order of £250 per student place, plus a ceiling which is put on the total amount that can be spent of about £1,500, and this, with the continuously escalating costs—prices go up monthly—makes it extremely difficult to provide adequate accommodation far students. Having made that small protest about the present position and the lack of adequate provision by the Government, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Annan.

7.53 p.m.


My Lords, I am glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to the debate to-day. Although we think that we are now getting a little late, it was much later when we debated this subject on the last occasion, but we understand how his other duties prevented him from being present then. I have no doubt that he has gated himself for the night. The noble Lord has raised important issues here. He ended on a fairly jocular note as to competition almost between two Departments, and he must appreciate that it is exactly here that the difficulty lies. The noble Lord knows better than most of us the difficulties of responsibility for financial control in the educational sphere. In general terms, one must say that there must be one Minister responsible for the provision of accommodation, and we have taken the view, at any rate, that this should be done as part of the educational provision as a whole. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has the responsibility in the main for the co-ordination of the provision of housing for students.

I need not go back over the difficulties here. The noble Lord knows well that his Amendment is technically unnecessary, and he has put it forward not in order to get it accepted but in order to state the case, which is quite understandable, that the same hostel facilities and grants should be available to students as are available to other sections of the community from the Department of the Environment hostel grants. But of course the money all has to come eventually from the same purse, and one has to see that this is co-ordinated. There is absolutely no distinction, so far as married students are concerned, in their claims for housing. If they are in housing need, the local authority has the responsibility for meeting that need, and in such cases, under the Bill, they would be entitled to rent rebates and the like. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised one of the pertinent points here in asking whether, as I understood him, a housing association could put up houses with grants, and whether in that case the students would be entitled to rent rebates, rent allowances and the like. It is just because of complications of this kind that the whole question is being thoroughly examined by my right honourable friend. The student accommodation needs in any one city or town, and also the housing situation there, may be very different from what it is in another, and in effect we have to deal here with a number of local issues rather than a truly national one. As I pointed out in our last debate, this is the approach that we are making.

There are many existing forms of student accommodation, and so, too, there will be a variety of ways of dealing with the increasing needs of a growing student population. It is not just a matter of residential accommodation of one kind or another. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the idea that rather more students might live at home, and a new and important factor here is that in the last two weeks the Vice-Chancellors Committee have, on their own initiative, written to the universities suggesting that serious consideration should be given to the idea that more students should live at home. This is an important issue, because in this Bill we are really dealing with dwellings as homes, whereas one of the problems in regard to student accommodation is that students occupy the accommodation for only six or eight months in the year, and not as their homes. As I say, this matter is very much under consideration at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Annan, talked about a research project. As I explained in Committee, the Department of Education and Science are planning to undertake studies into students' accommodation requirements and these are likely to be related to the situation in particular places. The problem is a difficult one and full weight must be given to all the considerations. The number of residential places for students has been increased by one-third between 1966–67 and 1970–71 to a total of more than 86,000. A further increase of one-third to a total of about 120,000 is expected in the present quinquennium. The Secretary of State is also, as I said at an earlier stage, considering the confidential advice of the University Grants Committee, both on the general development of universities in the 1972–77 quinquennium and on the provision of further residential accommodation related to that. She is also considering the local authorities' proposals for higher education projects likely to start in 1974–75—


My Lords. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a question before he goes too far beyond the reference that he made to a research project. Could the noble Lord make clear whether or not the possibility of a pilot scheme for a students' housing co-operative could be part of that project?


My Lords, I do not know exactly what the content of the research project is going to be; but I can tell the noble Lord that a joint application from Brighton is being made for a housing association project there, to be shared between the university and the local authority. This indicates the sort of experimentation that is going on. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Annan, also mentioned the prospect of another private project.

I hope I have said enough to let it be seen that this is a very live issue at the present time and that no national approach has yet been reached. Many issues will have to be decided in the light of the 1972–77 quinquennium "award"—if that is the right expression—and until that is done I do not think I can go any further than I have already done. The fact is that it is possible for student associations to make an application and receive a grant if this is considered to be the right thing to do in the light of the general priorities for the provision of accommodation. This has not been done of late, but the whole subject is now under study, as I said, and I hope that before very long—but not by the next stage of the Bill—it may be possible to give the House some further information on this matter.


My Lords, there has been unconscionable delay over this, and both Governments have been responsible. The most encouraging thing that I heard my noble friend say just now was that the Secretary of State was herself giving serious attention to it, because what is now needed is a decision by Ministers. It is a good thing that the Department of Education and Science should be considering setting on foot various research projects, but this ought to have been done three years ago, immediately after the 1969 debate in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I both raised this subject and went to see the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it then was. Mr. Freeson, the then Parliamentary Secretary at that Ministry, speaking in Committee the other day, said rather mysteriously that decisions had been taken by officials and not by Parliament. As a Minister in the Department concerned, it would appear very odd that he should allow decisions to be taken by officials and for them not to be taken at least by a junior Minister, if not by the Minister in charge of the Department. It is ministerial decisions that are needed now.

I find it strange that further inquiries on projects have to be undertaken, because the field for these has been wide open during the last three years, and the housing situation in a number of university towns and in their immediate vicinities has been growing more serious all the time. I know, as well as my noble friend does, that this Amendment is not technically necessary in order to enlarge the Bill so that it would give the necessary powers. The point is that the powers are there and, by the decision of somebody, they have not yet been used. What I think we are all asking in your Lordships' House to-day is that decisions should be given by one senior Minister, if not by two senior Ministers, and that something should happen about this matter.


My Lords, I should like very much to carry on from what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. I realise that hostel provision for students or for people moving around the country is becoming an ever-increasing need. There is no provision whatever in the Scottish Bill for this. I was informed that as Glasgow is the only city in Scotland which has hostels it would be very difficult to bring in all the legislation that has been moved—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for the many Amendments in respect of hostels which he brought forward at a late stage in the proceedings on this Bill. I think he has done an excellent job. I do not want to say anything more at this stage of the day, but if possible I should like something to be done about it in the future.


My Lords, I rise only to say how happy it is that after something like nine days on the Committee stage and nearly three days on the Report stage it is possible for the same message to be sent to the noble Lord and his Government from all sections of your Lordships' House.


My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's gentlemanly rebuke that I was not in my place at 2 a.m. at the Committee stage. I am afraid I was misinformed about the time. I should like to reply to one remark which he made about research projects. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, put his finger on the point. In 1967, in my first year on the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, I asked that a study of student housing problems should be made, and suffered the immediate penalty for making such a request by being made chairman of the committee which was to look into it. We did two years of research and we reported to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee. The report went in due course to the University Grants Committee. It was never published—there was no reason why it should have been—but I should like to assure the noble Lord that there has been a good deal of research on this matter, and more is now being commissioned. I do not know whether more research necessarily means better research, but I have every confidence in the team of the University of Kent which is going to carry out this project. Of course I know very well that this is also a way of lengthening the time taken to arrive at a decision.

The only thing I should like to ask of the noble Lord is this: would he please bear in mind, if and when there is a move in the Department of Education and Science on behalf of certain projects—the one from Brighton and the Lewisham one to which I referred—this discussion in your Lordships' House, because when those applications come forward I think it would be of great interest if one could single out just one or two to see whether in practice this is a sensible way of dealing with what I think everybody admits is a serious problem.

May I make just one last point? When the Minister in another place replied in Committee to the points made to him, he quoted Hilaire Belloc as follows: The accursed power that rests on Privilege (And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge) Broke—and Democracy resumed her reign: (Which goes with Bridge, and Women, and Champagne). This was meant to indicate that whichever Government was in power the same answer would be given to this particular request.

This is not a way of impressing our students. The students who are concerned in this matter are exceedingly earnest and it is not a way of impressing them that democracy works. I would far prefer it if the Government in power—whichever Government it were—said, "In no circumstances will we permit student associations, housing associations, or whatever organisations they have, to benefit under the Housing Act". If we had an answer of that kind at any rate it would be an answer. What I believe to be fatal from the point of view of morale is to leave people hanging in mid-air. I do not think it is good government; it undermines belief in government. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105 [Exclusion of housing authority property from provisions of this Act]:

8.11 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 135B:

Page 114, line 32, at end insert— ("(5) A direction under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: I should like to refer to some important words in Hansard of June 27, 1972. It says: House adjourned at ten o'clock". Not at one minute past 10, nor at one minute to 10 but at 10 o'clock. This was the occasion when, having undertaken at the Committee stage to terminate at 10 o'clock, we terminated at 10.00 hours. It is for that reason that the new clause which was then introduced (and which is now Clause 105) could not be discussed.

Clause 105 is a clause which on the face of it apparently grants enormous powers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be good enough to say whether I am right in assuming that these are powers of the kind one can only relate to driving a double-decker bus through the whole of the Bill. The noble Lord will not remember what a double-decker bus looks like—I can tell him that it is a very large bus. If I have misread the clause, and the powers are very moderate indeed, there would be no need for me to press the Amendment. But if the powers are as they seem to be, very considerable indeed, then the power should only be exercised subject to Parliamentary supervision, and that is all the Amendment is about. I beg to move.


My Lords, I recall the occasion the noble Lord refers to, and we were moving at a brisk pace through the later stages of the Bill. When we came to this clause I believe that I gave an explanation, but it was a very brief one, as to the purpose of this direction. I do not think I need g3 much farther now; but I hasten to confirm that this is a power for which there will be only a limited use on a few special occasions. The only case when its use is envisaged at the present time is in dealing with the Barbican scheme built by the Common Council of the City of London. The dwellings in this scheme were built without subsidy for letting to persons with incomes sufficient to meet the high rents charged and it would he inappropriate for such dwellings to attract subsidy under the new system. The Common Council of the City of London do not wish to claim subsidy on the dwellings and the new clause will make it possible to avoid any subsidy being payable in respect of any deficits in the Common Council's Housing Revenue Account which is attributable to the Barbican scheme.

It is possible that other types of case may arise, but never on a large scale. Directions under the clause would deal only with very special situations. It does not seem appropriate to trouble Parliament with the very minor and special issues involved which will only concern certain dwellings of a few particular local authorities in a few exceptional circumstances.


My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I hope now that he will help us on the powers of this clause, not on the exercise of those powers. He has repeated what he previously said, which lulled us into a quiescent acceptance of the clause, about this clause relating only to one or two houses in the City of London, and so on. But when one examines it—albeit it is the Government's intention at present only to use the powers in the clause in a very limited way—one cannot see anywhere in the clause where the Government are limited to using these powers in a very narrow way. If the clause therefore permits the Government—as it seems to do—to use these powers, either in relation to the Barbican scheme, or any other scheme in any local authority, these are very wide powers indeed. I am not asking the noble Lord what is the present intention of the present Secretary of State—that is always interesting and valuable, but it is always irrelevant to the Statute. I am asking whether I am right in thinking that this clause gives very wide powers indeed. If it does, then they are totally excessive to be exercised by a Minister on his own "say so" and he ought to come to Parliament and get confirmation. I am not seeking to stop him using the powers; I am seeking to remind the Government that we still are a democratic body and if you want to exercise powers as wide as these appear to be you should come to Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will say whether I have misread the clause and have assumed that there are powers which are greater than in fact exist.


My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that these are wide powers. They are designed to embrace a number of special circumstances, such as the Barbican scheme. Another case may be where a local authority receives a gift of money with which to erect houses which, under the terms of the gift, they let at special rents. I think the noble Lord will see that there is a range of possibilities between the existing Barbican type of scheme and one such as I have just mentioned, and we need wide powers. The noble Lord will also agree that circumstances such as those do not justify recourse to the Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure in Parliament. The width of the powers is certainly there, but it is required in order to meet a wide range of exceptional circumstances.


My Lords, if I may speak again, that is a totally unsatisfactory answer. The noble Lord is confirming that the powers are as I thought, wide; but he is not proposing that the Minister should have to go through the normal hoop of getting Parliamentary consent. Having regard to the clock, I do not propose to do anything more than register my strong disapproval—


Negative it.


My Lords, I am being offered advice which I am told is sometimes against the normal traditions of your Lordships' House. This is an excessive use of power and we should have been told when the clause was introduced that this was a very wide power which the Government proposed to exercise in a narrow way. We were not told that and it makes it difficult for us to deal with it at this late stage. I have made our views quite clear, and I now seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.


Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Amendment?


My Lords, I sought leave but I am perfectly content if the leave is not granted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.20 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 135C: After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:

Annual Housing Estimates

".The Secretary of State shall publish each year, so as to coincide with the publication of the annual White paper on Public Expenditure, the like information in relation to Housing in the private sector as is contained in that White paper in relation to Housing in the public sector.".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a proposal to add to the information which the Government provide at present and which they will provide regularly each year in order to give a total instead of a partial picture of housing. The Government produce each year a Command Paper on public expenditure. I am looking at page 40 and subsequent pages of the public expenditure paper 1975–76. It sets out a great deal of information about public sector housing. Some of the information has to be estimated very generally. Paragraph 1 refers to the White Papers Fair Deal for Housing and the Reform of Housing Finance In Scotland. Later it says: Because of the radical nature of these policy changes the forward estimates in the table are more than usually tentative.

The point I am making is that in the public expenditure paper on housing there are great difficulties in arriving at estimates, nevertheless the Government recognise that it is of great value for figures to be published for Parliament and the interested public relating to public sector housing. How much more valuable it would be if we had figures relating both to public and private sector housing. Then the whole picture would be available for Parliament and all interested parties. All the Amendment seeks is to invite the Secretary of State to publish each year at the same time as this public expenditure paper similar information in relation to the private sector. In this way we would have a total picture of housing.

I am sure this information will be made available by some Government at some time. I hope the present Government will see how valuable it would be, especially as they are involved in major housing reform, for all concerned to have the same information as lies within the knowledge of the Government as to the likely development in housing in both public and private sectors. I beg to move.


My Lords, the noble Lord's idea of the Government publishing private sector forecasts five years ahead on the same lines as those for the public sector is a new one and has never been previously fully considered or worked out. The nearest official approach was the Labour Government's national plan of 1965 which included the broad forecast of future expenditure on housing as a whole but not in anything like the detail of the Public Expenditure White Paper. There is much to be said for looking at housing as a whole. We have been doing that throughout this Bill. In so far as that approach underlines the purpose behind this Amendment it is welcome. I think the noble Lord would agree that in terms of forecasting investment there is no straightforward parallel between the public and private sectors. Governments can control public expenditure directly though this one has not sought to keep expenditure on housing within specified financial limits. But the Government's relationship with the private sector is different.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has close and continuing liaison with the interests concerned such as the Building Societies Association and other bodies through his regular national consultative machinery. In this sector the Government cannot do more than provide a favour- able climate for these bodies. How they respond depends on their assessment of market demand. It is not essential that this welcome and valuable idea should be fully worked out here and now for incorporation in this legislation. Equally it certainly does not deserve to be rejected. All I have sought to do in answering the Amendment is to acknowledge that we see the merit in it. I do not think the noble Lord would want me to go any further at this stage into the details of the difficulties. He can probably see them as clearly as any of us. I confirm that it will continue to be studied.


My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. I recognise the difficulties; I also recognise that there is regular contact between his Department, the Treasury for example and the private sector on housing. It would be valuable for all concerned. I am grateful for his sympathy with the idea. It may be that the parallel cannot be precise, in which case half a loaf is better than no bread. Having said that and repeating my gratitude I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108 [Citation, etc]:


My Lords, this is an Amendment which the noble Lord has said he will raise at another time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 116, line 2, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two weeks").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)


My Lords, I rise only to say that the noble Lord is quite right. I have no objection to this Amendment going through now. If it is of any help to noble Lords we on this side of the House would have no objection to the remaining Amendments being taken en bloc. If the Government want to make statements that is for them to decide.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


My Lords, if it would be convenient, perhaps the Lord Chairman could put the remainder of the Amendments en bloc. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 137 to 147.

Amendments moved—

Schedule 9, page 168, line 3, leave out from ("rent") to end of line and insert ("which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance as defined in section 25 of this Act.")

Schedule 10, page 172, line 42, at end insert— ("( )After the date of repeal of the said Part III, section 37(3) of this Act shall apply to a conversion under the said Part III as it applies to a conversion under Part III of this Act.")

Schedule 11, page 175, column 3, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

(" Sections 1 to 8.

Section 13.

Sections 16 to 21.

Sections 23 and 24.")

Schedule 11, page 175, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("Section 46(5)(b)")

Schedule 11, page 175, line 50, column 3, leave out ("subsection (2)(b)")

Schedule 11, page 175, line 54, column 3, leave out ("section 7") and insert ("sections 7 and 9")

Page 176, line 3, column 3, after ("10") insert ("the following provisions, except as respects hostels, that is")

Page 176, column 3, leave out lines 10 to 12.

Page 176, line 13, column 3, leave out ("15") and insert ("16")

Page 176, line 15, column 3, leave out ("Schedules 1 and 2") and insert ("Schedule 1")

Page 176, line 46, at end insert—

Forward to