HOUSING FINANCE BILL

HL Deb 15 June 1972 vol 331 cc1135-86

4.10 p.m.

House again in Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Amendment before the Committee is No. 96B.

LORD SHEPHERD

We are now dealing with Schedule 3, paragraph 17. This is the paragraph that causes us considerable concern. It is for the purpose of computing allowances in regard to the earlier part of the Schedule. Paragraph 17(2) says: It shall be the duty of every authority, for the purpose of computing the amount of an allowance—

1. (a) if they consider that the tenant is in occupation of a dwelling larger than he reasonably requires, or
2. (b) if they consider that, by virtue of the location of the tenant's dwelling, its rent is exceptionally high by comparison with the rent payable under comparable private tenancies of similar dwellings in the authority's area…"

to take these various matters into account in deciding whether they should reduce the grant.

First, we do not like the word "duty". In my first Amendment (96B) we are seeking to use the words "within the discretion"; in other words, to make it discretionary upon the authority in carrying out the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). I hope the Committee will feel that it is right to give the authority discretion in this matter as opposed to laying down a specific duty. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak to Amendments 96C, 96D and 96A.

The purpose of 96C and 96D is to bring in a new limitation which the authority will take into account in making up its mind whether the allowance grant should be reduced. We are dealing with the private sector and we are seeking to ease the difficulties and problems of those who live in privately-rented accommodation. We have already said on this side of the Committee that we support the idea of the allowance. I wonder whether it is really an injustice to ease the burden for one and not to do so for another merely because of the type of premises the person is living in. It may be because the premises are too large or in too expensive an area in relation to the other tenancies within the authority's area. In many cases people are forced to live where they live because the accommodation was available or perhaps because their circumstances have changed. I am not quite certain myself, it is a question of justice, whether one should remove the rights that a person obtains under this Bill merely because his accommodation is different from that of the area in general.

On the other hand, I can understand the difficulty of the Government and local authorities when they see the under-use of premises, premises that perhaps could be used to house larger families if an occupier who did not require the larger premises could be moved elsewhere. Therefore, we have sought in Amendment 96D to ease the limitation by which the authority could still reduce the allowance that could be granted if a person were living in premises as specified in paragraph 17(2)(a). But in Amendment 96D we seek to insert the words: and reasonable alternative accommodation has beer. offered to the tenant which the tenant has unreasonably refused and provided that there shall be taken into account when determining whether the refusal was unreasonable the period during which the tenant has occupied the dwelling, his age, health and other personal circumstances. I should not like to think of an elderly person, or a family of elderly people, who might have been in a house for 20 or 25 years, in the evening of their lives being forcibly removed or denied the assistance which it is possible to provide under the provisions of this Schedule. I think that that would be very hard and, therefore, this is a factor which an authority ought to take into account. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will say that it will be taken into account. If so, I think it should be included in the Bill.

As to other people, if their existing accommodation could be put to better use, I suppose that it ought to be made available; but they should not be forcibly removed and the Government have not that intention. But before a person in that category is denied the full allowance I think it is up to the authority to provide suitable accommodation. The Committee would support the general sense and principle behind the Amendment. If the Government cannot accept the present drafting I hope that they will accept the principle and provide an alternative Amendment at a later stage.

4.22 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that under-occupation is a serious problem and if it could be solved that would go a long way to meet the housing shortage which exists at present. I remember that some years ago I made the pretty mild suggestion that local authorities should offer alternative accommodation to people in houses much too big for their needs, and I was violently attacked at that time by the Daily Telegraph for suggesting that people should be forcibly induced to move into more suitable accommodation. That was not my intention. I was saying only that local authorities were paying little attention to the problem of under-occupation and to seeing what could be done in the way of voluntary co-operation by their tenants to sort out the matter.

I think the situation is very different when you look at private tenancies because most landlords have not a variety of accommodation into which they could move tenants who are in houses or flats which are much too large for their needs. Therefore, were the Clause left as it stands you would be faced with a situation whereby the financial penalty would be imposed on people who may have lived in their flat or house for many years. Their children may have grown up and there may be only an elderly couple living in a house or a flat with three or four bedrooms; but what are they to do? Generally speaking, their landlord would be unable to offer them a nice little two-bedroomed flat and they would not get on to the local authority housing list because, naturally, the local authority will say, "You are in a flat which is more than suitable for your needs; you are very well off compared with people that we have on our waiting list."

As it stands, I think that this provision is extremely unfair and I should like particularly to see something on the lines of Amendment 96D written into the Schedule, so that the landlord must offer alternative acommodation which must have been refused; and for the reasons I have explained I think that the offer of such alternative accommodation is extremely unlikely. In the circumstances I think that a local authority would say, "Why should we help people who already have premises when we have families on our waiting list who are occupying slum dwellings or living with relatives in highly unsatisfactory circumstances?" We should not look to local authorities for a solution to the problem of under-occupation in the private sector. I think we have to say that the private landlord must have offered more suitable accommodation, which must have been refused, before the provisions of this paragraph come into effect and the rebate reduced.

I hope particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will see the point behind Amendment No. 96D, the wording of which, I think, is not absolutely perfect. We ought to make clear that the offer must have been made by the landlord, or by some other private landlord. But, with that qualification, I wholeheartedly support the principle of Amendment No. 96D and I hope very much that the Government will accept it.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Surely Schedule 3 deals with both private and also local authority tenants. I am sure that this is the case, although I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said.

LORD SHEPHERD

If the noble Earl will look at paragraph 17 he will see that it refers specifically to "allowances". In the case of local authority tenants the reference is to "rebates" and, therefore, it is the private sector to which reference is made.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

I should like to support Amendment No. 96D; it underlines the objection that we have to the authoritarian tone of the whole Bill. Throughout there is a persistent erosion of local authority responsibility and power. The Government cannot keep a day-to-day watch on all these detailed difficulties and arrangements about housing. The local authority will be burdened with the cost of rebates and this chipping away all the time at the powers of local authorities seems to me thoroughly undesirable.

4.29 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

On this group of Amendments the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has raised two main points. The first wasp the question whether it should be the duty of the authority, or whether it should be within the discretion of the authority, to treat the rent as reduced by an appropriate amount where there was under-occupation by the tenant and where there was a question of giving an allowance to the tenant. It relates to where the matter of an allowance arises. The matter was debated in the Commons and as a result of that debate an Amendment was made to increase the discretion of the authority. As the subsection was originally drafted, it read: It shall be the duty of every authority… to treat the rent as reduced by an appropriate amount. To meet the lack of discretion this was changed to: It shall be the duty of every authority… to consider whether they ought in all the circumstances to treat the rent as reduced… That is a very big change and introduced a very large degree of discretion for the local authority. What we are really considering here is whether they ought in those circumstances, in every case of this kind that comes to their attention, to consider whether to treat the rent as reduced at all; whether they are to consider if it shall be reduced; or whether they should have a double discretion. I do not think that double discretion would be justified.

There is a real point of principle involved here. It is the principle that where there is provision for assistance to be given to the public there should be a genuine need of that assistance. In the field of housing, as in every other field, if the commodity or the service is underpriced there is a tendency for that com- modity or service to be over-used. In other words—to turn to housing—so long as there is less than a fair rent for houses people will tend to occupy larger houses or houses in richer areas, if I may put it that way, than they otherwise would do. Once the rents are increased to the fair rent it is then a matter very largely for the individual, in the first place, to decide whether he is occupying a house appropriate to his needs. If he is not, I think we should all agree that it would be right for him to consider whether he should move. Indeed, it would be in many ways the sensible thing to do.

LORD AVEBURY

May I say—

LORD DRUMALBYN

Please allow me to argue the case. Where it is the case that if they do not move they then become entitled to a rent allowance, it seems not unreasonable that the local authority should have the duty to consider whether that rent allowance should in those circumstances be granted in full, because otherwise the occupier is really being put in a better position than many other tenants. The discretion here, I am sure, will be reasonably exercised. The authority will have to decide whether in any particular case they are actually to treat the rent as reduced and, if so, by how much, before calculating entitlement to rent allowance. The local authority will be able to judge what is appropriate in any given circumstances, and in deciding whether the rent is to be treated as reduced they will be able to consider whether the tenant could obtain other accommodation in the area; that is to say, whether he is occupying his present dwelling from choice or from necessity. If he is exercising it from choice, it is not unreasonable that the rent allowance should be reduced. If he is occupying it from necessity, either because he cannot move or because of his age, I have no doubt that the authority will consider that he should get the rent allowance in full. If it is also from necessity because he cannot find any other accommodation, then again I have no doubt that the authority will treat this as a case where the rent allowance should not he reduced.

But the actual Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put down is very restrictive: …reasonable alternative accommodation has been offered to the tenant I suppose this was intended to cover the case where it is offered by the landlord or by the local authority or by anyone else. Perhaps "available" would have been better in the circumstances. We think that, given the redrafting of this sub-paragraph in the Amendment that was introduced on the Report stage in another place, we have got it about right; that we will meet the humanitarian needs and at the same time secure that public money is not paid out where an individual is, of his own choice, occupying a house which is either far too big for him or far more than he can really afford. This is a commonsense matter, and I hope the Committee will agree to leave the sub-paragraph as it is.

LORD FISKE

What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has suggested underlines the difficulties we are in with this Bill, in that we are moving rapidly away from the social considerations of housing to the cash position. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that local authorities with a vast experience have a rooted objection to moving people from houses in which they have lived for a great number of years. It would be unfortunate if anything that was in this Bill encouraged that to happen. Local authorities on their part, if the case were put to them that somebody wanted to move—wanted to move, not was being forced to do so —would willingly assist, especially if it were made possible for them to purchase the house that was being vacated. That is difficult in the present circumstances because we are all waiting on fair rents. Nobody knows what fair rents are going to be, and therefore nobody can value what a house is going to be worth to its owner, whether that owner be a local authority or a private landlord. But please let us not, in this Bill, do more to move away from some social considerations in the provision of housing.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I could answer that very briefly. We are not moving away from the social consideration because we are leaving the discretion with the local authority here. We are only saying that in every case where you find happening the sort of thing that is mentioned in the paragraph you must have a look at it, and if you consider that, having regard to the tenant's age, the length of stay, health and all the rest of it, the tenant should be allowed to remain where he is, then you will maintain the rent allowance as it is, or perhaps reduce it by a little but not very much. On the other hand, where there is really no obstacle to the tenant's making way for somebody who would make full use of the house, then in that case there is a social obligation on the tenant to move in order to help the housing needs of others.

LORD SHEPHERD

I have a feeling that Lord Drumalbyn's reply was very carefully drafted by one of those cool, impartial officials who write speeches for Ministers. I do not think it is the sort of speech that the noble Lord would have delivered from his own heart. I have accepted that it would be unjust for a person to occupy a house too big for him or that is in a locality which is more expensive than perhaps would be the area in which he would live as a consequence of his income. I have accepted that. My Amendment specifies age. Just think of this. A house is a person's home. A person may have lived in that house and made it his home, and may—I have used these words earlier—in the evening of his days, have nothing else but those rooms and the memories of those rooms. It may be a house that is too big, and may be socially it is right that that old man or old lady should move—socially, taking the community as a whole. The communtiy has a generous heart and I do not believe such a community would like the idea of forcing that old person out of his home or denying to him, who may be in great need. the new allowances that are being made available for the private tenant where that person's income clearly does not match the rent that is being charged. On the question of age, the noble Lord said that maybe the local authority would not move that person. The local authority could remove that person.

LORD DRUMALBYN

No. The local authority cannot move that person. All that can happen is that the local authority might reduce the allowance.

LORD SHEPHERD

But effectively it could be the same thing. What one is denying to this person is what other people have available. You are really saying to that person that he or she must move and leave home or they will not get this allowance. I recognise that the Government have i lade some move in this direction, but I remember, as no doubt does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the Committee stage on Wednesday morning when the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, spoke about the disabled. I feel that this falls rather in the same category. We ought to make certain exceptions. I have in mind the question of age, health and personal circumstances. These things are difficult to define of course. But I wonder whether the noble Lord will have another look at this. I think that in his heart this is the sort of thing he would expect a heal authority to take into account in granting allowances. If that is so. then is there any great harm in putting it into the Bill? I should feel much happier if the noble Lord would undertake to look at this, and if this is what the Government expect an authority to do, I should be much happier if it could be put into the Bill.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Of course I respond to what the noble Lord has said. But what he is really asking is that we should spell the thing out: not that we should go further, because you cannot go further than, "In all the circumstances"; all you could do would be to say, "This, that, and all other relevant circumstances". If that is what he wants done, then I will look at it and see if this would be good guidance and whether it would be worth doing. Perhaps I can just put this thought to the Committee. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament will know how often people have said: "Here we are living in a house that is very much too big for us because we cannot afford to move." And the reason is that at the time their rents were fixed; because they had a house their application for a local authority house would not have been entertained, and they could not rent a house elsewhere more suited to their needs. The point is that this Bill will introduce a great deal more mobility; not straight away, but in the long run. I agree that there will probably be a difficult transitional period in the first place, and I feel sure that all local authorities will realise that up to the point when fair rents are reached. But I think it is worth bearing in mind that there will be a greater possibility, as the Bill begins to have its full impact, for people to move from houses that are too big to houses elsewhere. But having said that, I will gladly look at the point the noble Lord has raised, although I do not think it will be possible to go all the way that he has suggested.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I hope he will also bear in mind the question of making available alternative accommodation. The noble Lord, I think from what he said, presumed that this would be "in all the circumstances". I would only say to the noble Lord that he could set my mind immediately at rest in this regard if he were able to tell me that there was to be an appeals procedure, and if there was a question of doubt as to whether a local authority was acting fairly there will be an impartial body to review it. If we could be told this, then I think a lot of our fears as to the way in which some of these words can be interpreted might well be set at rest. Unless any noble Lord wishes to say anything further on this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw.

LORD AVEBURY

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I should like to say just a word or two. Some of us are not so sanguine as the noble Lord appears to be about the increasing availability of private rented accommodation which he anticipates will result from this Bill.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Not only privately rented accommodation.

LORD AVEBURY

Very well; not only privately rented accommodation. But the noble Lord has just admitted that when he was a Member of Parliament—and I had the same experience—he found that local authorities would not entertain applications from people who were already, as they saw it, perfectly satisfactorily accommodated in privately rented accommodation. This is a point that I was trying to make, and I was going to underline it, but the noble Lord has done it for me. What we are saying is that these people who are occupying accommodation which is too large for them, or in a more expensive locality than is suitable to their means, have to move into another privately rented house or flat.

I gave some figures the other night—I do not know whether the noble Lord was on the Front Bench at the time—showing that ever since 1957, whatever legislation had been brought into force, including the 1969 Rent Act, the numbers of privately rented houses and flats in England and Wales had declined by 6 per cent. per annum, plus or minus 2 per cent.

Notwithstanding any legislation, including this Bill. I believe that that will continue. Therefore we shall be faced with a situation where we are going to penalise these tenants who are occupying bigger houses, or houses in more expensive places than is necessary, and will say to them: "You find somewhere else", in a period when there is less and less private accommodation for them to look to. Therefore I think the noble Lord has helped the Committee in saying that he will look at this again. In particular, while he is looking at it, I think he should form some assessment of how the numbers of privately-rented property are likely to move over the next few years, until this Bill begins to bite. He may then come to the conclusion that something on the lines of this Amendment ought to be written into the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.50 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERDmoved Amendment No. 96E: Page 127, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 128.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 99D. In Schedules 3 and 4 Part II deals with persons who are receiving supplementary benefit. We have on a number of occasions in discussing previous Amendments strongly objected to the proposition in this Bill that those people who are within the poverty line, and who are receiving supplementary benefit as a consequence, should in the first instance be placed in an increasingly difficult position, in that the Government propose that part of the supplementary benefit a person would receive will now become payable through the housing authority. I understand that administrative arrangements have been made and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would say a word about this which could remove some of the difficulties of a person having to go to two places basically to receive what would be the equivalent of an inclusive supplementary benefit.

Our basic objection to these two parts in the Schedule is that we believe that those persons who need assistance as a consequence of poverty relate to what is a national responsibility, and it should not be placed upon any particular local authority. We now know that one local authority is different from another. One has greater problems and greater requirements to assist. Therefore, we believe that this is a matter that should not be borne financially by the local authority, but should remain a charge upon the national Exchequer. At present I gather that the sum involved, if the transfer were to be made immediately from the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the local authority, is £170 million. Certainly in four years' time when this part of the Schedule becomes fully operational the sum will be very much more. Therefore, the argument in support of this Amendment is that much greater.

We feel strongly as a matter of principle on this Amendment, and have grave objections to these two particular parts of the Schedule. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm the administrative changes. If he wishes to defend himself, he may do so; but I must tell him that, unless he is prepared to take these parts out of the Schedule, I certainly intend to vote against them. I thought I would give that warning to the noble Lord so that he does not need to spend too long in seeking to defend an impossible position.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I readily respond to what the noble Lord has said, the more so as I found this particular part one of the most difficult parts of the Bill to understand fully. The question of the broader principle that he has raised is rather a different one, because what we are here considering is how the amounts should be paid rather than whether they should be paid—which we have considered already when considering Clause 19. Now we are considering how these payments should be dealt with. On the broad principle, I think I need only say that rent rebates and allowances give help not towards meeting poverty but towards meeting housing need. This is a general principle that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, opposite has yet accepted from us, but this is the principle on which we are working.

It is not true that there are two kinds of housing need which merit different treatment: one where there is a tenant in work and one where he is not in work. Local authorities have by law special responsibility towards their own tenants and general responsibility for assessing the housing needs in their area. It is just because rent rebate and allowances are a contribution towards housing needs that they are administered by local authorities. A tenant whose income is low because he is not in work needs the same amount of help as a tenant who earns the same income. A local authority therefore has no less duty to help a tenant with his housing costs when he falls sick, or when the becomes unemployed or when he retires, than when he is in work if his earnings are low.

To deal with the particular point that the noble Lord was raising, where a local authority now makes a rate fund contribution to keep down all rents it does not distinguish between dwellings occupied by tenants receiving supplementary benefit and dwellings occupied by tenants not receiving supplementary benefit. But it is true that at present local authorities which have rebate schemes usually exclude from them tenants receiving supplementary benefit. But under the Bill it will no longer be possible for a local authority to disclaim all responsibility for meeting the housing needs of the tenant merely because he is sick, unemployed or retired. The contribution which the ratepayers may be asked to make towards the rent of a supplementary benefit tenant will be modest. The cost of any rebates to supplementary benefit tenants will fall to be met by a subsidy or rate fund contribution only in so far as they give rise to a deficit in the housing revenue account. If they do, then normally the rebate will meet up to 60 per cent. of the rent. This is because the Supplementary Benefits Commission will meet 40 per cent. of the rent. If the rebate is meeting 60 per cent. of the rent, the maximum contribution of the ratepayers is 25 per cent. of that 60 per cent.—that is, 15 per cent. of the rent of the supplementary benefit tenant.

In practice, the supplementary benefit tenant will not be put to any considerable inconvenience by having to rely on help with his rent from two sources, and this is what this part is about. Parts II of Schedule 3 and Schedule 4—and I understand that the noble Lord is taking Part II of Schedule 4 at the same time as this—make it possible to set up administrative arrangements between local authorities and the Supplementary Benefits Commission so as to make it unnecessary for the supplementary benefit tenant to apply for a rebate or allowance to more than one body.

Any tenant who receives supplementary benefit for more than eight consecutive weeks will be granted the appropriate rebate or allowance automatically by an exchange of information between the authority and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If he is a council tenant he will be charged the rebated rent only; if he is a private tenant the authority can arrange to pay his allowance in a way which will avoid a separate visit; for example, by a postal order cashable when the tenant takes his supplementary benefit order book to the Post Office for payment. In both cases the part of the rent not met by the rebate or allowance will be taken into account in the assessment of supplementary benefit.

I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, especially when I add that the tenant will not be any worse off under these arrangements than if the whole of his rent were paid, or the proper proportion of his rent was paid, by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But it will tend to remove difficulties that have been increasingly arising between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and local authorities on the way in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission should meet the rents of people who receive supplementary benefit.

4.58 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I do not want to confuse the situation, but it would be useful if the noble Lord could introduce a little greater clarity in referring to the difficulties that have been experienced, and are being experienced at the present time. I wonder whether he does not think in point of fact that, if the scheme is going to operate in the way he says, there is going to be a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing in the matter of communications between the local authority and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Would it not be better and simpler that the whole of the money should come from the Supplementary Benefits Commission? People are sick or unemployed for comparatively short periods of time. There is going to be a tremendous volume of work building up, and one is a little disturbed that, in so far as the administration of rent allowances is concerned, the local authority has to carry the cost of doing this for the private sector. I wonder whether more confusion and more difficulties are not going to be created than have been experienced to date. I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put it reasonably well, but even so it sounds to me a clumsy arrangement.

5.0 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I will respond to that. Perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to give a concrete example. To my mind, a concrete example always helps in a case like this. Let us take a man with a wife and four children and an income of £30. Let us take it that he is paying a rent of £6. In that case his total needs allowance is £25.75. His rent rebate works out in that case at £2.88, so that of the £6 he would be paying a rent of £3.12. If that man then loses his job the Supplementary Benefits Commission pay him the minimum rent figure, which is two-fifths of the £6—that is to say, £2.40—and the authority increases its rebate by 72p because of the decline in his "resources", if that is the way in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission like to put it. So the full rent is covered.

For the first eight weeks the local authority continues to pay the old rebate of £2.88 and the Supplementary Benefits Commission makes up the difference of £3.12. This is because they arc in a position to work out what has to be paid. In fact the rent payable is the rent that in the first place the Supplementary Benefits Commission will pay. This meets the point made by the noble Lord about those who are out of work for a short time. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward arrangement. The local authority continues to pay the old rebate and the Supplementary Benefits Commission pays the difference. In the ninth week, if this is going to be a prolonged absence from work, or if it is a retirement, the Supplementary Benefits Commission changes (for the purpose of administrative convenience) to paying the minimum rent of two-fifths of the £6—that is, £2.40—and the local authority increases its rebate to cover the difference, which is due to the fact that the tenant's needs allowance remains the same but his resources are lower. This is the operation of the Schedules. If, because of administrative difficulties, the local authority does not get round to recalculating its rent rebate, the old arrangements continue and the local authority and the Supplementary Benefits Commission can sort out the difference afterwards. The important thing is that the tenant will get his full rent while he is in receipt of supplementary benefits. I hope that will help the noble Lord.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

Do I understand that in the ninth week the local authority contribution goes up to three-fifths?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes, in a case where the whole of the rent has to be found; but of course that is not so in the case of every recipient of supplementary benefit.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

Can the noble Lord say at what point the local ratepayers will be reimbursed (even if it is only a small amount) from the Exchequer? And if he is not going to be so reimbursed, why should the local ratepayer have to carry any burden at all in the case of sickness and unemployment?

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is the "by and large" scheme and I have no doubt that it has been worked out on the general average basis. It is plainly quite a sensible arrangement that the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be responsible for a proportion. After all, the sort of people who get into a supplementary benefit situation will be the sort of people who will have been receiving a rent allowance or rent rebate, and the small extra amount that the local authority has to pay will not be all that great. But in any case it also reflects the housing responsibility of the local authority, and this seems to be a reasonable division of responsibility between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the local authority. When one comes to think of it, it would be rather absurd if, simply because a tenant fell out of work for one reason or another, or retired—let us take the case where the needs allowance and the earnings are at exactly the same level, where the tenant was already getting three-fifths of the rent in the form of a rebate and was only paving the minimum amount of two-fifths—that burden was transferred from the local authority to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I say again that the point here is that it does not matter whether poverty arises when a man is in work or because he is out of work; the responsibility of the local authority remains the same. It is housing need.

LORD AVEBURY

It would only be absurd because the Government do not accept the principle that these payments are a national responsibility. If the noble Lord accepted that principle, as we do on this side of the Committee, it would be absurd that the local authority should have to bear any of these costs while the man was in work. But taking the figures given by the noble Lord, the local authority will have to pay £3.60 of this man's rent, whereas under previous conditions it would have paid nothing; the whole of the £6 would have been met by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This is exactly what we are complaining about: that the noble Lord and his Party are shifting the burden from the taxpayer on to the ratepayer, and in this particular case they are taking £3.60 out of the pockets of the ratepayers which would formerly have come from the taxpayers.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will now appreciate that there is a deep cleavage of opinion between us. But there is one thing upon which we can agree, and that is the phrase used by the noble Lord when he described this as a "by and large" scheme. We all know what that means. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I feel that the Government are seeking to put upon the local authority the basic responsibility for poverty within its region in order to reduce the burden upon the central Exchequer and the taxpayer. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to consider this: if one goes to the North-East of England or to other industrial parts of this country one finds that when there is unemployment, these are the areas that always have the hard pockets of unemployment of 8 to 10 per cent. As a consequence of this Bill they will carry the full burden which was originally the responsibility of the central Exchequer.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I just correct the noble Lord because I think he was going a little far in saying the "full burden". He knows that for the next 10 years, at any rate, the most that the local authority can possibly bear will be 25 per cent. of the burden, and that is only if there is a deficit in their housing account.

LORD SHEPHERD

We are back to the "by and large" burden, are we not? This is placing on a part of the population a burden which did not previously exist and is relieving the Exchequer, the general taxpayer, of what we believe to be a national responsibility. Why are the Government doing this? Is it designed to make taxes a little easier? Is it right to place this burden on a group of the population in this way when, at the same time, it would be possible for me, having bought a house with a shower and two lavatories, to buy another and borrow the money to do so from the bank and charge the interest against my income tax? We are up against a serious question of priorities and standards here. I do not like this Part of the Bill. It is absolutely unjust, if not amoral, and I therefore ask my noble friends to vote against it.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

There seems to be a disparity here—and I apologise to the Committee for not being in my place yesterday when these matters were being discussed. It seems that under this part of the Bill private and public tenants are being treated differently. If a private tenant is entitled to a rebate he will receive cash, whereas a council tenant in that position will receive his entitlement in the form of reduced rent. There seems to be a second disparity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that ultimately the Government will reduce their contribution to 80 per cent., meaning that local authorities, or the community at large, will have to find 20 per cent.

LORD DIAMOND

The figures are actually 75 per cent. and 25 per cent.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I should like this point clarified before we vote.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is simply that the private tenant gets cash to pay the balance of his rent whereas the local authority tenant gets a reduction in his rent because it is paid to the local authority. The answer to the second point is that I was taking the worst case, though not with the idea of exaggerating the point. The reduction in the percentage of total rent rebate which a local authority has to find will be reimbursed as to 75 per cent., and in the case of the rent allowance by 80 per cent. To start with, it will be 90 per cent. for the rent rebate and 100 per cent. for the rent allowance.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

But that will be the case for only a period of time.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

It is difficult to understand why, the Government having accepted the figure of 100 per cent., they intend to reduce it and make local authorities bear part of the burden. It is particularly difficult to understand why it should be 100 per cent. in the

private sector but not in the public sector. I do not want to traverse ground which we had covered before, but to the man outside this does not make sense. Why should there be this difference in treatment? If the Government accept the need for a 100 per cent. contribution now, why reduce it later?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I can reply in almost a sentence by repeating that one reason is that 60 per cent. of local authorities are at present running rent rebate schemes and getting no assistance for them, except in the sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, that they are getting housing subsidies related to their house building. Apart from Birmingham, no local authority is giving rent allowances to its tenants. An authority must set up a rent allowance scheme itself and get it going. and we do not know how this type of scheme will work out compared with the rent rebate scheme.

5.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 96E) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS
Annan, L.	Fiske, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Archibald, L.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Platt. L.
Arwyn, L.	Gardiner, L.	Royle, L.
Avebury, L.	Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]	Sainsbury, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Gladwyn, L.	Seear, Bs.
Bernstein, L.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Shackleton, L.
Beswick, L.	Hale, L.	Shepherd, L.
Blyton, L.	Henderson, L.	Shinwell, L.
Bowden, L.	Heycock, L.	Slater, L.
Brockway, L.	Hoy, L.	Stow Hill, L.
Brown, L.	Hughes, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Jacques, L.	Swaythling, L.
Carnock, L.	Janner, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Chalfont, L.	Leatherland, L.	Thurso. V.
Champion, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.	Wade, L.
Chorley, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Maelor, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.	White, Bs.
Diamond, L.	Moyle, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Nunburnholme, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Faringdon, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Beauchamp, E.	Camoys, L.
Abinger, L.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Carrington, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Belstead, L.	Chesham, L.
Alport, L.	Berkeley, Bs.	Clancarty. E.
Ashbourne, L.	Blackford. L.	Coleraine, L.
Atholl, D.	Boyd of Merton, V.	Colville of Culross, V.
Auckland, L.	Boyle of Handsworth, L.	Cottesloe, L.
Balerno, L.	Braye, L.	Courtown, E.
Balfour, E.	Brecon, L.	Cowley, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Brentford, V.	Craigavon, V.
Crathorne, L.	Hawke, L.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Crawshaw, L.	Hertford, M.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cromartie, E.	Hewlett, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]
Daventry, V.	Hood, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Howard of Glossop, L.	Moyne, L.
Derwent, L.	Howe, E.	Northchurch, Bs.
Digby, L.	Hurcomb, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Hylton-Foster, Bs.	Rankeillour, L.
Eccles, V.	Kilmarnock, L.	Reigate, L.
Elles, Bs.	Lansdowne, M.	St. Just, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.	Latymer, L.	Sandford, L.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Lauderdale, E.	Sandys, L.
Ferrers, E.	Limerick, E.	Sempill, Ly.
Ferrier, L.	Long, V.	Shannon, E.
Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Loudoun, C.	Somers, L.
Gage, V.	Luke, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Garner, L.	Lyell, L.	Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Goschen, V.	Macleod of Borve, Bs.	Vernon, L.
Gowrie, E.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Vivian, L.
Greenway, L.	Mancroft, L.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Grenfell, L.	Mar, E.	Windlesham, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	May, L.	Wolverton, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Merrivale, L.	Wrottesley, L.
	Milverton, L.	Young, Bs.
Hatherton, L.	Monck, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Rebates and Allowances: Procedure]:

5.23 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 96F: Page 128, line 15, leave out ("at any time") and insert ("at the intervals at which the rent is payable").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and with the permission of the Committee and for the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will speak to Amendments No. 96G and 97C at the same time. These are three Amendments which seek to remove some of the possible difficulties of a tenant in obtaining either a rebate or an allowance. Paragraph 1(1) says: Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, an authority may pay a rebate or allowance at any time and in any manner that they think fit. On the face of it this is a pretty wide discretion. An authority which may not be as good as it ought to be could make life very difficult for its tenants and, therefore, we thought that we should insert the words at the intervals at which the rent is payable".

Most of us would recognise that for persons who will be receiving rebates or allowances, the small sums of money which may arise as a consequence of this Schedule wi11 be very much needed by the tenant and, therefore, they ought to be paid regularly. In our view they ought to be paid at those times or close to those times when the rent is payable. I hope that the noble Lord can at least accept the principle, even if he may not be able to accept the actual wording.

Amendment No. 96G would require that the sum of money should be delivered to the tenant by post or by any other manner not involving the applicant personally claiming the allowance, unless the applicant elects to do so. We have to take account of the fact that it may be very difficult, particularly if the husband and wife are both working, for either of them to go and collect the allowance or the rebate within the normal office hours of a local authority. Therefore, we think that in this particular case the sums that are available should be delivered by post or by any other manner that does not require the person to go there and collect it.

Amendment No. 97C requires: An authority shall be under a duty to determine with the utmost promptitude whether an applicant is entitled to a rebate or allowance and in any event within 21 days of the date of receipt of the application. The purpose of this Amendment is to stress the importance of the local authority acting with great expedition and recognising that the applicant will be in need of these rebates and allowances, especially as the Government is raising quite substantially by £1 a week the rent of a local authority house. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the principle of these Amendments. If they are not perfect in drafting, of course we can co-operate in that, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that these ought to be incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

We obviously sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is trying to do. This is so to the extent that I accept that he is trying to make the recipient's plight easier. But we have to consider the authorities who are going to operate this scheme and the existing provision in paragraph 1(1) to which he referred is intentionally wide to avoid restricting authorities to any particular method or time of payment. In practice the authorities can be expected to take a reasonable and commonsense view. Authorities already have wide experience of rent rebates and normally they will be granted by means of a reduction in the collectable rent and will automatically be linked to the rental period. The authorities should also be able to pay the rebate or allowance in a lump sum.

In the case of the payment of allowances, I must draw the noble Lord's attention, which I am sure he already knows, to paragraph 12(3) of the Schedule on page 132 of the Bill which already provides that the authority must have regard to the reasonable needs and convenience of the tenant. That is a statutory obligation. Such reasonable needs may very well be met by the authority paying the allowance by post or some other means which will avoid a separate visit of the tenant to the town hall. The rent allowances under Birmingham's discretionary scheme are credited to an account opened by the tenant at the municipal bank. The tenant could, for example, ask for his monies to be paid direct to the landlord and then he would pay the smaller amount of rent after that period. This is a matter of flexibility, and experience can show us what is needed if the authorities and the recipients find life awkward.

Paragraph 12(3), to which I have referred, also provides for the Secretary of State to give directions as to how often these payments of rent allowance should be made. It is intended initially to direct under this provision that these allowances should be paid with the same frequency that the tenant has to pay his rent, excepting that for weekly rent payments the rent allowances should be paid not less frequently than fortnightly. But in the light of experience a different approach may be acceptable, either generally or for particular authorities, and the direction making power does provide the necessary flexibility. We do not want to hinder the councils unnecessarily with the allowances, in doing what is best for their tenants and for the private tenants.

With regard to Amendment No. 97C, this is going to require an authority to determine the entitlement within three weeks of receiving the application. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suppose that any authority could, in practice, in every case, determine the entitlement within any stipulated period in such a way as to give proper consideration to the application. There may be some difficulty in establishing whether the applicant is a tenant who is eligible for consideration by the authority in question, or in assessing the income of the tenant, because the tenant perhaps cannot quickly provide the necessary information or evidence. It may even be greatly to the tenant's disadvantage if the authority is obliged to make a determination in relation to him within a stipulated time limit, as this might prevent him from getting together the information which would enable him to obtain his full and proper entitlement. So a provision on the lines proposed in the Amendment would not only be rare but I believe may be unprecedented in existing discretionary schemes which local authorities operate. We think it certain to be opposed by nearly all authorities. The tenant is protected to a large extent by the requirement that any rebate or allowance is granted from the rental period in which the application was received. I hope with these few words the noble Lord will see the point of leaving the Bill as we have drafted it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I must say I am still surprised that he uses again this defence about the local authorities and the need by Her Majesty's Government to see that the local authority's wishes are carried out, whereas in most parts of the Bill they are going flagrantly against what the local authorities want. If I may say so, using an unparliamentary phrase, it sounds to me a little bit of humbug. I will accept what the noble Lord has said. I think the words in subparagraph (3)(b) perhaps meet our fears, but we may have another look at this in the light of later discussion on the system of appeals and possible maladministration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I beg to move Amendment No. 97. This is a drafting Amendment similar to one moved at an earlier stage.

Amendment moved— Page 128, line 19, after first ("for") insert ("or collected in").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

5.35 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 97A: Page 129, line 40, leave out ("gross") and insert ("nett").

The noble Lord said: We had a discussion the other day about whether a person's gross salary, wages or fees should be taken into account. We feel that in the light of the quite considerable sums that are to-day deducted from a person's income by way of income tax and other direct charges for social service benefits, it would be fair to a person that his net income should be the amount to be taken into account. We discussed this point rather late, if my memory is right, or rather early in the morning. I wonder if the noble Lord has changed his mind as a result of my rather impassioned plea. I beg to move.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

Gross income has been taken in this case for the calculation of eligibility for rebates or allowances because there are a very great number of practical difficulties, as the noble Lord will know, in defining and checking net income in order to assess a tenant's resources. For instance, the statutory deductions vary according to gross income or class of employment and they can reflect the individual's personal and family circumstances. Other voluntary deductions such as National Savings, insurance premiums and union dues can also vary according to an individual's employment, or his voluntary choice. It would be necessary in this case for tenants to disclose in their applica- tions all the various deductions, and considerable administrative difficulty would be caused to local authorities in checking the assessments. To ensure, however, that entitlement is fairly assessed, I think it important to remember that the needs allowance does take notional account of these various statutory deductions and other unavoidable expenses to which the noble Lord referred. Gross earnings is the normal basis of most existing rebate schemes, and was recommended in fact by the Government in which the noble Lord was a Minister, in the illustrative scheme which they circulated to all local authorities. I hope those few words will explain the case as we have it.

LORD SHEPHERD

A few words, but they do not take us much further. If I may say so, my plea to the noble Lord was, has he changed his mind. He might have saved the time of the Committee if he had risen and said, No. I would not be any more or less dissatisfied than I am, in spite of what the noble Lord has said. It is quite clear that it is an area in which we are not going to shift the Government, not at this stage at least. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 98. This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 129, line 47, leave out ("and to paragraph 12(2) of this Schedule").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)

5.39 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 98A: Page 130, line 22, leave out from ("period") to end of line 23 and insert ("to which the application for a rebate or allowance related being not earlier than six months before the application").

The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will reply to this Amendment because normally I seem to get a more conciliatory answer from him than I do from his colleagues. This is an important Amendment. Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule says: Where a rebate or allowance is first granted, the rebate period or allowance period shall commence at the commencement of the rental period in which the application for a rebate or an allowance was received

I am quite certain that the Government and the local authorities are going to give considerable publicity to the availability of these schemes. I hope, too, that it will be continuous, because people do fall into need and often they may not know about what is available for them. Apart from that, I hope that publicity will continue to be given so that more and more people who need this assistance will not only know about it but will accept it. It may be that a person may have only recently been persuaded to make application. One knows that often it is necessary to put considerable pressure on a person to apply for what may be regarded as charity; and, of course, a person may not know of the circumstances and the method in which an application is made.

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that an authority can give back payments to the beginning of the rental period if an application has been made and it is perhaps later than it ought to have been. It is a means of making it possible for a local authority to meet a person's existing and real need, even though there may have been some slowness or some reluctance to apply for that assistance. I hope the noble Lord will feel this is a right proposition to put into an area where we are seeking to deal with people who are in need and who often may not know the services and allowances which may be available. I beg to move.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I am sorry, but the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will again have to be content with me. I can assure him that my kindness of heart is as great as that of my noble friend the Minister. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will listen to my explanation, which is the same as the explanation would be if my noble friend the Minister were speaking instead of myself.

There is no case for allowing a tenant to obtain a rebate or allowance for a rental period ending before the date of application, because a tenant can apply at any time. If the tenant is ill or away, application can always be made on his behalf. Paragraph 4(1), as now drafted, makes adequate provision to ensure that the tenant does not suffer from any delay in determining his application, since if a rebate or allowance is granted it must start with the rental period in which the application was received, not when it was determined. If that rental period is a monthly period, the rebate or allowance could take effect from just short of a month before the date on which the application was received.

The proposed extension of the maximum rebate or allowance period for a tenant of pensionable age would mean that the amount of the rebate or allowance would not be automatically reviewed for a period of three years. During such a long period there could be many changes of circumstances affecting the amount of the rebate or allowance, including changes affecting the amount in the tenant's favour. Difficulties could arise, especially with elderly tenants, if any change in the rebate or allowance during such a long rebate or allowance period were made largely or entirely dependent on notification by the tenant. The local authority associations regard a twelve -month period as reasonable. In practice, the rebate period will often be for longer than twelve months, as it begins with the rental period during which the application is received. Your Lordships will see that I have spoken to Amendment No. 98B as well as No. 98A. They rather go together, and thought it would save your Lordships' time if I took them together.

LORD AVEBURY

While the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is thinking about that one, may I say that the reply does not seem to take into account the difficulty we were talking about the other night: that the take-up of benefits of this kind is always less than the ideal. We were given a figure of 75 per cent. as a very rough estimate, which means that in any case the Government are anticipating that 25 per cent. of the people eligible for rebates or allowances are not going to put in their applications, in spite of all the steps the Government are to take to draw the attention of the tenants to the rights they have at their disposal.

The noble Lord will be aware that in the nature of things there are some people who need a little persuasion before they can be induced to exercise their rights. It is easy to imagine a set of circumstances in which somebody goes to his Member of Parliament—I would appeal particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to consider this point—and say that he or she is having great difficulty in meeting the ordinary expenses of rent, light, rates and so on. The Member of Parliament will say it seems to him that when this Bill comes into effect the person may qualify for a rebate or an allowance, as the case may be. The tenant may then reply, "I do not like this sort of Government charity. I am not going to apply for it" After a time, if the Member of Parliament is tactful and puts his case well, perhaps that tenant may be persuaded to change his or her mind and put in the application. In the meanwhile, several weeks have elapsed, and what the Schedule is saying is that the tenant is not entitled to a retrospective allowance or rebate for the period in which he has been making up his mind. As he would have been entitled to it had he applied in the first instance, to backdate it in the manner suggested in this Amendment is perfectly reasonable. I cannot understand why it should be refused.

LORD LEATHERLAND

We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has a kind heart, but I think he has been rather hard-hearted in his reply to this Amendment. He told us on the last Amendment that local authorities would be put to a great deal of trouble in handling these applications. He said that there would be considerable administrative difficulty. If town clerks, qualified accountants and council treasurers find difficulty and trouble, what will be the position of some poor old widow who has spent 60 years of her life in a cotton mill and can hardly read? Five minutes ago I was replying to a letter from such a person, who feels that she is being improperly and unfairly treated in respect of her house.

People do not always realise what is available for them under this scheme of rebates. While it may seem generous, up to a point, to back-date the allowance to the beginning of the period in which the application is received, surely it is not asking too much to allow it to go back for a few more months if the case is a very hard one. When all is said and done (my noble friend Lord Diamond will know far more about this than I do), one is allowed to have adjust- ments made in respect of one's income tax for a period six years back. If it can be done for income tax and surtax payers, why cannot it be done for the poor old people who will be the beneficaries under this provision?

LORD SHEPHERD

Perhaps the noble Lord can put us out of our difficulties. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, about the problem of an ordinary person seeking to understand what is his entitlement and his rights when one looks at this Bill. Reference is made to the rebate period and the allowance period. I may be wrong, but I imagined that these would be set periods laid down by a local authority. It may be a period from January 1 to May 1 or July 1—a matter of a month or six months—although it has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Diamond that it may be the period when a person pays his rent. In other words, if he pays his rent weekly then it is a weekly amount; but it may also be a monthly period. If that is the case, while my Amendment may be useful it is not one that I should want to go the last ditch about. If it is a period laid down by a local authority—three months or six months—there could be considerable hardship to a person who may not have applied, and I would have thought it would be right that there should be some basis of back payment where a person could show that there were good reasons why he had failed to apply earlier.

5.50 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

What noble Lords are trying to do, out of the kindness of their hearts, is really to put an intolerable burden on the authorities. We accept that it is difficult to find out present earnings and allowances, but what is now being suggested is that the authorities should have put on them the onus of checking up on past history. What a person's earnings and allowances are to-day may not be the same as they were six months or a year ago.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not understand what the noble Lord is talking about. He is not dealing with my point. I asked him what is meant by the rebate period or allowance period in sub-paragraph (1). I spoke for a little while, because I could see that the noble Lord was looking at his brief and I wanted to help him. But, having done that, I expect an answer to my point.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I think the answer is given immediately underneath in sub-paragraph (2), which states that for a pensioner the period is twelve months and for a non-pensioner it is six months. Does that answer the question?

LORD DIAMOND

We are all trying to understand, and we are not trying to do anything more than that at the moment. We take the curious view that if we understand what the Bill is about we shall be in a better position to see whether or not we agree with it. So I hope the noble Lord will realise that we are doing no more than trying to understand, and that it does not help us very much to understand when a period starts to refer to a sub-paragraph which states that it shall end on a certain date. So we are getting back to subparagraph (1), which, as drafted, provides that the rebate or allowance period commences at the commencement of the rental period in which the application is received. If the rental period provided for under an agreement for a tenancy lease were a calendar year, that would presumably mean that the allowance—. and I shall deal with the allowance by itself, first—would commence on January 1, provided that the application was received no later than December 31.

LORD AVEBURY

May I interrupt? I have discovered that the rental period is defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 100. The subsection states that: rental period' means a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made Therefore, if the tenant pays the rent fortnightly, the rental period is a fortnight.

LORD DIAMOND

That is exactly what I assumed. I am on the point that it is a period of a year, and the rent is therefore payable once a year. In those circumstances, an application is received with a request for a rent allowance, and so long as it is received no later than December 31 it is in the period of twelve months commencing on January 1. Let us suppose that the application is received on December 1 in this rental period which covers the calendar year. If that is the case, it would be necessary to go back to the start of the year and calculate income, allowances and so on. Why, therefore, did the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, say in his last answer that it would be adding unbearable burdens on to the local authority if they had to do this very thing? Either that answer was not quite to the point, which I find it difficult to believe, or I misunderstood the paragraph, which I find it easy to believe. We should be much helped if the noble Lord would tell us which is right.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I was trying to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asked about the period before the application was made. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I think that yearly payments would nearly always be made in advance.

LORD DIAMOND

But yearly payments are not always made in advance, and what my noble friend Lord Leatherland said about the period before the application was submitted relates to paragraph 4(1) which reads: …the rebate period…shall commence at the commencement of the rental period in which the application…was received". Therefore, if the application is received on December 1 and the rental period is a calendar year, then December 1 is within the calendar year and it will be necessary to go back to the beginning of the calendar year to make the calculation. Therefore what the noble Lord said about the complications of going back, and about putting undue weight and difficulties on to a local authority, was, to put it mildly, not right.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

No. I totally accept that what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said is quite correct. It can go back to the beginning of the period concerned.

LORD LEATHERLAND

This short discussion is showing how very difficult it will be for my poor 60-year old cotton worker to understand the ramifications of this Bill. She will need to have a note sent to her by the local council stating: "Will you please refer to page 130, line 20, of the Bill which deals with rental periods? Will you then refer to page 106, line 16, which deals with the interpretation of the expression 'rental period' "? It may very well be that all of these poor old people will not have copies of this Bill. They may not have people of the intelligence of the noble Lord to explain its ramifications to them. What is more, although the interpretation clause states on page 106, that 'rental period ' means a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made", in the case of many council houses the rental period may well be no more than a week. That will be very hard indeed on some of these people who are not very prompt in making their application.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

The simple answer is that application can be made by the noble Lord on his old lady's behalf or by any other friend of the lady concerned. The authorities have to publicise the scheme in the best way possible and the news must be spread.

LORD LEATHERLAND

What the noble Lord has done is merely to publicise the fact—and it will be spread throughout the length and breadth of the land—that if any old lady wants to make an application she should get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I beg to dissociate myself from any public service of that kind at this moment. But there is no doubt that these people will be puzzled. Can this not be simplified in the way my noble friend Lord Shepherd has suggested, and if a poor old lady is not so prompt as we, with our secretaries to assist us would be in putting in the application, give her a little latitude.

LORD DRUMALBYN

As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, talked about when he referred to going back over the whole of the period. I do not know whether that was the intention of the noble Lord. The difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland posed will not really arise, because Clause 24 shows how these schemes are to be publicised. The application will be made, and no doubt it will state what the rental period is. That will then be worked out by the local authority and that will be the end of the matter. It will be a simple administrative matter to fix.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for directing our attention to the definition clause. This illustrates some of the difficulties under which we have been working in discussing the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head. If twenty minutes ago he had made the intervention that he has just made we might have saved some time. I agree with him that our Amendment is exactly the opposite to what we had intended it to be. We did not appreciate the significance of the clause. As I say, if the noble Lord had intervened earlier we could have saved a good deal of time. This is in no way a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. We recognise that he has no Departmental responsibility here. He has to work with briefs that are just as complicated and difficult to understand as the provisions of the Bill.

If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is the one Minister with Departmental responsibility, had been present at this Committee we might have saved some time. I wonder whether this is the right way in which to treat this Committee. It is not often that we have a Minister who has Departmental responsibility, and I should have thought that when a Bill of this nature was being discussed he would have been present. It is not so late in the day that he needs to be out for refreshment. It would have been a matter of courtesy to the Committee if the Minister responsible for what is a very complex Bill could have been present to give assistance to noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite and indeed to save the time of this Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment may I say that I do not think that he ought to take up the time of this Committee with this sort of thing? We were dealing with two Amendments, one of which was concerned with the rental period and the other with the rebate period.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sorry, but I was dealing with only one Amendment. I spoke on Amendment No. 98 and did not refer to any other Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

When I said, "we", I meant the Committee. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton dealt momentarily with the other one, as the noble Lord opposite is aware, and he may have confused the two. We all know what the rental period is without having to look at the definition.

LORD SHEPHERD

If the Departmental Minister had been present we might have avoided that difficulty. As it was, I moved only one Amendment and did not speak on the other.

LORD AVEBURY

We may think we know what the rental period is, but the fact that it requires mention in the interpretation clause shows how important it is for us to have clarity in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could have given the definition as easily as I could.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 99: Page 133, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) where the rent is payable under such a tenancy as is described in paragraph (f) above, but no rent is registered (whether provisionally or otherwise) for the dwelling, and the authority are not satisfied that the rent paid is equal to or less than the fair rent, as estimated by the authority, any rent paid in excess of that estimated fair rent;")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a situation not already covered in paragraph 14(1) of this Schedule. This sub-paragraph requires an authority not to grant rent allowance towards any amount of rent paid above specified limits. This limitation is to prevent rent allowances from subsidising an amount which a tenant need not pay; for example, an excess over the controlled or fair rent registered for his dwelling or the rent limit for those housing association tenancies to which Part VIII of the Bill applies.

Where the rent of a housing association tenancy has not been registered, the rent limit is determined in accordance with Clause 84(3) and (4). This limit may be in excess of the fair rent. Accordingly, for unregistered housing association rents a provision is needed which is similar to that in sub-paragraph (1)(c) for regulated tenancies, whereby the local authority must disregard any excess beyond its estimate of the fair rent. The Amendment contains this provision.

6.7 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 99A: Page 134, line 11, at end insert— ("The Tenant shall have the right to appeal to the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowance.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking on this Amendment I should like the permission of the Committee to speak on Amendments Nos. 99B, 99C and 106A. Whatever differences of view we may have, we can all agree that this is a very complicated Bill. Even those of us who have had a few years' experience of dealing with legislation in your Lordships' House would agree that this Bill ranks with the more difficult—I would not say the most difficult—pieces of legislation. Yet it is a Bill which will affect many hundreds of thousands of people. We shall be putting new burdens upon one group and we shall he seeking to give another group some relief from their present difficulties.

We welcome this aspect, and therefore it must be our concern that the new benefits will become available to the greatest number of people possible, that there will be a proper administration and that all persons involved will obtain a satisfactory service. Most local authorities will give a good and understanding service, but it is right that we should recognise that there are some authorities which are not as good as others. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, will agree with this and I hope, in view of his criticisms of some local authorities, he will speak in support.

A tenant may make an application for either a rebate or an allowance or may be informed by his local authority as to changes in his rent. These various complicated circumstances are provided for in the Bill. If a tenant is placed in this position and has a doubt as to whether the authority has judged the facts of his application aright, or if there is any doubt between a tenant and the local authority, we take the view that that tenant ought to have a right of appeal to some independent authority. It is perfectly true that we are dealing with elected councils, but the councils for London boroughs and the cities of Birmingham and Manchester are authorities dealing with tremendous numbers of people. The bigger the numbers the more detached and the further removed are the officials and indeed the elected members. It is sometimes difficult for a small, timid and nervous individual to go to his councillor, if he can find him, or to get into the offices of his local authority to see a person of sufficient stature and authority as to be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

I think it is right, therefore, that we should give to the tenants who are now involved in the provisions of this Bill the right of appeal. I think we should consider the sort of things that might arise. First of all, there is the question of the income of the tenant, or of any spouse of the tenant, during the period of a rebate period; then, whether a child should be counted as a dependant; whether a joint tenant is to be treated as such, or as a non-dependent member of the household; at what rate a wrongly-granted rebate or allowance is to be recovered, and whether as a reduction from the rebate or an allowance for a subsequent period; or the matter we were discussing recently of whether a person should lose an allowance he would normally be entitled to merely because he lives in a house which is judged larger than he may personally need, or, for that matter, because a person may be judged to be living in a more expensive area than perhaps he ought to be, taking into account his circumstances.

All these are questions not only of fact but also of judgment. I would not want to be critical of officials of local authorities, but the pressures under which these officials work are really tremendous, and there are circumstances—we all know it—in which awards are made which are highly questionable. It may be that the local authorities already provide wide-ranging services and that in the past we have not required some form of independent appeal. But this Bill imposes new rents and raises new problems, new questions, about what is or what is not a fair rent, what balance is available, what rebate should be avail- able, and so forth. A whole wide aspect needs to be taken into account. I should have thought, therefore, that the Committee would take the view, without in any way criticising local authorities, that a tenant should be able to go to some independent body to seek a hearing and have a judgment upon it.

I have put down two possible alternatives for the appeal procedure. There is the one that was identical to that proposed in another place, that it should be the local Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal. I was reading the Commons Hansard this morning, and I saw that the Government had some basic reasons for not accepting this particular proposal. Therefore it is fortunate that I had in fact put down on an earlier occasion an Amendment of my own drafting proposing that it should be the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances. This Amendment, No. 106A, does not call upon this committee. recognising that it is an advisory committee, to make a judgment and a ruling. What it would be required to do would be to consider such appeals as a tenant might submit and then give its findings and its recommendations to the housing authority. It would then be for the housing authority, of course, having listened to the arguments and having read the findings and recommendations, to make up their minds whether an injustice had been done. The subparagraph then goes on: … a tenant shall be any person who claims to be the tenant of the premises". This was particularly included in the Amendment in the light of an earlier part of the Bill, where it is said that a local authority can maintain that, because a person has a higher income than the actual tenant, he is to be the tenant. This is also an aspect as to which there might well be a dispute between the original tenant and the authority, because the authority says, "So far as we are concerned, you are not the tenant because you do not earn sufficient, as opposed to someone who is now living in this dwelling."

So I hope the Government will respond positively in this matter. I hope the Committee will feel that, as is proposed in Amendments Nos. 99A and 99B, the tenant should have a right of appeal. As to whether either of these bodies is the right one, I leave that to the Government, but I hope they will accept that there ought to be a system of appeal so that the tenants will know that they have somewhere to go if they are in any way dissatisfied with an award. It may be that, as the previous Administration had hoped to see, in due course the Government will appoint an Ombudsman for local authority matters. The previous Administration felt that this new system of Parliamentary Commissioner ought to be kept for Parliamentary and central Government services; that it would be too big a burden to place upon this body if we included local authority matters. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, might confirm that hospitals and medical service matters are now subject, or are likely to be subject, to an appeal to an Ombudsman. If the Government have in mind the appointment of an Ombudsman in the field of local authority affairs—and this is a matter particularly in the field of maladministration—then I would be quite content with it. But until that appointment is made, I hope that the Committee will feel that we ought to set up a body to which a tenant may make an appeal if he feels dissatisfied, in one way or another, because of the provisions in this Bill. I beg to move.

6.17 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord, I know, feels strongly on this matter, and I think he has set his case out very clearly. But I am afraid it is my duty to resist it, and I hope that the noble Lord will understand and appreciate the reasons why I feel bound to do that. To start with, I think one has to remember that while there is probably more discretion on the part of local authorities given in this Bill than noble Lords are sometimes apt to concede, at the same time there are very clear and specific provisions in the Bill as to the duties of authorities under their rebate or allowance schemes, and the specific new right is given to the tenant to make representations on any determination made in respect of him, and to have them considered by the authority—that is in paragraph 15(2) of the Schedule—provided that those representations are received within one month of the notification of the determination.

I think one has also to bear in mind that local authorities have very wide experience in the operation of rent rebate schemes, and there never has been any statutory right of appeal against determinations under existing rebate schemes. But in so far as they will now have specifically defined duties to grant rebates or allowances, the tenant can have recourse to the courts in the event of a failure by the authority to perform such a duty. Where a duty is laid upon an authority in this way, an appeal lies to the court to enforce the performance of that duty. The purpose of the advisory committee, to which the noble Lord suggests representations should be made—I do not think "appeal" would be the right term to use in this case. They are representations for the advisory committee to consider and in turn to advise the local authority upon—is a much more limited one so far as the numbers of cases are concerned. It is to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales on the general working of this national rebate and allowance scheme. It will advise on such matters as the basic tariff of the scheme, on the items of income to be disregarded or the relationship of the scheme to other means-tested benefits. It would be dealing with matters of general principle, although a particular case can give rise to consideration of the general principle, and there is nothing to prevent representations from being made where things are going wrong. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to give such a body, a national advisory committee of this sort, power to adjudicate in individual disputes between tenants and their authorities. The cases might be very numerous. The kind of body that you would set up to deal with this sort of thing would be different from that set up to deal with matters of general principle. The latter would be more similar to the National Insurance Advisory Council.

Difficulties of general application will find their way to this committee. In such cases the committee may provide helpful guidance to the Secretary of State and to the authorities on points of principle or of difficulty which have arisen on a disputed determination, but it is not really appropriate that representations that may be made from time to time should be called appeals. Nor is it appropriate to encourage individuals to make representations on the exercise of clear duties placed upon the authority. In particular if, as the noble Lord was suggesting, there were mistakes in calculation, or things not taken into account that should have been taken into account, the right course would be for the tenant to make representations to the authority itself. If the officials of the authority will not listen to those representations the same thing will happen as happens in all other local government—the individual will then go to his local government representative and complain there. He may even go to his Member of Parliament who will tell the person concerned that this is not a matter for him and the right course is to make representations to the local government representative, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I have often had to do.

I think the noble Lord is unduly worried about this matter, if I may say so, and I hope for those reasons that he will not press the Amendment. This right to make representations is a good one and it will bring to the attention of the local authority, probably at a higher level, mistakes that have been made at a lower level. If that is not done the complainants will then go to their local government representatives and the local government representatives will bring them to notice at their own level, as they so often have to do in other matters. I think this is the right way of dealing with local government affairs and I hope that the noble Lord will accept this view.

BARONESS SEEAR

It is very regrettable that the Minister has not been able to consider this Amendment and is taking the line that there is no need for this kind of third party appeal, a body to which the ordinary tenant can go. The noble Lord says that the local authority has clearly laid down lines which they are supposed to follow, but I do not believe that that will be clear to ordinary people. A large local authority and officials of the local authority are nearly as remote as is Parliament itself. This is one of our great difficulties. The Minister says that they now have a right of appeal, and that is a good thing. I think it is a scandal that they have not had it in the past. There is a feeling that we are more and more in the hands of faceless bureaucrats: that is a trite phrase but it is widely felt. People at this level find it extremely difficult to disentangle cases of this kind. Some of us—and at least the Government have accepted this—believe that it is high time that we had an Ombudsman at local level. If—and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made this point—there is to be a local Ombudsman who can help people vis-à-vis the local authority, well and good, but until that time comes surely we need a committee of this sort. An appeal to the local authority against an official is simply not adequate. You are appealing up the line in the local authority against the person who has handled the particular case. True, you can go to a local councillor; but I do not think that is adequate. There will be a great deal of anxiety and worry and confusion about the application of this Bill when it is an Act, and the more help that we can give people the better. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment again.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

The noble Baroness has made a quite strong case. I think the Government could go a little further than it has done. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will know that this matter was raised in Standing Committee E and I think I am correct in saying that as a result the last line and a half of this sub-paragraph was added to the Bill, bceause before my friends in the other place raised the point local authorities were under no obligation to notify a tenant in writing of the reasons for altering or confirming the rebate or allowance. It is only too easy to find reasons why this or that body is not acceptable as an appeal body. I could hope that half as much ingenuity was being put into discovering what would be a right and acceptable appeal body as has been put into saying why none of the bodies that has been suggested is suitable. In suggesting the one we have here, the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances, I think we are on the right track. The noble Lord said that this was a body that was intended to advise. I should think that anybody wanting to make an appeal would be appealing to a body that had a pretty good understanding. I do not think the Government would be taking any undue risk if they said, "We will look at this proposal; there is something in it".

The noble Lord said that the tenant could go to his local representative, who quickly passed the tenant up to his M.P.: well, by and large he did—if I may use a phrase which the noble Lord coined earlier in the debate. The local representative passes the tenant up to the M.P., and the M.P. passes him back to his local government representative even more quickly. What is happening to the tenant while all this is being done?—because I am sure that the noble Lord has met people who have been engaged in this kind of process, and he will know that they get very bitter and feel a tremendous sense of frustration. It is true that sometimes they are successful and then they feel very pleased and think they have gone the right way about it. I know that some of these people are very difficult to deal with. Like others who have been members of local authorities, I have had the experience of their coming to my door at all hours of the day and night and expecting me to drop everything and to give them attention. The first inclination is to be a little impatient at this intrusion; then one realises that for these people this is a tremendous problem, that they have experienced nothing like it before, and one tries to help. In such a case, the local government representative goes to the local authority and says: "Jones has been to me and he made a strong case. It is something that ought to be looked at." But he may be unsuccessful in persuading his authority to do anything about it.

The noble Lord suggested that people have the right to go to the county court. I do not wish to misquote the noble Lord and I hope he appreciates the point that I am making. But, in general, we are dealing with people who are not fond of going to court. I sit quite regularly in courts, as do a number of noble Lords, and I am struck again and again by the number of people who come before the Bench and who have no understanding of how to handle their own case. They really need legal advice. I shall be coming back to that point on a later Amendment. If at this stage the noble Lord could indicate that he is likely to accept that later Amendment which deals with recovery of the costs of taking the dispute to the county court, I do not think that there would be too much difficulty in persuading us now to let this matter go by. Perhaps this is the time to ask whether we are likely to get any kind response to the suggestion that where a tenant is dissatisfied with the reason given by the local authority he will, as of right, recover the costs of taking the matter to the the county court. It seems to me that that would meet our case. If that Amendment is going to be resisted I would ask the Committee, as I ask the Government from their own experience, to give considerable thought to whether the kind of person who is likely to be caught up in this situation is, by and large, capable of looking after his own interests if he goes to the county court. The noble Lord used the word, "undue"; he said that we were attaching undue importance to it. I do not think that that is so.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I said that I thought the noble Lord was unduly worried.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think that is about the same thing. Of course, my noble friend is unduly worried. It is a worrying matter; it is a fundamental matter.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I have listened with great interest to this discussion. The sort of people who get involved in these cases do not like going before tribunals or courts or similar bodies. I am wondering whether it would not be possible, in cases of disputes over rent rebates or allowances and the like, for the local welfare officer to act on their behalf. One of the problems with which we shall be faced (in England before it occurs in Scotland) is that after the reform of local government, we shall have fewer local representatives and they will cover much larger areas. Therefore some of the people we are concerned about may not be able to get in touch with their local councillors as easily as they can at present. Perhaps some arrangement might be made, through the welfare services, for somebody to visit them at home and talk about these allowances. I do not believe that people, whose standard of living and whose standard of intelligence may not be very high, will go to tribunals if it involves travelling perhaps 30 or 40 miles. It would mean the loss of a day's work, if nothing else.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I should like to add my weight to the case put by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, not necessarily to repeat the argument but to take up one point relative to it. The noble Lord, in replying, said that Paragraph 15(2) gives this right. Since when did we require Parliament to give us a right to question a decision about a contract we make with somebody who is supplying us with something? This is every citizen's right in every country. If you make an agreement to take a house for rent from a private individual or from a public individual; and if that agreement is varied to reduce or increase the rent, you do not require Parliament to give you the right to dispute it. This is a basic right of everyone in the country. I thought I would correct this statement which the noble Lord made and which gave a strength to his argument that it does not possess.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am not certain that I accept that. The right to make representations is accompanied by a duty on the local authority to consider the representations. This is also in the sub-paragraph. I think that we are all sympathetic to this problem. The difference between the two sides is that we on this side—I speak particularly for the Front Bench and I hope my noble friends feel this, too—feel that a scheme of this sort, which runs along the same lines as many rent rebate schemes already operated by many local authorities, will be operated as sympathetically as it is at present. After all, it is not being operated by some statutory body which consists of non-representative members; it is being operated by local authorities who have their local councillors to whom application may be made. The ordinary person who thinks he is not getting his rights may perhaps, if he is a recluse, or if he does not like to discuss his private affairs, keep it to himself. But that sort of person is going to do that in any case. Otherwise, if he is not getting his rights, he may go to a solicitor; he may get legal advice under the scheme or he may well get assistance in other ways. I presume—I should have to verify this—that if he won his case in the county court he would be eligible to get his costs. The noble Lord shakes his head; but we are dealing in large sums. Some of these allowances may be £3 a week, which amounts to quite a lot in a year. This is not a negligible matter and it is not the sort of matter which people, if they feel they are being done out of something, will be altogether unwilling to take to court.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord knows that if you go to a county court you need a lawyer, a solicitor—perhaps a barrister. These gentlemen need money; they need their fee. In most cases, they want the fee on the table before they take the case and before they appear in court. We are talking in the main about people who will be seeking allowances because their income is so low that they cannot meet the fair rent. The noble Lord is suggesting that these people should risk whatever small savings they have for the purpose of going to a county court. If the noble Lord really regards that as a satisfactory answer I feel very sorry for him.

6.40 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Obviously, this is absolutely a last resort. No local authority is likely to want to be taken to court if they are in the wrong. There will have been all the possibilities of having the matter put right by representations made by the applicant to the local authority, and the rest. When we are setting up a scheme of this sort we believe that this is the right way to go about it. I am not saying that later on some other arrangements may not be made. It may be that the advisory committee on rent rebates and rent allowances would not, at some point, recommend some form of appeal. But the difficulties of setting up courts to deal with this are very considerable. The volume of work might be very great. These are essentially administrative matters, and surely it is right that good administration should deal with them.

LORD DIAMOND

I am sorry to detain the Committee, but I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that he will take this matter away and reconsider it. We are not on a Party issue at all; we are on the issue of whether it is necessary to establish such machinery in order that justice may be seen to be done. It is a very familiar circumstance and is provided for in almost all the comparable schemes I can think of. The noble Lord paid little attention to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.

One can put this argument on two legs. First, there is the question whether an appeal to an authority to the councillor level of an authority, is an effective form of appeal. We all know that it is not completely effective. Every local authority, when faced with the difficulty of having a point of view put by a ratepayer, and by an officer, does not consider only the facts of the case. The local authority, the committee or the council has also to consider its permanent relationship with the officer, and that is a bias in favour of the officer which is built-in and absolutely inevitable. The local authority has to live with the officer and the official's advice, be it at local government or national level, and at all times has to take that into account. That in itself, apart from the weight of the argument, is one reason why people do not feel that they will get justice done completely by appealing to a council member over the head of an officer.

Far more important than that is the feelings of the persons involved. Let us assume that justice has been done—this is the part to which the noble Lord paid no attention at all. It is a new scheme and it is not right for the noble Lord to say that many councils have rebate schemes. No one has a rent allowance scheme, and a rebate scheme will be imposed by the national Government and carried out by the local authorities. It will affect millions of people. I do not know how many all told, but when you take into account council tenants and those in receipt of rent allowances the total may be 7 or 8 million; a very substantial portion of the whole population. And, as I say, the scheme will be new. To assume that in every case the right answer will be arrived at is to be impossibly optimistic; but what happens when some people do not believe it? I think the Government are being extraordinarily narrow-minded in not being willing to establish some kind of machinery so that an appellant can let off steam and then be told, "We have considered your case carefully and have listened to what you have to say, and we think that you are wrong. But you have had the satisfaction of coming to someone who has considered it."

When he was a Member of Parliament in another place the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had his Friday night or Saturday morning political surgeries, as I did. I do not know what he found, but I will tell him what I found. Quite half of the people who came to see me with various complaints wanted only an opportunity to talk to someone who would treat the matter in confidence and someone whom, if I may say so, they could treat with respect. They knew that they would get a sympathetic hearing, and then they went away feeling a lot better and, thank heaven! I had nothing to do about it. That must have been the experience of the noble Lord, as it is the experience of every Member of Parliament. Surely it is a well-established fact that human beings feel better if they know that they have the chance to go to an independent party—not a man's boss; not the officer's councillor who will have difficulties with the officer about it, but to an independent party—who will listen and will say, "Yes, you have not understood. I will explain why this is right. These are the facts, these are the figures and this is the addition, and that is why you have to pay."

I should have thought that, with a new scheme which will create so much difficulty, the Government ought already to have established some kind of machinery. As I have said, this is not a Party point. We do not want to win or lose on a Division. We want a situation in which the Government scheme, if they insist on it, will cause the least upheaval in human relations. So I hope the noble Lord will recognise the argument I am making in support of the plea of my noble friends on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches and what has been said by the Liberals. It is something about which the noble Lord ought to be willing to say that, without commitment, he will take it away and consider it. He is a member of a learned profession. The principle of appealing is a well-established one with him and lie would not dream of departing from it in respect of that profession, I should have thought. Even in respect of something like the industrial relations legislation I understand that it is possible to appeal from one court to another; and everybody knows what trouble we have had about that. I leave this appeal with the noble Lord in the hope that he will respond.

LORD HYLTON

This is a most important Amendment and I urge my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to say, if he possibly can, that he will reconsider it. In particular, will he consider whether the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals might not be the right bodies to consider the matter?

LORD DRUMALBYN

The supplementary benefit appeal tribunals were not set up for this purpose and have no experience of housing matters. I think that many of the people who would be receiving rent rebates and allowances would not he anxious to go to one of these tribunals. I think I have stated the case fairly, though I omitted to say that the Party opposite set up the rate rebate scheme and gave no right of appeal there. This is a similar matter, and I do not see why there should be an appeal in this case either, unless it transpires later on that things are going wrong; and I do not believe that they will go wrong.

The local authorities, obviously, will be changing their attitude to the whole business of rent collection. The rent collector will himself become more like a welfare officer. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Balfour said about that. There is quite a possibility that the welfare officer will be a sort of tribune of the people within the local authority in these matters. But I do not think it would be right at this time to take the view that the local authorities are not going to run this scheme sympathetically. I believe that they have the ability and good will to run it. They are already doing it well without any sort of appeal. I hope that the Committee will resist this Amendment while at the same time having every sympathy with the intention that there should be every possible incentive for the individual to obtain his rights. We believe that the Bill as drafted secures that.

LORD SHEPHERD

I hope the Committee will recognise that my noble friend and others made an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to reconsider this matter. There was no obligation whatsoever. What the noble Lord has said is: "We will not reconsider. It is dead. Take it or leave it". There was some heated feeling on Tuesday about the conduct of this Committee. if I may say so to the honourable Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, one of the reasons for the protracted discussion was basically due to the fact that Ministers were not willing, or were unable, to give a satisfactory and full answer and we therefore had to go back time and time and time again to extract one crumb after another. It was not until about 2.30 a.m. (perhaps it was because my bleeding face appeared on the scene) that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, started to say: "I will look at it". Until then, my noble friends had been confronted with the same attitude: "We, the Government, have made up our minds. We are not prepared to reconsider this matter despite what has been said". The noble Lord may be being honest. He may know that his Minister, no matter what the noble Lord may say to him, will not change his mind.

I come back to the criticism I made earlier. This is a fundamental Amendment of principle involving many hundreds of thousands of people. All the noble Lord can say is: "Well, they can go to the courts". Where is the Minister who is responsible in this Department? He is not here to listen to the debate but no doubt he will read it and convey his views to his own Secretary of State. This is not the right way in which this Committee of your Lordships' House should be treated, particularly where there is an important Amendment of principle. It is not only discourteous, it is utterly unfair to those whose interests we are seeking to protect. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made it clear that he will not reconsider this matter. I regret this because I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that his cohorts who are around the passageways will march into this Chamber, will vote without any knowledge of what is involved, and will perhaps not even know the number of the Amendment. Those of us who have listened or who have taken part in this debate and who understand it will be voted down. This is not Committee. I find myself speechless. I intend to divide the Committee.

6.54 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 99A) shall be agreed to?

LORD DRUMALBYN

It may be convenient for the Committee to adjourn for an hour, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS
Archibald, L.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Nunburnholme, L.
Avebury, L.	Gardiner, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Barrington, V.	Garner, L.	Platt, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Garnsworthy, L.	Seear, Bs.
Blyton, L.	Granville-West, L.	Segal, L.
Brockway, L.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Shackleton, L.
Carnock, L.	Hale, L.	Shepherd, L.
Champion, L.	Heycock, L.	Shinwell, L.
Crook, L.	Jacques, L. [Teller.]	Slater, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Leatherland, L.	Somers, L.
Diamond, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.	Summerskill, Bs.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Loudoun, C.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	McLeavy, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Energlyn, L.	Maelor, L.	White, Bs.
Evans of Hungershall, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Fiske, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Cromartie, E.	Lyell, L.
Alport, L.	Daventry, V.	Macleod of Borve, Bs.
Atholl, D.	Denham, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L
Balerno, L.	Derwent, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Balfour, E.	Digby, L.	Milverton, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Drumalbyn, L.	Monck, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Eccles, V.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Beaumont, L.	Elles, Bs.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Elliot of Harwood, Bs.
Belstead, L.	Falmouth, V.	Northchurch, Bs.
Berkeley, Bs.	Ferrers, E. [Teller.]	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Birdwood, L.	Ferrier, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Gainford, L.	Reigate, L.
Brecon, L.	Goschen, V.	Rhyl, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Gowrie, E.	St. Just, L.
Coleraine, L.	Greenway, L.	Sandford, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Grenfell, L.	Sandys, L.
Colwyn, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Strathclyde, L.
Courtown, E.		Teviot, L.
Cowley, E.	Hawke, L.	Vivian, L.
Craigavon, V.	Hertford, M.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Wolverton, L.
Crathorne, L.	Latymer, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Limerick, E.	Young, Bs.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.