HL Deb 26 June 1972 vol 332 cc663-790

7.30 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]

Clause 55 [Functions of Rent Scrutiny Board]:

LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 110P:

Page 57, line 4, at end insert— (" ( ) The rent scrutiny board may by notice in the prescribed form served on the authority or a tenant require him to give to the board, within such period, not less than fourteen days from the service of such notice, as may be specified in the notice, such further information as they may reasonably require and shall serve on the authority and on the tenant a notice, specifying a period, not less than fourteen days from the service of the notice, during which either representations in writing or a request to make oral representations may be made by him to the board").

The noble Lord said: Before coming to this Amendment, may I reiterate a complaint which I have had to make to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on previous occasions; that is, that we are not given sufficient information about the decisions which are made from time to time regarding the proceedings on this Bill. As he will recall, the noble Lord has given me undertakings twice before that we should be kept fully in the picture. This has not happened yet again. Until I came down to the House this afternoon, I was not aware that there were no less than 13 speakers on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill which has just been concluded, and that we would not start our proceedings on the Housing Finance Bill until half past seven.

Quite frankly, I think it is outrageous that the Government are asking us to consider the remainder of Part V, and also Parts VI, VII and VIII of this Bill during the remainder of the course of this evening, when we have already had quite a heavy day's work and when there are so many important Amendments which noble Lords wish to be considered. I really do not think this is the way in which the Government should handle a piece of legislation of this type, and I reiterate the plea which I have made to the noble Lord in the past, that we should be properly consulted before any final decisions are taken.

I must tell the noble Lord that I cannot make myself responsible for concluding these proceedings this evening at any reasonable hour because, on looking through the list of Amendments on the Marshalled List, I see that a great many are of considerable importance. I also think that it is unfair to the servants of this House not to reach a decision at a much earlier stage. We did not even know until just before the House rose at the end of the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill that we were going to be allowed half an hour for dinner—a procedure which I may say is likely to cause noble Lords ulcers and indigestion. Speaking for myself, I have had to gobble down my dinner and not complete the second course, which I was in the middle of when the hour of 7.30 struck. I really do not think this is the way in which we should handle proceedings in this House. I think we should be allowed adequate time, and in spite of the undertakings which I understand have been made through the usual channels that we shall finish the Committee stage of this Bill during to-night and to-morrow, I think the Government would be wise if they were to allocate an additional day for the Committee stage so that we might proceed at a reasonable pace and not have to rush through the remainder of the Amendments on the Marshalled List—as many as we have already considered, bat in a fraction of the time.

Having made that protest, I come to the Amendment. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that tenants have no proper right of appeal against the rent determinations made under the Bill, unlike those who live in privately rented accommodation, and I wish to contrast the two situations. The only way that a tenant can oppose the assessment of rent made upon him under this Bill is by making representations under Clause 53(5). And to whom does he make these representations? To the landlord, to the local authority which has determined the provisional assessment in the first place; and so the landlord is the judge and jury in its own case. After considering the tenant's representations and amending the provisional assessment, if it thinks fit, the local authority takes such steps as it considers reasonable to notify him of the amount of rent that is to be assessed. That is Clause 53(6).

Then the final assessment goes to the rent scrutiny board, which has the power to obtain such additional information as they may reasonably require for the purposes of confirming the rent submitted to them or substituting another rent. That is Clause 55(1). However, this power extends only to the local authority. The board is not entitled to obtain information from the tenant. In fact they are positively discouraged from doing so by the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 55, and the board will be taken to have considered an assessment if they look at it by reference to subsection (3)(a): the rents of certain dwellings to which it relates and which in their opinion are representative of types or descriptions of such dwellings …". In other words, they do not have to consider the locality of the dwelling, which I think is in flat contradiction to the provisions of 50(1), and this would have to rule out considerations such as those mentioned by the Birmingham City director of housing, given in paragraph 6 of his memorandum to the committee on April 26. The Birmingham City director of housing says, inter cilia, that he wants to apply to gross values a factor which is dependent upon the locality of estates within the city; not the locality of individual dwellings, but within a particular estate which he has calculated as having a certain amenity value. All the rents of similar dwellings will be the same, and to my mind this appears to conflict with the provisions of Clause 50(1).

What I should like to do is to contrast the provisions in the Bill with the machinery for determination of the rents in the private sector which are contained in the Rent Act 1968. While I am doing this, I ask noble Lords to bear continually in mind the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on Second Reading that: The fair rent principle devised by the previous Government will also be applied to council tenants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 18/5/72, col. 1446.] Under Schedule 6 to the 1968 Act, the rent officer has to serve notice on the tenant, informing him of the landlord's application and giving him the opportunity of making representation, not to the landlord but to an independent rent officer. There is no such provision in this Bill. If these representations are made, the rent officer has to appoint a time and a place for an informal consultation between himself, the landlord and the tenant. That is contained in paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule to the Act of 1968. There is no corresponding provision in this Bill. The tenant has a right of legal representation at this stage—paragraph 4(3) of the Schedule to the 1968 Act. There is no such right in this Bill. After this has been done, in the absence of any agreement, the rent officer decides what the fair rent should be and again he has to serve notice on the tenant under paragraph 5 of the Schedule. The equivalent of that in the Bill now under consideration is Clause 53, subsection (6), which as we know from previous discussion is not nearly so strong.

Finally, we come to the point under consideration in this Amendment: the rent assessment committee under the 1968 Act may by notice in the prescribed form served on the landlord or tenant require him to give to the committee, within such period of not less than fourteen days from the service of the notice as may be specified in the notice, such further information, in addition to any given to the rent officer in pursuance of paragraph 1 above, as they may reasonably require;"— et cetera. The tenant has the right of objection before the rent assessment committee to the determination made by the rent officer after his meeting with the landlord and the tenant. No such provision is contained in this Bill, and that is the point of my Amendment.

I have not been able to deal with all the discrepancies between the 1968 Act and the Bill now before us, which, as your Lordships will see, are many and serious, but I do think that in this respect we are entitled to draw the line and to say that the Government should be forced to act upon the principle which they themselves enunciated on Second Reading and in the White Paper which preceded this Bill: that local authority tenants should be put on an equal footing with those who live in privately rented accommodation. Surely the right of appeal against a false determination of fair rent is fundamental to this principle and there is no such right contained in this Bill. That is what I am seeking to write in in the Amendment whch is now before the Committee. I beg to move.

7.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

If I may speak to this Amendment—

LORD DIAMOND

I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Earl for one moment. I do not want to make a speech but to ask only one question. I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of the Committee that we should discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 110T, 110X and 110Y. I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Actually, I am grateful for that interruption because I was going to ask if I could speak to the rest of the Amendments put down against Clause 5. As your Lordships will notice, the next Amendment suggests that we should leave out subsection (2). Subsection (2) of Clause 55 puts in a nutshell the difference between the rent scrutiny board of this Bill and the rent assessment committee of Schedule 5 to the Rent Act 1968, a matter which I did not understand until it was fully explained in column 457 of last Thursday's Hansard by my noble friend Lord Sandford. It was for that reason that I declined the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to walk arm in arm with him through the Division Lobbies.

As a final point, there could be a close connection between the rent scrutiny board and the county rates assessor when he determines the gross annual value. The information specified in Clause 55 is the sort of information which the assessor would use, but otherwise there is no connection between the board and any existing committee.

LORD DIAMOND

There are one or two things I want to say, although it is hardly necessary to say anything after the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has put the case fully and persuasively. But the noble Earl has stimulated me to offer a few further comments, particularly in the hope that what did not happen on a previous occasion will happen later on, namely, that he will walk arm in arm with me through the Division Lobbies after he has heard the arguments on this particular Amendment. There is a very simple principle on which your Lordships' House operates and, indeed, so far as I know, on which every body dispensing justice operates, namely, that where you are dealing with the whole of the population, as you are in a Public Bill, although there is representation in the other place through constituents' Members of Parliament you do not take evidence from or hear individually the people affected. One could not, because one is affecting the total population. Where we are dealing with a situation—such as one very familiar to your Lordships under Private Bills—under which the rights of individuals are affected, then, so far as my limited knowledge goes, we do, the country does, without exception listen to the individual's representations. So far as I know, there is no exception to that rule in either House, in any court, or in any body dispensing justice.

What are we dealing with in these various Amendments? We are dealing with the assessment of the rent of each individual local authority dwelling. That is the duty laid by this Bill upon those who have the final responsibility and the responsibility at various stages. The noble Earl who is always helpful to our cause—and I am grateful to him—read out Clause 55, subsection (2): The Board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling to which an assessment relates. and so on. Where do we stand so far as this particular Bill is concerned and the provisions respecting the functions of the bodies concerned, particularly the rent scrutiny board—which is in Clause 55—in the determination of rent? We have two matters only to consider: the first is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described, namely, the principle adduced by the Government. "We will have", says the Government, "fair rents, just as you have them in the private sector". That is the whole basis for the Bill. It is a foolish, confused and impossible concept, as we have said and we shall continue to say. But I am not talking about our case; I am talking about the Government's case. The Government's case is, "We will have fair rents as in the private sector". As one knows, in the private sector all the normal principles of dispensing justice apply, as I have previously indicated and as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made quite clear.

The parties have a right to be represented; they have a right to be heard; they have a right to bring evidence, expert evidence; and they have a right of appeal. The body which hears the appeal naturally hears the parties. In this clause no party can be heard by or represented before the body which determines the issue; no party can call witnesses or make submissions at law; there is no appeal. In short, every rule of natural justice is denied and the case is decided behind closed doors. That is the situation with regard to the rent scrutiny boards. I apologise that Amendment No. 110T refers to "the committee; it should of course be "the board". It refers to the committee considering representation made in writing, and so on, and asks for rights analogous to those which a tenant of a private landlord is able to exercise before a rent assessment committee under the provisions of the Rent Act 1968. I have underlined to your Lordships two simple propositions. The first is that all of us always proceed to dispense justice in a particular way; namely, hearing the parties publicly; secondly, that this is the method by which rents are determined in the private sector. The Government are saying: "Please, all that we are asking is for what happens in the private sector to be introduced into the public sector, the same fair rents principle". How then is it possible for us to find ourselves in the situation where the Government are going forward with these un- natural proposals? I think I am entitled to call them unnatural, on the evidence both of the Council on Tribunals and of the Minister of Housing.

The Council on Tribunals is a council set up because of the difficulties under which tribunals work, and of the possibility of injustice resulting from their proceedings. The Council has been set up, and indeed my noble friend Lady Burton is, I believe, at the present time Chairman of the Council. The Council was aware of these proposals from the Government's White Paper, and their Report for 1970–71 printed by order of the House of Commons on December 1, 1971 (it does not appear to have a number) says in paragraph 37: We expressed strong objection to some features of the Department's original proposals for giving to rent assessment committees responsibility for scrutinising application of the fair rent principle to local authority housing in England and Wales. They go on in paragraph 38: We considered that if rent assessment committees were to play this part in the determination of these rents, it was essential that they should follow judicial procedure and hear both sides fairly. To use them in the one-sided manner proposed by the Department would, in our view, be likely to compromise their reputation as impartial adjudicators and discredit the whole fair rent system of adjudication. That is the view of the Council on Tribunals.

May I now refresh your Lordships' memories as to the view of the Minister. The Minister had to deal with this matter in the other place, and, of course, he recognised the difficulty of it. There are four volumes, because in the other place they had 57 sittings lasting over 150 hours, even though they were affected by the guillotine. We in your Lordships' House are required to do our duty in a very much shorter time. The Minister, at column 2072 in Volume II, said: This clause has given me more trouble and difficulty than any other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons, Standing Committee E, 15/2/72, col. 2072.] He went on at column 2081 to say, in similar words: I agree that this is the most difficult part of the Bill, because more than 5 million dwellings are being taken into a new scheme. So we are quite clear as to what is the normal practice of the country and of your Lordships' House and of Parlia- ment. We are quite clear as to the principles of the Bill. We are quite clear that the Minister himself regarded this as the most difficult part of the Bill, and we know what the Council on Tribunals thought about it. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, what he feels about it, and I am sure he is fully supported by everybody who listened to his speech. Therefore perhaps I need not continue at length, as we are very pressed for time. I do say, however, that to me it is incomprehensible that the Government should pursue this line in the face of this criticism. I hope that they will, if not accept the Amendments in the precise form in which we have put them down, recognise that if you are going to have an inevitably unpopular reform, which apart from damaging the economy of the country is going to be regarded as the most difficult proposal by those who suffer increases in their rents, at all events, you must have justice being seen to be done; that is to say, open doors, representation, hearing the parties, rights of appeal—the normal, natural process of giving justice. You must have justice being seen to be done in order to get the slightest possibility of acceptance on the part of the 5 million tenants who are going to be affected. I appeal to the Government to withdraw from their policy of Government by diktat.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

There are two very small points I should like to stress. The rent scrutiny boards are appointed by the Secretary of State. This is another shift from the local authorities' powers and duties, but it is also a shift right away from fair play.

LORD SANDFORD

I wonder whether I may start by expressing my apologies, on behalf of my colleagues on this side, for any omissions that there may have been, and any discourtesy there may have been to the Liberal Opposition in the arrangement of the Business to-night and to-morrow on this Bill. But whatever may have been the cause—and my noble friends and I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—I think every Member of the House was left in the position last week of making his own judgment as to how long the Criminal Justice Bill would take; none of us knew at that stage how many speakers there would be, and it is Perfectly true that there were in fact twice as many to-day as there were listed on Thursday when we dispersed.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond: I think it would be convenient, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, agrees, that we should conduct this debate on Amendments Nos. 110P, 110T, 110X and 110Y together, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the explanation about the wording of No. 110T. I imagined it was the board he had in mind and not the committee. What we now have, although the Amendments are on points of detail, is the third debate on the nature of the rent scrutiny board; we are merely hanging it on a different set of hooks. I make no complaint about that because this is a new body and it is important that the Committee should be clear about it. It is my duty to make as clear as I can what functions the rent scrutiny board carries out and what functions it does not carry out.

It might be helpful if I stressed, as most noble Lords who have spoken so far have stressed, that what we are concerned to achieve in this part of the Bill is the application of fair rents and the fair rent principle to the public sector. There is no argument between us about that. There may be an argument as to whether or not fair rents are sensible, but we are agreed that we are trying to apply them across both sectors. It does not follow, because the application of fair rents in the council house sector and the private sector is our aim, that we adopt the same procedures for arriving at them.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

Why not?

LORD SANDFORD

The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, asks, "Why not?" I suggest to the Committee that there are three very good reasons, or one main reason which breaks up into three parts. That is that the relationship between the private landlord and the private tenant on the one hand, and the local authority and the council tenant on the other hand, are totally different. The private landlord, with his necessity to make a profit, in some cases with unscrupulous motives in making the maximum profit and perhaps cashing in on scarcity and so on, is of quite a different kind to the local authority as landlord. In the case of the local authority the councillors are elected by the tenants. Private landlords are not elected by their tenants. The housing authority has a statutory duty to meet housing need in its area, which is not something a private landlord has at all; and, furthermore, the local authority has a statutory duty imposed on it in this Bill to consider the representations made to it on the provisional assessment of rents, which is different from the progression to fair rents in the private sector.

It is because these relationships are quite different that there is every justification for using a different procedure to arrive at the same principle. I do not think I can say any more than that. I have said a good deal about the duty of the rent scrutiny board. It is a different body from the rent assessment committee, but there is a certain amount of cross-membership because the experience gained by the rent scrutiny committees is of such value to the rent assessment boards. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, read the views of the Council on Tribunals, and I should like to read on from roughly where he left off: Rents must be determined as at present by the administrative authority. Such authorities might, however, be enabled to draw upon the special experience and knowledge of the members of the rent assessment panels. That is what we have achieved by drawing on the membership of the rent assessment committees to create the rent scrutiny boards. They have quite a different function; they are using different procedures. The end product will be fair rents in both sectors. I do not think I can say any more by way of explanation of the way in which the rent scrutiny board differs from the rent assessment committee and why the procedure in the council house sector differs from that in the private sector. I do not suppose I have been able to persuade noble Lords opposite on this point. I have tried twice before. I have been glad of this opportunity to try again. I do not think I can say anything more.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

Throughout the arguments on this Bill we on this side of the Committee have been saying that the relationship between the private landlord and the private tenant is different from the relationship between the local authority and its tenants. Now at last the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has conceded this. That is exactly what he has said; but, having said that, he says that of course the scrutiny boards are different from the rent assessment boards. We have no reason to suppose that they are going to be any different. If the Government have accepted this extraordinary thing about a fair rent in the local authority sector, I simply do not understand how they can manipulate it just according to what they want, and yet say that there is a great difference between the relationship of the private landlord and the local authority as a landlord and the tenants of either.

LORD BERNSTEIN

For the moment let us not deal with the question of private tenants and local authority tenants. Could we not deal with the question of what is equitable and just, and how justice is seen? Perhaps this is going outside the Amendments, but I should like to refer to Clause 75(2), which states: The board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling to which an assessment relates". Why should people not consider the rent of an individual? There are five million of them. It may be extra work, but in equity and justice each person has a right to have his rent considered if it is going to be increased. I have not heard the case against the justice or the equity of it. Perhaps we could hear something on that.

LORD SANDFORD

I can explain that very easily. Of course a tenant who has his rent increased ought to have an opportunity of making representations about it. Hitherto if he were a council tenant he has not had a statutory right to have his representations heard. This is now being provided for in this Bill, but the representation is made to the local authority and not to the rent scrutiny board.

LORD BERNSTEIN

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has not answered my very simple question. Perhaps I put it in too elementary a fashion. What I am asking is why the Government should say that the board shall not be obliged. I suggest to your Lordships that the board should be obliged. A tenant has a right to be heard about his rent. I do not care what the previous Act says or what the local authority associations say. In all equity it is a man's right to have his case heard. As I said the other night, we should object very strongly to having our rates raised without getting even written notice of it. That is the point I want to raise again.

LORD SANDFORD

It is a good point. As I say, council tenants have hitherto not had this right by Statute. They are being given it in this Bill. The reason there is no statutory right for them to make representations to the rent scrutiny board is that provision is made for representations to be made to the local authorities; these are the people who have been assessing their rents up to now and they are well qualified to carry on.

LORD DIAMOND

We are back at a difficulty which raised a certain amount of heat the other night—the refusal of the noble Lord to deal with a question which was put to him. It is all on record in Hansard now and I need not refer to it again. I want to mention the argument adduced by the noble Lord referring to the difference in the relationship between the private landlord and a private tenant on the one hand and the local authority and a public tenant on the other. Suppose I am a local authority tenant, a council tenant, and I am paying a rent. I have heard about this Bill and it becomes an Act in its present form. The local authority (that is to say, my council, covering the area where I have lived all my life, peopled by councillors whom I have had an opportunity of appointing or rejecting) tell me that they have considered the situation very carefully and that my rent should go up by y pence. I am, as your Lordships know, a very reasonable person. I think about the rent and I say, "All right, everything is going up these days, a y pence increase in my rent is reasonable", and therefore I make no representations, I am content. In the circumstances this proposal is then submitted to a rent scrutiny board. I know nothing of their proceedings. I am not allowed to make any representations. They do not call me to hear what my views are.

LORD AVEBURY

They call the landlord.

LORD DIAMOND

They have the advice of the local authority, which says, "The rent of x plus y is the right rent, and I have not objected to it". Having considered that, they add z pence, so the rent is now x, y and z. I have had no opportunity of letting them know my views; I have had no opportunity of putting before the board comparative rents; I have no right of appeal; I did not object (not that it would have made any difference) to the local authority, because the local authority's proposal was, I thought, having regard to general increases in prices not out of bounds. I am caught with an increased rent beyond what I think is fair, beyond what the council thinks is fair and right in relation to the proposals of the Government in this Bill, and I am caught without any opportunity of being heard, making representations, appealing, or anything. I am in a totally different position—and I am 5 million tenants—from the 1½ million private tenants, who at that point would have all the rights of natural justice afforded to them. Therefore, in those circumstances I cannot understand why the noble Lord is referring to noble Lords on this side of the House. By what right does he think that noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House are not interested in natural justice being provided?

That is the first point. The second point is this. Why does the noble Lord keep relating this to the local authority, when we are talking about the rent scrutiny board, the final determinant which listens not to the tenant, hears not the tenant, and from whom there is no appeal? It is the rent scrutiny board. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that the more he dodges this question, as he has now done for the fourth time in reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Bernstein, the more he underlines the fact that he finds it impossible to justify, just as his right honourable friend the Minister found it impossible to justify. He did not attempt to justify it. He knew that he would be slaughtered in the other place if he attempted to do so. What he said—and I will read it out in view of the noble Lord's insistence on dealing with matters with which we are not dealing—at columns 2078 and 2079 was: I do not dissent from the essence of what he has said. This is one of the Members making a similar case to that which we are making now: What we are proposing does not go all the way to producing a complete equivalence between landlord and tenant as there is in the private sector. I should like to do so, but I have not been able to find a way of making it possible. There is no argument about the principle in the Minister's mind. What he is saying is that administrative convenience makes it impossible for natural justice to be provided.

The complaint of all the local authorities and their associations is that the Government are moving too fast, and that is our complaint. Because of the need of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to collect this money in quickly there is no possibility of administrative methods for justice to be done because, of course, there would be appeals and people would like to have an opportunity of expressing their own views about their own property and what rent they should pay. He goes on to say in column 2078: So much of practical politics is a matter of defending the had against the worst. It is impossible to achieve perfection in this world. That is the sole justification of the Minister. We are agreed, are we not, that this denies natural justice in the way that your Lordships' House defends it on private interests in any Bill in which the private interests of individuals are affected. All we are asking for is that same justice as is afforded to private tenants, so that the Government can have an opportunity of effecting their Bill, which we dislike, without having the kind of explosion which one must expect if individuals are denied the right of being heard, or denied the right of appeal.

In those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord does not take this matter as seriously as his right honourable friend did, and recognise that this is not to be justified on any grounds other than administrative convenience. We think that administrative convenience is a bad bed companion for natural justice.

8.18 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, still has an opportunity of taking to heart the words that have been spoken in this debate and of telling the Committee that he will go back to the Department and think of some machinery, before we come to the Report stage, whereby appeals can be written into the Bill. If he would do that, then I am sure that it would help to expedite the proceedings on the remainder of the Committee stage, because it would be an enormous concession, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said, to the rights of natural justice. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, feels that himself, because the one thing that I agreed with in his speech was when he said that he did not suppose that he had been able to convince us by his arguments. If I may say so to him, those arguments were pathetic. I have never heard a worse presented case from the Front Bench than we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to-night. He realises that he has not got a leg to stand on and that statements made by himself in this place, and by his right honourable friend in another, are totally in conflict with what the Government are trying to do.

I have already quoted one statement. May I just refer him to what he himself said when we were considering an earlier Amendment on June 22? He said at column 457: The criteria have been taken over from the legislation of the Party opposite and are set out in some detail in an earlier clause which we have been discussing. Those criteria have to be applied by the local authorities. He is not doing that. He has brought forward with regard to the local authorities a totally different set of provisions from anything we have been familiar with in the Rent Act 1965, as consolidated in the 1968 Act. I do not want to go back over all the details again; I have already itemised them. The noble Lord, in his reply, has totally ignored the comparison that I made. But I think that it is a valid one.

If it is the philosophy of the Government that what has already been done in the private sector under a previous Government should now be applied to council tenants, then for the sake of this Amendment I will go along with the noble Lord and will ask why he has not done it. Why has he provided far less satisfactory procedures for the council tenant than anything which was done under the 1965 Act? It is no good the noble Lord saying that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is totally different in the public sector from what it is in the private sector. He uses that argument only when it suits him. When we tried to present a case for adjusting fair rents in the local authority sector to take account of the differences in interest charges, repayment of capital and so on as between private and public landlords, he dismissed that in a few sentences.

He cannot have it both ways. When it suits the Government's case he cannot ignore the differences between public and private landlords, and when it does not suit the Government's case he cannot emphasise the differences, as the noble Lord has done this evening. The councillors may have been elected by the tenants. They may have a statutory duty to consider housing needs. They are still the landlords and, therefore,

they are in the same relationship to the tenant. If you live in a council house, you look upon the housing manager and the housing committee in the same way as a private tenant looks upon the landlord. You think that they are standing in the same relationship to you.

Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord's arguments are valid and I dismiss them entirely. This is fundamental to our opposition to the Bill, and I appeal to noble Lords in this Committee not to accept the feeble arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but to reject this clause and to vote with us when we go into the Division Lobby in a minute.

8.22 p.m.

On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 110P) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Shepherd, L.
Avebury, L. [Teller.] Hale, L. Slater, L.
Bernstein, L. Janner, L. Stow Hill, L.
Blyton, L. Lee of Asheridge, Bs. Summerskill, Bs.
Champion, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Maelor, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Delacourt-Smith, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Winterbottom, L.
Diamond, L. Platt, L. Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Gaitskell, Bs. Popplewell, L. Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] Royle, L.
Granville of Eye, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Ailwyn, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Northchurch, Bs.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Falkland, V. Oakshott, L.
Amory, V. Falmouth, V. Rankeillour, L.
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. [Teller.] Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Balfour, E. Fortescue, E. St. Helens, L.
Barnby, L. Gage, V. Saint Oswald, L.
Beauchamp, E. Gainford, L. Sandford, L.
Belstead, L. Goschen, V. Sandys, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Gowrie, E. Sempill, Ly.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Greenway, L. Strange, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Hailes, L. Strathcarron, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Strathclyde, L.
Chesham, L. Thomas, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Kemsley, V. Trefgarne, L
Courtown, E. Killearn, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Craigavon, V. Luke, L. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Vernon, L.
Digby, L. Mansfield, E. Vivian, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Milverton, L. Wrottesley, L.
Elles, Bs. Mountevans, L. Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ROYLE)

I should point out that if Amendment No. 110Q were agreed to, the Chair would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 110R and 110S.

8.30 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110Q: Page 57, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 110R and 110S with this Amendment. I will deal with them very briefly because of the pressure of time. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that each dwelling will be dealt with individually. We feel that this is right because, as your Lordships are fully aware, there is no representation, no personal hearing, no appeal. We think it is right because a tenant who reluctantly accepts a local authority's provisional assessment, and who then finds that that assessment has been thrown overboard by the rent board, has no appeal or method of complaint. We also think it is right because each house should be dealt with in relation to its state of repair or disrepair. I beg to move.

LORD JANNER

I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I cannot understand why it is not appreciated that houses, even in the same row as others and of a similar type of building, have certain characteristics and are in a certain condition which makes them different from others. Surely a tenant is entitled to point out that his house is different in many respects from others which apparently are going to be taken into consideration as a whole. Why is there a difference between the approach in this matter and the approach in respect of rateable values? Why do the Government not take a whole row of houses and say that they are of a similar type and that they are going to assess them for rateable purposes at a certain value and there will be no right of appeal?

It is sheer nonsense. It is depriving a tenant of his legitimate right to argue the position in respect of his house. It is a shocking thing to prevent an individual from doing this. It is a transgression against individual liberty and against the right of a person to have his case heard. The Government ought to realise that if they continue to object to an Amendment of this nature they are doing an injustice to every individual who happens to occupy a house which somebody—it does not matter who—considers to be of a similar but not exactly the same type as another. It cannot be. The tenant ought to be entitled to have his case heard so that the assessment may be properly made.

LORD SANDFORD

I agree with a very good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said. Although it is true that council housing, as compared with private housing, usually consists of fairly substantial blocks of identical building—some with two bedrooms and some with three—built at more or less the same time, there are differences. Some may have garages while others do not and some may have central heating while others do not. They may differ because some tenants are elderly and are not responsible for doing their own repairs. All these variations can occur within a block of what appear to be identical houses. But the local authority will know all about them; there are factors which it already takes into account and will take into account in the future in making its provisional assessment.

If we were denying the tenants a right to make representations about these provisional assessments or denying them the right to draw the attention of their local authority to the fact that their houses had not got central heating or some other variation, then there would be some force in the noble Lord's argument. But we are not denying them that. For the first time we are giving them a statutory right to make representations. I am sorry to go on about this but this is the case. The rent scrutiny board is not the body which will deal with these things either now or in the future. It is the body which will come in at a later stage to scrutinise the rents provisionally assessed by the local authority.

LORD PLATT

I hate to intervene in this argument because I am quite sure that I am not nearly as well versed in this matter as noble Lords on both sides of the Committee. But surely the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is not telling us that there are not rows and rows and streets and streets of private residences which are of the semi-detached type with no difference between them. He seems to be making some distinction between council housing and private housing in this respect. I do not think he has examined some of the less desirable suburbs of the city of London.

LORD JANNER

I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will answer the point that I put. Why should there be a difference from the approach to rateable values? Why should a person be entitled to dispute a rateable value?

LORD DIAMOND

I wonder if I could put this point for the last time. I will not trouble the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, again. I will just assume that he is unwilling to deal with the point. This is the fifth time. I would appeal to him to read subsection (2) to which these Amendments refer. It says: The board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling to which an assessment relates. What is "the board"? It is the rent scrutiny board. This is the board which will determine the rent. It is not the local authority. The local authority will make the provisional assessment, send it to the board and the board will either accept it or reject it; but it will finally determine it. Every time we raise a question about the functioning of the board the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, tells us what the local authority can do. I do not know why he does this. It cannot be that he does not understand the difference between the local authority and the board. It cannot be that he thinks that we are confusing the two. We are talking about the board. The whole of the Amendment refers to the board. The whole of my noble friend's speech referred to the board.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will say that he cannot or will not answer questions about the board and that he will not time and time again tell us what the local authority can do. What the local authority can do is irrelevant because the subsection says: The board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling … It does not matter what the local authority has done. The local authority may have considered these things ten times over. The noble Lord said that if it were true that there was no possibility of considering these matters then he would think that my noble friend Lord Janner had merit in what he was saying. But that is the case. It says here: The Board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling … So with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not think that we shall advance our understanding of the Bill or our understanding of one another if, every time we talk about the board, he tells us what the local authority can do.

8.40 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

I am sorry if I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as much as I should like to do. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, made the point that tenants have no right to make representations about their rents or rent assessments. He did not qualify that. I agree that we are talking about Amendments to subsection (2), but my argument in reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said is that because tenants have the right to make representations to the local authority we do not think that it is necessary for them to have the right to make representations to the board.

LORD JANNER

With the greatest respect, the opinion of the council (to which representations can be made) having been come to, it can be overridden without a right of appeal; and therefore the tenant has no right to present his case.

LORD DIAMOND

I do appeal to the noble Lord. May I put the one argument to him which I think he was unable to hear because he was not here at the time? It is not only the case of an objecting tenant who makes representations to the local authority which the local authority passes on to the board and the board is required to ignore. It is not only that. It is, as I tried to indicate, the case where there are no representations because the tenant is content, is satisfied; where the rent has been increased and he accepts it, and he makes no representations. Therefore, when the local authority sends the case along to the rent scrutiny board, they cannot be saying, "This tenant has objected ", because he has not. Nevertheless, the rent scrutiny board determines what the rent shall be without hearing the tenant. The board makes its decision; and, if it increases the rent, the tenant has not been heard, he has not been represented, he has not been allowed to produce evidence and he has not been present. The whole thing has been done behind closed doors; and his rent, which he thought he had accepted from the local authority, has been increased. In those circumstances, there is no question of any representation, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, keeps on reminding us, the representations can only be made to the local authority, and in this case the tenant does not wish to make representations to the local authority. The rent is increased, and he has no opportunity to make representations at all. "This is such an utter denial of simple justice that I do not know why the noble Lord or the Government are pursuing it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I wonder whether I could help the Committee by putting forward a slightly different gloss, a different point of view. What the rent scrutiny board is doing is seeing that the rents of the local authority as a whole are fair rents, that they are in line with fair rents as determined by the rent assessment committees or the rent officers for private dwellings. They will get the lists of the rents. Those lists will have been arrived at by the local authority, which has always fixed rents for its tenants, after considering the representations of their tenants. Now what sort of representations will they be? Local authority houses are, by and large, in blocks of fairly similar houses, in contradistinction to privately-owned houses. Tenants' representations, therefore, if they are made by the occupants of a block, or by one of the occupants of a block, are likely to be that the rents fixed for that block are out of line with the rents fixed for other blocks. Or, it may be that the representation made by an individual—and I heard the noble Lord refer to this at an earlier stage—will be that because of certain reasons the rent fixed for his house is too much in relation to the rents fixed for the block in which he lives.

Now, what will the local authority do? The local authority will then consider these things and will adjust the rents as between their tenants. But the question still remains open whether those rents, taken as a whole, are in line with the fair rents outside. This is the conception. The noble Lord quoted my right honourable friend as saying that the conception is not perhaps ideal; but at any rate I think it right to put before your Lordships what the conception here is. I concede what the noble Lord says, that administrative convenience plays its part in this, but so also does the fact that the local authorities have always fixed the rents for their tenants, and they will continue to do so after the representations are received in this way. They will then pass them on for the rent scrutiny board to harmonise them with the rents outside.

LORD DIAMOND

I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has obviously turned his mind to our complaints, and he is turning his mind to the rent scrutiny board. That is some advance, and we are grateful to him. I would therefore ask him to be good enough to consider two aspects, one of which I have already put to him but with which he did not deal. That one is not, as the noble Lord instanced, the case where there is a complaint. I am trying to make the case as simple as possible by giving as an example an instance where there is no complaint. The first question I am asking him is: how can he say that the rent scrutiny board pays any attention to the representations of the tenant when the tenant has not made any, the reason he has not made any being because he was content, but the board has nevertheless increased that rent? That is the first question. The second question concerns the situation when you have identical circumstances in a block of property owned by a private landlord. Your Lordships can imagine such a large block; there are dozens of them, all within your Lordships' knowledge and recollection, all over London, in all the areas where people live—huge blocks of flats, and so on, owned by private landlords. Why, in those circumstances, is there an appeal by each separate tenant against the fixing of his rent to an appellate body?

LORD DRUMALBYN

As to the second point, of course, the reason is that this is the way in which the rents come to be registered—rent by rent, individually—whereas in the other case (that of local authorities) we are dealing with the fixing of rents for a large body of houses in the ownership of the local authority. It is the local authority that will judge what the relativities are; and the local authority has every power to make it known what the rents of individual houses will be. No doubt people in a block will compare notes to see what variations there are, and then the individuals who feel that they are being harshly treated within that block can make their representations to get adjustments made in the relativities. But what I am saying is that the rent scrutiny board is not dealing with individual rents in the sense that a rent assessment committee is dealing with them: it is dealing with the rents en bloc, which is a totally different operation. The tenant will have had his opportunity, as my noble friend has so repeatedly said—and I do not understand why noble Lords do not take this point—to make representations about the relativities of his rent in relation to the rents of other local authority houses. What have still to be determined are the relativities of the local authority houses and the other houses in the block as a whole, and this is what the rent scrutiny board will be dealing with.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

Is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, saying that after the rent scrutiny board has fixed the rent a tenant can make a representation to his local authority? Is that what I am to understand? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not recall having said any such thing. I certainly did not say that, and I hope I did not imply it. But, of course, it is a fact that the local authorities themselves will have the further opportunity to comment on the rent scrutiny board's determinations.

LORD DIAMOND

The noble Lord is being very helpful and he is moving in the right direction by altering the Bill. That is always helpful. I do not know whether he intended to do so, especially as he is altering a part that we have already passed, which is unusual. In the previous subsection it says: It shall be the duty of the rent scrutiny board to consider any provisional assessment submitted to them … Is the noble Lord saying that that is inaccurate, or is the noble Lord saying that "any" means a block, which is the example he gave? We thought that "any" meant "any"; and that, as the noble Lord has said, the machinery is first for the individual assessment to be adjusted by the local authority on hearing representations, then for the local authority to submit individual provisional assessments; and then it shall be the duty of the rent scrutiny board to consider any provisional assessment submitted to them … The noble Lord now says—in order to get out of this awkward situation—that it is not their duty to do so. He may be right; but it is not the way that one normally reads the Bill or the sense one normally gives these words.

I am bound to pursue the noble Lord further and to pursue him on the question which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell asked; because unless he is saying that the rent scrutiny board gives an opportunity to the tenant to object to the rent scrutiny board's increase of a tenant's provisional assessment then the implication is exactly as my noble friend indicated. Where there has been no objection to the provisional assessment at the local authority level and it is increased by the rent scrutiny board, then I repeat that the tenant has had no method whatever of having his objection heard because he has not made one. That, surely, is something we can all agree on: that you cannot listen to an objection if it has not been made. I am illustrating the point in all its simplicity: he makes no objection to the local authority provisional assessment that the local authority submits to the rent scrutiny board; the rent scrutiny board increases it by 50 per cent. and the tenant has no opportunity of any kind of appeal.

LORD DRUMALBYN

It is difficult to pursue the noble Lord on this matter because he takes a view here which ignores, and continues to ignore, the fact that the individual tenant is given an opportunity to make representations. If he has not made them then his case has gone by default.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

But—

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am trying my best. I hope noble Lords will allow me to complete my argument. The tenant's case has gone by default up to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is saying that the rent scrutiny board will consider any assessment; and so it does. But is it likely that the rent scrutiny board, which is obviously not going to be able to inspect all the houses (and this is the point noble Lords were making), would vary the rent for a particular house without a particular reason? Therefore, the relativities will remain the same. This is the point. The rent may be increased. If the rent of one house is increased it is almost certainly (I need not go further) because the rents of all the local authority houses are being increased, or at any rate the rents of a block which perhaps the rent scrutiny board have considered are now out of line with the fair rents of houses or blocks outside. It is extremely unlikely that the rent scrutiny board will alter an individual rent of its own volition. Why should it? That being so, there does not seem to be any reason why an individual should question the increase of the rent as it applies to his own house only; because this will have happened to the other houses as well. This is the way the system is going to work. There is no question of it. This is what will happen.

LORD JANNER

I do not understand this argument at all. If the rent is increased for a block, will the tenants be heard against that increase? As I see it at present, there is no appeal from what the rent scrutiny board does and consequently not only will the single tenant be prevented from stating his case but the block tenants, the whole lot of them, will be so prevented. It is not entirely correct to say that they have had a chance of putting their case. Of course they have; but if you get another body which can come forward and say, "We do not care a hang about what you said before; we are going to decide on a certain rental", where do the tenants stand? Moreover, where does the council stand?

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I answer that point? There is no question of the rent scrutiny board saying that they do not care a hang. That is not so. The rents are referred back to the local authority and the local authority can then make its representations on the rent scrutiny board's findings. That being so, it is the local authority representing the tenant that can make these representations.

We have not yet reached Clause 56 which deals with the determination of fair rent, but that does not mean that we should not take it into account when examining this part of the Bill. Clause 56 says: If the rent scrutiny board agree with a provisional assessment, they shall send to the authority a report … (3) If the board do not agree with the rents assessed for any dwellings to which a provisional assessment relates, they shall send to the authority a report on that assessment specifying the rents … with which they agree and the rents with which they do not agree and giving their reasons …".

LORD DIAMOND

We are waiting for the noble Lord to be good enough to direct our attention to where the appeal is—an appeal from the rent scrutiny board.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is in the nature of an appeal, if you like, because the authority can then make its representations against the determination of assessment of the rent scrutiny board. This is a collective appeal by the authority against the rent scrutiny board. This is the way the thing will work. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like it entirely, but I should have thought that, given the fact that the local authority, those who determine the rents, will report to the rent scrutiny board, who have the necessity for harmonising with the private sector the rents so determined, one could say that this is not a bad way of doing it.

LORD DIAMOND

We are agreed that there is no appeal from the rent scrutiny board. That is the point my noble friend Lord Janner was making: that there is no appeal. What can happen is that the local authority can say to the rent scrutiny board, "We do not like the rents you have determined." The rent scrutiny board can say to the local authority, "It is a fine day and I hope it does not rain." That is as far as we can take it. There is no appeal against the rent scrutiny board. Now I come back to some of the other arguments of the noble Lord because we are making some progress. Let us assume that my request that Clause 55(1) be removed from the Bill is accepted. I want to make it easy for the noble Lord. Notwithstanding that Clause 55(1) says that it is the duty of the rent scrutiny board to consider any provisional assessment, he is going to read the Bill as if it says that it is not the duty of the rent scrutiny board to consider any provisional assessment. Let us get over that one by assuming that we have removed that from the Bill. I now want to say to the noble Lord, why? In the circumstances where he once exercised his own profession it is normal, usual and inevitable that the person complaining is heard, because he knows something about the matter which the party who has made the decision may not know. He is heard, therefore, and gives evidence; and the circumstances relating to the need for the individual to be heard in a rent assessment are exactly the same.

Let us assume that we can walk together on the argument that the rent scrutiny board does not fix individual rents. That the local authorities fix individual proportions is what the noble Lord is saying. They fix the proportions of a standard rent and that rent is determined, as it were, by the rent scrutiny board en bloc. The relativities are fixed by the council and the board does not interfere with that. It merely looks at the total block, and the relativities remain the same and move up and down according to what the rent scrutiny board says. It is still the case that there are many circumstances in which individuals consider that their rent should not be varied in the same way as other rents should be varied. They will say that their house or flat abuts on the railway line, and that they hear the noise of the trains but the people next door or over the way do not hear it.

The noble Lord must have canvassed a lot when he was a Member of Parliament—like the rest of us who were M.P.s did—among individuals in blocks of flats, and he must have heard the complaints of tenants about their individual circumstances. Each one would have a different view of his own circumstances compared with those of his neighbours and all sorts of reasons are adduced. Some of them, I am sure, would be taken into account by a fair tribunal, including whether the neighbour was a very difficult tenant who sat up all night singing or playing the piano. There are some very difficult tenants who make things difficult for their neighbours. That is something to be taken into account; it is not something that a rent scrutiny board should ignore. There are a whole host of circumstances, including the state of repair of individual properties, and that is something to be taken into account. The rent scrutiny board cannot know anything about that.

I am bound to say to the noble Lord that even were he right about this curious idea that the rent scrutiny board should not look at individual rents but only at the level of relativity and not consider the individual relativities—and that is in absolute conflict with Clause 55(1)—it does not alter the fact that, as in any other disagreement, the person who disagrees should have an opportunity to say why he disagrees. He may be right or wrong, but at all events he gets the chance of saying before a judge or an arbitrator, or the person who determines his rent, what he thinks his rent should be and why it should be different from the rent of other people, and so on. It is a simple denial of justice for him not to have this opportunity so far as the rent scrutiny board is concerned.

9.5 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should like to take up one point with the noble Lord. It is obvious that we cannot reach agreement about this but I feel that I must do this because he challenged me on it. If he will look at Clause 53(1) he will see that it states: An authority shall publish their provisional assessment of fair rents within six months … and so on. Then, take Clause 55(1) where it states: It shall be the duty of the rent scrutiny board to consider any provisional assessment … so the assessment we are talking about is the assessment of fair rents as a whole.

LORD DIAMOND

I am sorry, but I think that this ought to go on the record. Is the noble Lord then saying that this Bill means that a rent scrutiny board does not have to consider a provisional assessment of individual rents?

LORD DRUMALBYN

That is exactly what Clause 55(2) does say: The board shall not be obliged to consider individually the rent of any particular dwelling to which an assessment relates". Of course there will be a list. The assessment will consist of a list of rents. They may be individual or by blocks, I do not know, but the assessment will consist of a list of rents. I am merely drawing this to the attention of the noble Lord. I am interpreting the clause as I have understood it. If I am wrong then I shall very gladly tell not only the noble Lord but also the whole Committee that I was wrong.

LORD DIAMOND

And not only the whole Committee, which is why we must pursue this, because every local authority wants to know what to do. They are all at sixes and sevens, not knowing how to proceed. What Clause 55(2) says is that the board shall not be obliged to consider. One can understand that it shall not be obliged to consider. If it gets a block of 20 rents, each one of which is identical with the other, and there is no difference of any kind, and it is known that there is no difference,

and they are satisfied, and the local authority says that there is no difference, and there has been no complaint from anybody at all—then, of course, it need not consider each one of those rents individually, particularly if it is not going to vary the rent. But that has nothing to do with saying that its duty shall be not to consider them. The Bill says that the duty is to consider them and merely that it is not obliged to consider every case. These two subsections are quite reconcilable and therefore, with respect, subsection (2) does not mean what the noble Lord said it meant.

9.8 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 110Q) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Stow Hill, L.
Bernstein, L. Hale, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Beswick, L. Janner, L. Tanlaw, L.
Blyton, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.] Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Champion, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Maelor, L. Winterbottom, L.
Delacourt-Smith, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Diamond, L. Platt, L. Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Popplewell, L.
Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] Shepherd, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Gladwyn, L. Slater, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Mansfield, E.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Falkland, V. Milverton, L.
Amory, V. Falmouth, V. Molson, L.
Balfour, E. Ferrers, E. [Teller.] Mountevans, L.
Barnby, L. Fortescue, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Northchurch, Bs.
Belstead, L. Gage, V. Oakshott, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Gainford, L. Rankeillour, L.
Bethell, L. Goschen, V. St. Helens, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Gowrie, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Greenway, L. Sandford, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Hailes, L. Sandys, L.
Chesham, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Strange, L.
Craigavon, V. Strathcarron, L.
Crathorne, L. Hood, V. Thomas, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Kemsley, V. Tweedsmuir, L.
Derwent, L. Killearn, L. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Digby, L. Kinnoull, E. Vernon, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Latymer, L. Vivian, L.
Elles, Bs. Luke, L. Wrottesley, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110Z.

Page 57, line 33, at end insert— ("(7) The sittings of the rent scrutiny board on the consideration of any provisional assessment or any reassessment shall be held in public.")

The noble Lord said: In case your Lordships think I am incapable of saying anything other than "Not moved", I think I had better move Amendment No. 110Z. The words in the Amendment speak for themselves. It is normal process and justice. I beg to move.

LORD SANDFORD

If the rent scrutiny board were carrying out the judicial function which noble Lords opposite have been urging so strongly that they should carry out, there would be a case for this Amendment. But because the rent scrutiny board are carrying out the valuation exercise that we have been equally strongly urging on the Committee as the function assigned to them, there is no occasion and no necessity for this to be done.

LORD JANNER

Surely that is not an answer to this proposal. We are dealing here with the lives and homes of people. You are now going to ask that this board shall consider rows of houses or blocks of houses of a similar type. Surely the public are entitled to know on what grounds a decision is going to be arrived at. And if that decision happens to be arrived at in consequence of certain information which has been given to the rent scrutiny board, of which the public and the Press do not approve, at least there is the opportunity for the local authority, which is an elected body and which must listen to public opinion, to do something about having the decision revised. I cannot see why the decision should not take place in public, unless of course the rent scrutiny board will have matters to hide and which they cannot present to the public at large. I think the answer that has been given is quite wrong. It is not a question of "judicial". There are many matters dealt with by local authorities which are not judicial, but which are open to public scrutiny. Why should this not be?

LORD SANDFORD

I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said, and when we get on to the next clause we shall see that if the rent scrutiny board have occasion to disagree with the provisional assessment forwarded to them by the local authority they have a duty to give reasons for that, and they undoubtedly would be made public. But that is not the point. The point I am making is that the rent scrutiny board are not sitting in a judicial capacity. There is no opportunity for representations to be made to them, as we have just been discussing. For that reason there is no need for their sittings to be made public, though their findings and their reasons for disagreement will be made public.

LORD DIAMOND

Where is that said in the Bill?

LORD JANNER

That does not answer the point.

LORD SANDFORD

If I can answer the aside of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that is made clear in the next clause, Clause 56(1) (2) (3) and (4).

LORD DIAMOND

The noble Lord said that they would be made public. I am asking where it says in the Bill that they will be made public.

LORD SANDFORD

That, I quite agree, is not mentioned specifically in the Bill, but there is no earthly reason why it should not be made public, and I imagine that every local authority receiving those reasons would make them public.

LORD JANNER

But, with respect, that does not answer the point that I raised. Does not the noble Lord realise that, whatever reasons the board may give for arriving at a decision, if the inquiry was held in public then the public would know, would hear what was said, whether those reasons were valid or not. Surely the public are entitled to know the basis on which the reasons have been arrived at? That is my point. If the public were there, there would be public criticism and also public understanding of the reasons put forward, and the basis for those reasons would be known. The same thing happens with a court: a court comes to a decision and those who have attended the hearing, the reporters and so on, know what has been said. If it thereafter appears that the case which is stated is based upon reasons which are inconsistent with what happened at the court, then counsel has the opportunity of putting the facts forward in his own way. The public are entitled to know on what grounds a decision has been made.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

May I ask the noble Lord whether the rent assessment bodies who assess the fair rents sit in a judicial capacity? The noble Lord is quite right: we do not like this Bill, but what we like even less is the complete lack of logic about this. That is what we do not understand.

LORD DIAMOND

Perhaps it would be convenient if I added my own views at this point, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be good to take them into account. Our difficulty here is that what we are proposing in this Amendment is nothing like enough, but it is something: it is indeed a minimum. All we are asking is that the board shall sit in public. The noble Lord has said that it is not a court. That is an interesting reply, but I do not think it carries much conviction, because we all know all sorts of bodies which are not courts but in whose decisions the public is interested, and the public are admitted to the gallery. I am told that this goes on in your Lordships' House; it goes on in another place; and it goes on in connection with every council we are talking about. Every member of the electorate can go along and listen to the council's deliberations, because these affect the area in which the people live. These decisions can affect the rent of the dwelling in which an individual lives. Why should not an individual just be allowed to go and listen? It may be that some injustice would be spared. It may be that, having heard it, they find that the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, are not being carried out.

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says that the rent scrutiny board will have regard not to the relativities but to the general level of rents, of the block of assessments which has been put to them. They may decide to pick out an individual one and alter it differently from others—put one up and leave another the same. They certainly have power to do that under Clause 55(1). They are not required to do it under Clause 55(2) but they have the power to do it under subsection (1). They may decide to do that and the local authority may feel that this is an error in their approach to their responsibility. The Government may feel that it is an error in the approach to their responsibility, and the Government may decide to give them directions under subsection (5) which says that The Secretary of State may give directions to rent scrutiny boards … as to the manner in which they are to apply the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) above. They may want to give directions, and, if so, it is necessary that the public should know how they are applying the provisions. I should have thought it was a tiny thing to ask the Government to consider, whether or not, like councils, like thousands of other bodies, non-judicial bodies, the rent scrutiny boards should not sit in public. It is as simple as that.

9.26 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

I do not think I have much to add. Of course it is true that debates in your Lordships' House and in another place and in council chambers are open to the public as they should be, and so are judicial hearings; but not every debate, discussion, deliberation and consideration of public business goes on in public, and I doubt very much if housing committees themselves meet in public. The point is that the important matters emerging from the rent scrutiny boards—their decisions and their reasons if they disagree with the provisional assessment of the local authority—will be issued. I cannot imagine any local authority that will not make them public. That is something we shall be coming on to.

LORD DIAMOND

I cannot leave that, because the noble Lord keeps on saying what he cannot imagine people will not do something which is not written into the Bill. I am sorry to say this to the noble Lord, but what he says about what local authorities will do if they are not required to do it under the Statute is, with the greatest possible respect, totally irrelevant. It has no power—I will give way in a moment—and he knows that it has no power whatsoever. I could just as well stand here and say that no local authority will publicise. He is not entitled to say it; I am not entitled to say it. All we are entitled to discuss is what is in the Bill and there is no provision in the Bill about publicising this information.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

If the noble Lord will turn to subsection (7) of Clause 56 he will see that local authorities have to publish the fair rents that have been assessed.

LORD DIAMOND

I am sure that the noble Earl was present during the whole of our debate, and I am sure he realises that that is not what we are discussing at all. What we are discussing is reasons; not amounts.

LORD SANDFORD

I am sure the Committee would agree that we are getting two things mixed up. When I explained that the rent scrutiny board will have to give its report on what it thinks of the assessments and its reasons for disagreeing, the noble Lord said there was nothing in the Bill about making that public. I have assured him that it will be made public. When we come to discuss the clause we can discuss whether there is or there is not enough in the Bill about that matter. But the Amendment is to the effect that the rent scrutiny board should sit in public. On that point I am quite clear that there is no reason at all why they should sit in public because they do not in any way correspond to a court sitting in judgment and listening to a case between two litigants; nor in any way do they correspond to a council or legislative chamber in the course of debate.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would the noble Lord not agree that while they may not be a court, they in fact make a judgment and the judgment is going to bind the local authority and eventually the tenant? They are making a judgment and so they are to some extent similar to a court.

LORD SANDFORD

We discussed this matter in one of the four or five debates we have had on the point and I made the point then that judgment can be of two different kinds. It can be a judgment between two parties or a judgment as to a particular figure. This is a valuation exercise, and I really do not think that members of the public ought to be admitted into a valuer's office when he is making a valuation. This is what the rent scrutiny board will be doing.

LORD JANNER

But, with respect, that is precisely what happens with the rent tribunal. What is the difference? The rent tribunal assesses the amount of rent that a person has to pay. What on earth is the difference between the two? This is a board which is going to say that 50, 100 or 150 houses are to be assessed at a certain amount. Why should not the public be there to listen to what is happening, if the reasons are put forward later on in the form of a return? It is not an appeal. The board can do precisely what it wants to do without having any appeal against it. It is a scandalous thing that the public should not know what is happening with regard to houses.

LORD BERNSTEIN

I am afraid I came in a little late. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us in simple language what is the reason for objecting to this Amendment? Every time Amendments of this type are moved we do not get a practical reason for the Amendment being refused.

LORD SANDFORD

I cannot say anything different from what I said originally. This is not a court or a debate or a judicial hearing, or any of the things where it would be appropriate or necessary or where the public would glean anything by attending a sitting of the board. It is quite an informal occasion where the various members discuss their findings, for instance as a result of visiting and inspecting a building and considering the details of the assessment that has been submitted to them.

LORD BERNSTEIN

The noble Lord does not think that this is an appropriate place for the public to be present?

LORD SANDFORD

I do not think they would gain anything by being present.

LORD BERNSTEIN

It is not whether they gain or not, but whether it is appropriate for the public to be present.

LORD SANDFORD

I do not think it is appropriate at all.

LORD DIAMOND

Quite obviously we shall not make any progress on this. We dislike it intensely but we are coming towards the end of the clause and we shall seek to divide the Committee on the clause. Therefore I think it would be more appropriate to express our views there than on this particular Amendment. I will only add that we now know how the Government think: they think that the man in the rent scrutiny board knows best and that is the reason why they are advocating what I previously called "Government by diktat." So long as it is realised that we object strenuously to

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Determination of fair rent.]

9.35 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZD: Page 58, line 9, at end insert ("shall give the authority and each of the tenants affected an opportunity to state their case in person thereafter").

The noble Lord said: This is the clause dealing with the determination of fair rent. Page 58, subsection (4) says: If within two months of the receipt of a report … the authority make representations in writing to the board as to any of the

this and to every other part of this clause, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.34 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 24. rents to which the report relates, the board shall have regard to those representations … The Amendment seeks to add at that point shall give the authority and each of the tenants affected an opportunity to state their case in person thereafter". This means that instead of asking, as we have asked and have failed to persuade your Lordships' House, that the normal processes of justice should apply, we are asking here just for the minimum possible request, namely, that the rent board shall give the housing authority and each of the tenants affected an opportunity to state their case in person after that. I beg to move.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Ailwyn, L. Falkland, V. Mansfield, E.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Falmouth, V. Milverton, L.
Amory, V. Ferrers, E. [Teller.] Molson, L.
Balfour, E. Fortescue, E. Mountevans, L.
Barnby, L. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Gage, V. Northchurch, Bs.
Belstead, L. Gainford, L. Oakshott, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Goschen, V. Rankeillour, L.
Bessborough, E. Gowrie, E. St. Helens, L.
Bethell, L. Greenway, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hailes, L. Sandford, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Sandys, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Strange, L.
Craigavon, V. Hood, V. Strathcarron, L.
Crathorne, L. Kemsley, V. Thomas, L.
Daventry, V. Killearn, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Kinnoull, E. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Derwent, L. Latymer, L. Vernon, L.
Digby, L. Lauderdale, E. Vivian, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Lothian, M. Wrottesley, L.
Elles, Bs. Luke, L. Young, Bs.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] Shepherd, L.
Bernstein, L. Gladwyn, L. Tanlaw, L.
Beswick, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Blyton, L. Janner, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Champion, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.] Winterbottom, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne, L.
Delacourt-Smith, L. Maelor, L.
Diamond, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Popplewell, L.
LORD JANNER

May I add just a few words to this? I think the noble Lord will realise that at least the authority and then tenants affected should be given this opportunity. It would be grossly unfair if the opportunity were not given to them to state their case. I am sure he is going to accept this Amendment, because otherwise the position of the tenant and indeed of the authority itself would be untenable. They are entitled to be heard. Quite frankly I do not think there is any need to add any more. It would be just too absurd if they were not given this opportunity.

LORD SANDFORD

As I think I have made clear and my noble friend has made clear, the relationship is between the rent scrutiny board and the local authority in respect of the provisional assessment, and the report of the rent scrutiny board, and their reason for disagreeing with any of the provisional assessments, if they do in fact disagree, is a report from the rent scrutiny board to the local authority. As I said in our debate on the earlier clause, the local authority would make the report and the reasons, if there are reasons, for disagreement public, and there is then, as noble Lords will see from subsection (4), a two months period after which the authority can make further representations in writing to the board, during which period it is perfectly free for the tenants to make further representations to their local authority, but not direct to the board.

9.45 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has omitted to do what he said he would do when we got to this clause, that is, to explain his justification for saying—he has just repeated it—that local authorities would make these reports public.

LORD SANDFORD

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. As I think my noble friend mentioned, there is subsection (7) as well. There is my assurance that they would in practice do so, but I am very happy to consider, and I will undertake to consider, if noble Lords want to press me on this point, whether or not there should be some further reference to making public the report or the reasons for a disagreement, if there is one. I am quite happy to consider whether that ought to go into the Bill or whether it would be right to trust the local authorities to do this. I am quite sure they will, but I shall be happy to consider that point.

LORD JANNER

Whilst appreciating what the noble Lord has said, I should like to ask how is that going to help eventually for the tenant to present his case. Does the noble Lord not realise that having given the reasons and everything else the tenants themselves will want to examine those reasons? Perhaps they will go to the local authority, but surely they themselves are entitled to be heard?

LORD SANDFORD

I do not want to go over that ground again. My noble friend and I have been over it several times. As I say, the relationship is between the rent scrutiny board and the local authority. The tenants' representations, when they want to make any and at the points where it is proper for them to make them, are made to the local authority and not to the rent scrutiny board. I will certainly be willing to consider this point about making the report and the reasons for disagreement public if noble Lords think on reflection that this is not something which can be entrusted to the local authority.

LORD BERNSTEIN

Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how he expects the local authority to make this public? The town crier has gone out. We are not going to have local radio; we are going to have regional radio. How is the local authority going to make this public? Will it be by inserting it in a local newspaper? I am told these are now dying. They are going to have the right to go into sound broadcasting. How will local authorities make this public?

LORD SANDFORD

There are an enormous number of ways in which a local authority can make facts public to its council tenants. Many of them are already set out in an earlier clause—Clause 54.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I should like to ask one or two questions which I hope are relevant. I presume the rent scrutiny board will be totally independent of the councils. I do not think this has been emphasised quite enough. Secondly, on a point which exercises the minds of members of the Opposition, in the event of a council tenant objecting to an assessment and the council disagreeing, will the council be obliged to send on the objection to the scrutiny board or not?

LORD SANDFORD

No; it will not. Tenants have at least as much right to make representations as they have now to the local authority, plus a statutory right to have those representations considered. This is embodied in an earlier clause in this Part and has been referred to continually.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am sure the Committee is greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He has just put a point we have been trying to get across. As a result of the reply he has just received he must see that there is something radically wrong. As I see it, a situation is developing where the tenant of a council-owned property is going to regard himself as receiving second-class treatment as compared with the tenant of a privately-owned property. Let us be under no illusion, the local authority is under an obligation, if this Bill is carried, to introduce a profit making rent, not a fair rent. They are being told what they have to do. The tenant, when he makes representations to the local authority, in his eyes is making representations to his landlord. We on this side have repeatedly been urging that he should have an opportunity of making an appeal to the rent scrutiny board. In justice this ought to be done, and clearly if the Government deny this then they are establishing the fact that they regard the council house tenant as being a second-class citizen.

LORD JANNER

May I take one point further? I am sorry to intervene so often, but this whole position seems to me to be absurd. You have a local authority, and the local authority have a vested interest in the matter. The tenant has to pay the rent, not the local authority. The tenant is being squeezed out of any right to object to an assessment which has been made. He goes to his landlord, the local authority, to plead his case. A good local authority may be prepared to do it with a proper spirit; a bad local authority is the landlord that is going to get the rent, and it is not going to plead the tenant's case. The position is absurd. It is contrary to all the principles we adopt in regard to any matter that is being tried. It cannot be done.

If you have the rent tribunal, for example, you have the landlord and the tenant being represented. You may have a very fine local authority indeed who are prepared to lean over backwards in favour of their tenant, but it is shocking that the tenant himself cannot eventually come forward and say that he objects to this assessment. Furthermore, this is in respect of an assessment which may have been agreed between the landlord and the tenant before, and is now coming up before another body in which the only persons who can put forward the case are the landlords and not the tenant. Is not this a ridiculous position? Surely the tenant must be given a chance of pleading his case. I would go further and say that he should be entitled to appeal against a decision, but if he is not given that right at least give him the right to appear before the body that is assessing the amount that he has to pay.

I hope that the Government will reconsider the position and regard it from the point of view that I have put forward. I think it is a perfectly reasonable point that I am making. I have been engaged, as some of us have, in pleading cases of this sort where a tenant comes to a lawyer and asks the lawyer to plead on his behalf, and surely there must be a right for the tenant himself to have some say in respect of what the decision is that is ultimately made as to what he has to pay.

VISCOUNT AMORY

May I ask a question? I apologise, but I am very ignorant. Is it a fact that, as I think has been charged from the other side, under this Bill a tenant of a local authority will be in a different position in relation to the rent scrutiny board than a tenant of a private landlord? If so, I should have thought that does want spelling out and explaining to us, because at first sight it does not look quite right.

LORD DIAMOND

May I just support what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has said? We are very grateful to him. We have indeed spelt this out in as many words as I am capable of summoning.

VISCOUNT AMORY

Surely not as many words; perhaps almost as many words as the noble Lord is capable of summoning.

LORD DIAMOND

If the noble Viscount presses me very hard I will try and summon one or two more. I assure the noble Viscount that we have pressed this endlessly, and I hope that he will have more success in private conversations with his Front Bench than we have had in public, because we have got absolutely nowhere. The difference is total. All the normal processes of justice are open to a private tenant and denied to a public tenant, it is as simple as that.

But I want to press the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on an issue which is dear to his heart. He keeps on saying that the justification for this procedure is, in part, that the tenant has an opportunity of making representations to the local authority. The reason why I am moving this Amendment is that this is a different situation, and I do not know whether I made that sufficiently clear. We are now in a situation where the tenant, having made representations, or not having made representations, on the first round, and the provisional assessment having gone to the rent scrutiny board, the rent scrutiny board has made its determination, and now, on the second round, the local authority can make representations to the board about any of the rents to which the report relates. But the tenant is completely excluded from that second round. The tenant cannot appeal or make representations to the board. He cannot appeal to the local authority, because he knows nothing about the board's report. If he does become aware of it, he has no means of seeing that his further representations to the local authority are conveyed by the local authority to the rent scrutiny board, because the board makes its final determination and merely has to reply, "We will alter" or "We will not alter", as it thinks fit. Therefore, this is a different situation.

Before I sit down, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that we are very grateful to him for his undertaking to consider something which we believe to be of vital importance. We are particularly grateful, because we think it is much more important that something should go into the Bill and be seen by every local authority when they read the Statute, than that a statement should be made by a member of the Government, or even that the Government should undertake to issue a circular. I was imagining that the noble Lord would reply that the Government had it in mind to issue a circular, but that would be nothing like so satisfactory as including in the Statute a provision to make it public. That would be a very great help indeed. The noble Lord has undertaken to consider that and we are grateful to him. Unless he wants to say any more on the issue, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.58 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZE: Page 58, line 33, at end insert ("and details of each individual assessment shall be sent to each tenant of the dwelling to which the assessment relates").

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment very shortly, as I wish only to give the Government an opportunity of,saying whether their thinking has moved at all since we last discussed this issue. Your Lordships were very interested in, and deeply concerned about, the fact that details of each individual assessment shall be sent to each tenant of the dwelling to which the assessment relates and not merely left in some public place where the tenant might find them if he knew anything about them. So I should like to ask whether the Government have any more to say to us yet on this issue. I know that they undertook to consider it.

BARONESS YOUNG

As the noble Lord has said, this matter was considered when the Committee sat last Thursday. I can only confirm what my noble friend Lord Sandford undertook at that point, which was that the Government would consider whether details of the fair rent assessment should be sent to each tenant individually. In saying that, I hope that noble Lords opposite, who have consistently expressed the view that local authorities should have independence to run their housing affairs as they think best, will recognise that if these words are included in the Bill we shall be putting into statutory form a detail of administration for a local housing authority. However, I should like to confirm the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Sandford gave.

LORD BERNSTEIN

I know that we went through this matter on Thursday night, but with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat myself. I do not hold your Lordships up very often or for very long. Your Lordships have refused to accept the advice of the local authority associations in practically everything but suddenly this recommendation has been picked upon. It is all wrong that local authorities should not be obligated in writing statutorily to advise people when their rents are increased. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said at about 10 or 11 o'clock on Thursday night: I have confirmed that it is their intention, and we are concerned here simply with whether we secure this by putting it into the Bill and making it a statutory requirement. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/6/72; col. 484.] The point that we have is quite clear. We feel that it should be a statutory requirement. If the Government are going to govern they should govern in this respect as in the many other respects they have shown in this Bill.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, may I say that my noble friend Lady Young said that the Government were still looking at this matter.

LORD DIAMOND

We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for making it quite clear that the Government have not reached a conclusion on this matter but are still considering it.

In view of what she said, may I say that she reads our minds absolutely correctly? We attach enormous importance to this. We recognise that it puts a responsibility on a local authority. It is not a matter of dreary administration. It is a matter of the liberty of the subject and we attach great importance to it. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said.

I am sure that she will not mind my going on to say that we hope to move very quickly indeed with this Committee stage if she will come along with us. I dare say that we shall be required to move to the Report stage with regrettable speed and give an entirely inadequate period of consideration to that stage of the Bill. Therefore, the Government will need to consider this matter fairly quickly in order to get an Amendment down before the Report stage starts. That is the reason why I am reminding the noble Baroness of her kind undertaking to consider these matters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Power to enter and inspect dwellings]:

On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall be agreed to?

10.3 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

When this clause was included in the Bill its purpose was twofold. First, it was to make it easier for the rent scrutiny board to discharge its duties by inspecting representative dwellings. Secondly, it was considered to he in the long-term interests of the tenant. An internal inspection of a dwelling might well ensure that there could be no doubt at all about the circumstances of the dwelling and in particular its state of repair. However, it was always recognised that this clause would be in the nature of a long-stop. It was always hoped that when the rent scrutiny board was carrying out its duties it would be able to find either an empty house or to inspect a house with the full agreement of the tenant.

The Government have considered this matter very carefully and have come to the conclusion that it would be better to take out this clause, because they would be able to meet the conditions required by the rent scrutiny board and ensure fairness to the tenant without it. Furthermore, they do not in any way wish to add to the numbers of people who have a statutory right to inspect a house. They hope, therefore, that agreement with a representative tenant or the finding of an empty house will enable the rent scrutiny board to do its work properly. In those circumstances, the Government wish to withdraw the clause.

LORD DIAMOND

We are very grateful to the Government for having yielded to the pressure put upon them in another place. The clause, as it now stands, is a redraft of an even more obnoxious clause which met with very heavy criticism indeed in another place. This clause was redrafted to meet that criticism. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that second thoughts are best, and I am delighted to see that we shall remove this clause entirely from the Bill. It only shows that in certain circumstances a Government will yield. The circumstances—and here I address myself to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—are when they get wise advice from senior and authoritative Back-Benchers, and if the noble Viscount will be good enough to read some of the speeches which have been made on the gross injustice being offered to public tenants as compared with private tenants and will then perhaps invite some of his noble friends on the Front Bench to lunch, at Report stage we may even get some movement on that. At all events, that is how this clause comes to be altered—because there was pressure from both sides of the Committee in another place—and we are very glad to see the end of it.

Clause 57 disagreed to.

Clauses 58 to 62 agreed to.

Clause 63 [Increases towards fair rents]:

10.8 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZK: Page 63, line 22, leave out ("shall") and Insert ("may").

The noble Lord said: We have now passed rapidly over the remainder of Part V—not, as your Lordships know, because we are happy about the contents of it but because we are so pressed for time that we cannot debate all those matters which deserve full consideration. Coming to Part VI of the Bill, Clause 63, we are now dealing with the progression to fair rents. Subsection (1) says: Every local authority, and every new town corporation shall, … make the increases … required by sections 64 and 65 below", being increases towards fair rents. These are increases which, as your Lordships now know, will affect some five million tenants, and, without going into the whole of the argument for fair rents, all this Amendment seeks to do is to give housing authorities some discretion whether to move at this speed or not. We are in a very difficult situation—there is no need for me to underline that—and at a time of economic difficulty such as we are now experiencing a highly inflationary increase in rents is something that has to be handled with the greatest possible care.

So that what we are proposing here is that local authorities who have been asking for a slower pace—and it has been the main argument of all the local authority associations that although it is not for them to say whether the principle of a Government proposal is good or bad, it is for them to say that they can or cannot manage what the Government are proposing—who are saying that they cannot manage, should be allowed some discretion having regard to local difficulties. It would be a discretion that it would be wise to use, having regard to the general economic situation. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is rather a fundamental change which the noble Lord is proposing to the Bill. He said he thought it right to leave to the local authorities some discretion. In fact, what he is asking for is absolute discretion in the progression towards fair rents; and that, it seems to me, is a very different matter. It is not too much to say that this Amendment cuts right across the whole principle of this Part of the Bill, in that it leaves to the local authorities the decision whether to make the increases required by the Bill. The Bill is a closely-integrated document and Clause 2, which deals with residual subsidies, provides in effect for the phasing out of existing subsidies at the rate of not more than £20 per dwelling in the first two years of the new system and not more than £10 in the subsequent years. To offset the effect of this phasing out on the Housing Revenue Account and to provide a margin of additional rent income to meet any increased expenditure that might arise in the account, the progression to fair rents envisages increases of up to an average of £26 per dwelling each year. Clearly the annual increase is likely to diminish after the first year as more and more rents reach the fair rent level.

The effect of this Amendment, if it were carried, would be to enable local authorities at their own discretion to reduce the revenue of the Housing Revenue Account through rents, and so to affect the amount of subsidy paid, since apart from the residual subsidy the subsidy is payable only if the account is in deficit. It would be unfair as between one local authority and another if the first local authority kept to the amount of increases required in the Bill and the second did not, and so increased its deficit and enabled it to get a subsidy it would not otherwise have got. The fact that additional rate fund contributions would also he required might not weigh so much with the second local authority as the prospect of a considerably greater subsidy. But it would mean that other ratepayers would continue to subsidise reasonably well-off tenants for longer than the Bill provides.

The noble Lord said that this would enable local authorities to ease the rate of increase in rents as they wish, or perhaps he might say as their constituents wish. Here, again, it would he unfair if the movement to fair rents in one local authority was at one rate and the movement in other local authorities was at another rate. The whole conception of the Bill is that because rents have, in the main, been too low for too long, the sooner we can get realism into the rents of local authorities the better. Also—here again one has to revert to what has been said before—it is right that those who inhabit council houses should pay the same amount for the same value as those who inhabit other houses; and that they should all come to pay the same fair rents in approximately the same time. This is quite a fundamental matter. I hope that I have summarised the point of view of the Government on this subject. We do not believe that it would he either fair or right in the present circumstances to leave it to local authorities to decide the rate of progression towards fair rents in their own areas. I am sorry, but for that reason I cannot accept this Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is being totally unrealistic about the rate of progression towards fair rents. As he knows perfectly well, he refused to give us an answer the other night when we were talking about the Birmingham formula. As I explained at the time, if local authorities do not know where they stand at the moment—and they are not likely to know where they stand until the proceedings on this Bill are completed—they will be in a situation where they do not have a meeting of the housing committee until September, or of the full council until later in the month. It would be a physical impossibility to implement the rent increases demanded under this Bill on October 1 of this year. The noble Lord knows this as well as I do. He must realise that you cannot get instructions out to the housing departments, and through the department to the tenants, within a space of a couple of weeks. This is being totally unrealistic, and unless the noble Lord is willing to say what he will accept as regards the plans put to him by authorities such as Birmingham before they disperse for the Summer Recess he is being totally unreasonable to local authorities. I think that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee would agree with me on that.

I am not speaking just for the Opposition; I am speaking for all noble Lords who have had contact with members of local authority associations and who know the practical difficulties imposed on local authorites by this Bill. It is not as though they were faced only with the requirements laid down here in the next few months. They have also to cope with the Local Government Bill which has yet to come before your Lordships' House; with the reorganisation of the health services and with many other Bills introduced by the Tory Government which will affect local authorities. How on earth does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, expect chief officers to do all this at once? Is he really saying that they can cope with major fundamental reorganisations of this character simultaneously without causing the most tremendous disruption in the services provided by local authorities for the citizens that they are trying to help?

As regards the contention of the noble Lord that this Amendment cuts right across the provisions of the Bill (the progress towards fair rents, he says, is absolutely fundamental), I would represent to him seriously that this is not the case, because if a local authority had imposed increases of 50p as at April 1, the tenants of that local authority would be much better off than the tenants of an authority which imposed an increase of £1 a week on October 1, because both of them face another increase of 50p per week on April 1, 1973. In the first place, they face an increase of 50p on top of 50p, and in the second place they face an increase of 50p on top of the £1. Therefore, if one looks at the total amounts in rent paid by each of them over a period of 18 months there it a difference of something like £13 in the relative payments of the two local authorities.

There is no question of principle here; it is just a question of what the Government want local authorities to do. They are able, if they want to bulldoze this provision through this Committee and through another place, to impose their will. There is no question of that at all. But it is our duty to question this and to try to point out, not only to your Lordships but to the people outside who may be reading the proceedings of this Committee, the implications of the Government's proposals. That is what I am trying to do at present. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, and I am quoting him, that "council tenants have got to pay the same value as those who inhabit other houses". Is this fair? The noble Lord knows that it is not. He is well aware that local authority houses cost much less to build and to service than houses that are provided by private landlords because of the difference in the period of repayment, the interest rates and the fact that local authorities do not have to make any profit. Yet now that it suits him he says that the same rules have to apply to local authorities as apply to private landlords. Why does he say on one Amendment that the same rules should apply to local authorities as to private landlords and on the next Amendment say that the situation is completely different? I suggest that the Government are being completely inconsistent in this matter and that before we go any further they should decide on their attitude. Are the private landlords on an equal footing with local authorities or are they not? That is the question of principle the Government have yet to decide.

LORD DIAMOND

I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had to say on this Amendment. I was particularly interested in his argument about fairness as between different local authorities, and his argument that this was a closely integrated Bill in the relationship with the rent increases to the phasing out of subsidies at £20 a year: a progression in average rent increases of £26 to compensate for that phasing out. I was also interested in what he said about the difficulties that would arise if all local authorities were not treated in the same way, particularly in relation to one having a deficit which would attract a subsidy and another which would not. I am particularly grateful to him for everything he said, because I am going to quote it all back to him as soon as we get to Amendment No. 110ZP which raises the issue of Birmingham fully and on which I hope to address your Lordships' Committee at some length. The issue of Birmingham, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can be fully and adequately debated on that Amendment, and therefore we need not anticipate it at this stage.

The noble Lord has said with regard to this Amendment that he thinks it is too fundamental. We have suggested the reasons—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has added to them—why it would be right to give local authorities some discretion, especially as they are going to be in a position of just not being able to cope. In particular, as the noble Lord knows, all local authority staffs tend to go away on their holidays in August; it is an off-period for them. The Bill is not likely to become an Act much before then, and the local authorities therefore are under no compulsion to take any steps until then. Yet they have to get their rent committees functioning and the rent notices out so that rent increases have effect as from the beginning of October. It is an impossible timetable.

On this matter we all speak with one voice with the local authority associations: the odd man out here is the Government, wishing to bully the local authority associations for the same reason that they were prepared to deny natural justice to every one of the five million tenants in the country, so that the additional income from the rents can be collected as fast as possible. That is the sole issue that is concerning the Government, and we think it is most unfortunate. However, the noble Lord has made it clear that he is not going to budge on this Amendment, and at this stage all I can do is to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.28 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZN. Page 63, line 29, leave out from ("charged") to end of line 30.

The noble Lord said: By this Amendment, we propose to leave out the words: dwellings for which no fair rent has been determined". I do not want to spend much time on this Amendment. I just want to say that, in view of the changes in the Bill during its progress in another place and the marked worsening of the economic situation since it was debated in another place, I am wondering whether the Government are not now going to agree to await the determination of fair rents before enforcing large increases. It may well be that the large increases are going to be excessive increases; one does not know. But whether they are excessive or not, surely it would be unnecessary for them in the new circumstances to continue to pursue this policy. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The proposal that the noble Lords is making would mean—and I think he said this—that until fair rents had been determined no increases under the Bill could be made. The noble Lord referred to events that had taken place recently. I should have thought that these events underlined the need for us to approach our problems with realism. This is what we seek to do in this Bill so Far as rents are concerned. The reason why the Government propose to make 1972–73 and not 1973–74 the first year of the new system is that they consider the existing system to be in great need of radical reform. At the same time, for nearly all authorities the fair rents will be higher than the current rents. Therefore in most cases it is unlikely that the first increase towards the fair rents which will take place before the fair rents are determined will result in rents above the fair rents.

Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a lower increase will suffice, he can use his power under the subsection that we are coming to. This means that in any case where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the increase towards fair rents in 1972–73 or 1973–74 is likely to bring 2 per cent. or more of the authority's qualifying dwellings substantially above the fair rents for those dwellings, he may use his powers under subsection (4) and direct that the increase towards fair rents should be such lower amount as is specified in the direction. So there is really no reason at all why the increases should not be made straight away in anticipation of the fixing of fair rents. In those cases where a higher rent than the fair rent is paid, under Clause 68 a repayment can be made. We believe this will not be likely to arise in many cases on the basis of the definition of "fair rents" in the Bill.

LORD DIAMOND

The position is totally unsatisfactory, but the Government clearly are not going to listen to our arguments on that point. I would only say that if the noble Lord thinks that the economic situation calls for an increased rent in order that every wage-earner shall be stimulated to demand an increase in wages, this is a new economic theory. But perhaps we can leave the economic theory until a later occasion, and I will seek leave from your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.33 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZP:

Page 64, line 37, at end insert— (" ( ) Where the Secretary of State has considered an increase under the preceding subsections he shall give reasons for either issuing or not issuing a direction to the authority and shall set out the criteria which have governed his decision.")

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I think requires us to consider the matter very carefully. The preceding subsection was the one varied during the earlier consideration of the Bill in another place, and gives the Secretary of State power, where he is satisfied that the increase would he such that it would be likely to bring the rents of 2 per cent. or more of the authority's qualifying dwellings substantially above the fair rents, to direct that the authority's increase shall be such lower amount as is specified in the direction. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to enable the Government to disclose the criteria by which they propose to act.

The starting point, I think, is the Minister's speech on the Report stage in another place; and perhaps I may quote from column 661 of Hansard for May 4. He said: I now have the figures for Birmingham." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— and we all know what that means. Birmingham has I am continuing to read the Minister's statement— over 140,000 dwellings. It is the largest housing authority outside the G.L.C. The council has recently approved estimates of the fair rents for council dwellings after studying the various items of information involved. The council considers that the estimated average fair rent for all dwellings would be £3.60 per week compared with the average rent now being charged for all dwellings of £3.25 per week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 4/5/72, cols. 661–662.] That is an increase of 35p—not £1 but 35p, and an increase therefore of approximately 10 per cent. and not of the average 50 per cent.

The Minister then went on to quote details showing that for three categories of dwellings there would be increases of between 24p and 38p, and in four categories there would be identical fair rents as the rents at present existing. I am going to read out the figures to illustrate the point that, curiously and coincidentally, the fair rents were precisely, to the penny, the same as the existing rents. They were £4.78, £5.25, £3.83, and £4.63—not round figures, and precisely the same as the existing rents. Obviously the Minister was immediately asked whether he accepted the Birmingham criterion, and that question has not yet been answered either in that place or here. It is very important indeed to know whether the Government accept the Birmingham criteria because the Birmingham authorities included many criteria which the Government have rejected in debates and excluded the one which the Government said was all important. The Government said, "The main criterion is comparability with the private sector. You find a registered rent in the private sector which compares so far as the dwelling is concerned with the one you are considering in the public sector and you say, 'There you are. That's it.' And you remove scarcity value in each case." But Birmingham said, "We cannot do this. There simply are not enough for us to go on, and therefore we have excluded comparability." So that was the main consideration in the Government's Bill, and that has been excluded by Birmingham.

Birmingham, on the other hand, went on to say, for example—I need not go into all the details—"You must have regard to wage levels." The report of the Director of Housing to the Housing Committee of Birmingham, dated April 27, 1972, includes the following paragraph on this issue: Figures have been obtained of average earnings in the region. Your department do not consider that fair rents fixed in accordance with the definition in Clause 50 could be at a level where a large proportion of the tenants are forced to apply for a rebate. If the definition of fair rents in the clause implies that the market in terms of supply and demand is roughly in equilibrium, then the price or the rent which people would pay in these circumstances would not be at such a level that the majority would require assistance by way of a rebate to meet it. That is the argument of the Birmingham Director of Housing. Therefore, he says, one must take account of average earnings. But, as the noble Lord knows, the Bill specifically excludes wage levels, as one of the personal considerations which must not be taken into account. So without going into all the criteria used by Birmingham, suffice it to say that they have excluded criteria which the Government insist on in the Bill and have included criteria which the Government exclude from the Bill. Therefore this is a totally different calculation.

What happened then was that the Minister said that according to the local Press—and I quote from the local Press: Although no directions could be given until the Bill becomes law we would be prepared to give an indication on receipt of an informal application setting out the case as to whether a direction is likely to be issued should clause 63(6) of the Bill be enacted substantially in its present form. Clause 63(6) is now Clause 63(4) which we are considering at this moment. That was on 4th May, a date which those interested in local elections will not need me to underline. That is what the Minister said at that time, according to the local Press.

The leader of the Birmingham Council (it was at that time a Conservative Council and a Conservative leader) said he concluded from a letter he had received from the Minister—and I quote: that the overall rent increases will only be about 10 per cent. That is the figure which I have detailed, of 35p in an average of something like £3.60. In other words, the Birmingham Council chairman is saying that he understands from the Minister that these proposals will be broadly acceptable. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said, at column 684: … that city"— he is referring to Birmingham— has followed a realistic rents policy over a number of years. Therefore it is likely that the increases which will take place in Birmingham under the Bill will be moderate in character, as apparently has been forecast by the housing committee in Birmingham." [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 4th May, 1972; col. 684.] He went on to say that the Birmingham figures "are not astonishing at all". So in this way there was broad implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of the Birmingham figures at that time.

The Bill has two main provisions. One is fair rents, based on the private sector registered fair rents and involving an increase in October of £1 a week in rents. Birmingham says that their fair rents are based on anything but the registered fair rent, and I have indicated what their figure is. The Minister himself, when he was referring to the Birmingham estimates on the Third Reading of the Bill, said that they must be treated with respect. So I have given indications from the Press, the Birmingham Chairman of the Council, the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister himself, all adding up to a clear indication of the way in which the Government's mind was moving, certainly in early May.

But the Bill proposes something totally different. The Bill says that fair rents have to be determined by rent scrutiny boards—as we know, we have been debating them all evening. They are to be based on registered fair rents in the private sector, and the increase this year of £26, which is based on £1 a week as from 1st October, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us a short time ago, part of a closely integrated scheme. The arithmetic of the rest of the Bill all ties up with that increase of £26 this year. The phasing out of the subsidy at £20 a year is based on that £26. So we have a situation in which Birmingham proposes fair rents based on anything but the private sector, because it says there are too few registered there, the proposals have not been anywhere near a rent scrutiny board; the increase proposed is 35p in October, not £1, and the related residual subsidy remains unaltered. I am bound to say, therefore, that the major principles of the Bill and a good deal of its arithmetic have been blown sky high by the Government's response to the Birmingham figures. I think we are entitled to say to the Government, therefore, that we must now know what the Government's new criteria are. The Bill's provisions have been blown sky high; what is to take their place? That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord has moved this Amendment and we seem to have got some distance away from the Amendment itself. I do not complain about that, because he made it clear that what he was seeking here was that, as the Amendment says: Where the Secretary of State has considered an increase under the preceding subsections he shall give reasons for either issuing or not issuing a direction to the authority …". In other words, what the noble Lord wanted was that once the Bill had become law the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion under subsection (4) of Clause 63 and would explain the way in which he had exercised his discretion—the criteria, in other words, on each occasion.

May I first of all deal with the Amendment itself before I come on to the reasons why the noble Lord wanted the Amendment? So far as the Amendment itself is concerned there is no need to place an express duty on the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decision on an application by an authority for a direction under subsection (4). This he would naturally do, where appropriate, as a matter of ordinary courtesy and normal practice in exercising such a discretion in relation to a local authority. For that reason it has not been thought necessary to place such an express duty on Ministers in this kind of situation in similar legislation in the past. For example, Section 10 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1968, and Section 3 of the Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969, did not place a duty on the Minister to give reasons for his decisions on a local authority's proposals to increase rents. Yet in every case the Minister gave reasons why he did not approve the authority's proposals. Where he did approve them, the authority was content to assume that the reason for the decision was that the Minister accepted the reasons put forward by the local authority in support of their proposals. It is the intention to employ this procedure in relation to the power under subsection (4), and there is every reason to suppose that this will be as satisfactory to local authorities as the procedure adopted under the 1968 and 1969 Acts.

The noble Lord then went on to deal with the criteria, and he said that his view was that the criteria in the Bill had been blown sky high; that was his expression. Well, the Government's position in this respect is that the rents of council dwellings should be fair rents determined in accordance with the principles in Clauses 50 and 58, which are in line with those which apply to determinations in the private sector. Clause 50 provides that in determining a fair rent regard must be had to all the circumstances and, as the noble Lord pointed out, it says, … to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) —and it goes on, and in particular to the age, character and locality of the dwelling and to its state of repair. In Part V of the Bill determination of fair rent is the responsibility of the rent scrutiny boards, who must either confirm or alter the local authority's own provisional assessment. Some authorities, of which Birmingham is one, have estimated that their existing rents are nearer to fair rents than had previously been suggested. If it appeared to the Secretary of State that an authority's rents are near fair rents, he would be able to issue a direction by virtue of the provisions of the subsection immediately before the point where the noble Lord wishes to insert his Amendment, and in that case the authority would be allowed to make smaller increases towards the fair rent in 1972–73 or 1973–74 than would otherwise be required under the Bill, if the fair rent has not yet been determined. Birmingham have asked the Department informally for an indication of whether such a direction might be made and their request is being considered. But it would not be appropriate to comment on this request while it is under study, since in due course the Secretary of State must deal formally with an application for a direction.

I appreciate—the noble Lord in fact quoted this—that the Under-Secretary in another place said that an indication would be given of the attitude of the Government. But an indication could only be given on the basis of a close study by the Secretary of State of the data and the methods and so forth that Birmingham put forward to support their estimates, and this has not yet been completed; but when all this has been examined an informal indication about a direction under Clause 63(4) can be given, but we have not yet reached that stage.

That is the position at the moment, but I would point out that until a fair rent is made any local authority which wants to have an increase of less than that laid down in the Bill has got to make its case and satisfy the Secretary of State with the evidence put before him. So far as this Amendment is concerned, if the Secretary of State agreed with the assessment, then in that case it would be in keeping with what has been done in the past for him simply to give his agreement to indicate his approval; it seems commonsense. But if he disagreed, then he would, as he has always done in the past, give his reasons for disagreement.

LORD DIAMOND

First of all I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for what he said about the Amendment. He said that there was no need for it because it merely asked the Government to do something the Government or the Secretary of State would do as a normal matter of courtesy. Then there is really no reason for refusing the Amendment, because we are only asking for the Secretary of State to do something which in any case he would normally do. Therefore I must press the Government again to consider whether it would not be wiser, in all the circumstances surrounding Birmingham and so on, that this Amendment should be accepted and this statutory requirement to disclose the criteria included in the Bill.

The circumstances surrounding Birmingham are really very odd, and the noble Lord has done nothing whatever to clear them up. He has been good enough to confirm virtually everything I have said —namely, that the Government through their spokesmen promised an indication of their views if an informal application were received. An informal application was received, and the Government have not given their views formally but have given them informally. That is the only interpretation one can put on what the chairman of the council, the Under Secretary of State and the Minister said. They have broadly accepted that here is a case for consideration of a much smaller increase than the £1—an increase of only 10 per cent. The noble Lord has not disputed what I have said—namely, that the criteria chosen by Birmingham exclude those chosen by the Government and include those excluded by the Government.

The criteria are totally at variance with what the Government propose in this Bill. I will read in full the letter of the director of housing if the Minister Without Portfolio wants me to do that. It is many pages long, and I have no doubt he has a copy of it. It has been quoted on many occasions. I have merely referred to those parts which I consider are most relevant. The other criteria are chosen by the director of housing, on the basis of which the figures were submitted to the Government and on the basis of which application the Government implicitly accepted the figures. Those criteria are completely at variance with the criteria laid down in the Bill, and so we have reached this situation where the Government are saying one thing in the Bill and have indicated, by what they are doing in relation to Birmingham, that they are going to act in a different way. We do not want to rely on implications. We want an explicit statement by the Government as to where they stand on this matter.

It cannot be very difficult for the Government to say, "These considerations, these criteria, are not the criteria in the Bill; therefore we reject them". It cannot take from May 2 until June 26—I suppose it is still June 26—to reach that conclusion. Of course it is an extremely awkward situation for the Government, and we recognise that. The Government may have said something which on second thoughts they wished they had not said and which was quite pointlessly said, because instead of the Tory council being saved it has gone the way of many other Tory councils, and the action did not therefore have the desired effect. But we are not concerned with political activities of that kind at election time. We are concerned with getting the Bill straight, and at the moment it is anything but straight. Therefore we are pressing the Government to say—as they have had plenty of time to say—whether the criteria chosen by Birmingham, which are completely at variance with the criteria in the Bill, are to be accepted, or whether the Government are going on with their Bill.

As the noble Lord said, it is very awkward for the Government to go on with their Bill unless they continue with the criteria in the Bill, because the arithmetic is integrated. The increases of a pound a week must come in, in order to provide for the subsidy provisions which are laid down earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, repeated that on an earlier Amendment only an hour ago. So we are all quite clear that the arithmetic is integrated and therefore, if the principles are varied, the arithmetic becomes wrong. So we must know whether the Government propose to proceed with this Bill or to withdraw it. It is as simple as that. The Bill cannot work except on the principles which are included in it as an integrated whole. If those principles are to be withdrawn, then the arithmetic must be withdrawn as well.

This is not the first time that we have raised this issue; it is not the first time that it has been raised by Parliament as a whole; and every time the answer has been that the matter is under consideration. I do not know how we shall persuade the Government that it would be right for them to make up their minds which way they are proposing to act while legislation is still under consideration. We cannot consider the legislation seriously if the Government drive their own coach and horses through two of its major provisions. I think my facts are all correct. The noble Lord has not contradicted one of them. We really must know where the Government stand.

When we debated the Industrial Relations Bill, the guts of the matter was how the Government were going to act, and that was represented by the Code of Conduct. In that case, we suggested quite firmly that it would not be right to continue with our consideration of the Bill until the Code of Conduct had been made available, because that was an integral part of the Bill. That showed what the Government proposed to do. Here we are asking the Government what they propose to do in relation to the Birmingham criteria, which are opposed to the Bill's criteria. Therefore, it is essential that further consideration of the Bill—at Report stage, for example should not anticipate the Government's decision on the Birmingham criteria. That is what this Amendment is about, and I hope that the noble Lord can say that the Government will make a statement about what their criteria are before we get to the Report stage.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Let me say straight away that the Government are going on with the Bill. Secondly, I wondered what the noble Lord was doing while I was speaking, because what he has said about what I said seems to bear no relation whatsoever to what I said. I must repudiate right away the statement that the Government have broadly accepted the case made by Birmingham. I have told the noble Lord that the Government are reconsidering the case. When Birmingham wrote informally to the Department to ask for an indication of whether a direction would be given under Clause 63(4) when the Bill became law they merely gave an estimate of what they considered to be the likely fair rents. They gave no reason or explanation of their view to the Department. Since then correspondence has been going on, so as to enable the Department to elucidate the Birmingham reasons and explanations.

The noble Lord seems to think that there is a choice between the criteria that Birmingham has adopted or may have adopted—the Government have not yet arrived at a view of what the Birmingham criteria were—and the criteria in the Bill which are set out clearly in Clauses 50 and 58. Those criteria stand as far as the Government are concerned and it is those criteria that the Government will obviously be bound to apply to Birmingham's assessment of what fair rent will be in Birmingham. Neither Birmingham nor anybody else can expect that, having put these in the Bill, the Government would be prepared to give an indication on the basis of any other criteria. Obviously they must apply the criteria in their own Bill. I hope I have made that clear. I thought that I had made it clear before. I must say to the noble Lord that when the Government have had an opportunity of analysing fully the request that has come from Birmingham for an indication then an indication will be given. But it is bound to be an indication on the basis of the terms of the Bill.

LORD DIAMOND

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made some extraordinary statements. Those who find it trying to their patience do well to withdraw from the Chamber. The Government are no doubt finding themselves in a very difficult position, but the Government should not have acted as they did act if they wanted to pursue the Bill with integrity. May I refresh the noble Lord's memory? He said that the Department is not aware of the basis on which Birmingham has reached these calculations. This is a letter dated 27th April. I do not know whether the noble Lord is saying that Birmingham has refused to hand this letter to the Department or whether he has got the letter. It is the report of the director of housing to the Housing Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to let us know if he has got this letter. If he has not, I shall be only too glad to hand it to him. Everybody else has a copy of it. It is an extraordinary thing that the Government have not got it. The public as a whole have got it. It has been published. I will read it in relation to the noble Lord's statement that the criteria were not different. Paragraph (e) reads: Your Department has examined figures of fair rent in the private sector…

LORD SHEPHERD

May we have a bit of order? In view of the conversations that are going on it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could not hear what my noble friend Lord Diamond was saying. I wonder if he would care to repeat it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Did I hear the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, say that I had said that the criteria applied by Birmingham and the criteria—

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sorry, but I cannot hear what the noble Lord is saying because there is so much noise from the Benches below. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, could help us in this matter. It is quite impossible to hear what is going on in view of the hubbub. I wonder if the acting Leader of the House could do something about it.

LORD DIAMOND

Perhaps I can refresh the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The first question I am asking him is: has he or has he not got a copy of the report of the director of housing to the housing committee of Birmingham dated 27th April, 1972? That is not a very difficult question, or an unfair question to ask. If he has not got a copy, I shall be glad to supply him with one tonight. The second thing I want to draw his attention to is paragraph (e) in that report: Your Department has examined figures of fair rents in the private sector. Unfortunately, relatively few rents have been registered under the Act, and many of these cannot be used for direct comparisons with municipal houses. The national and regional figures for fair rents given in the Francis Report have also been studied. That, I think, makes it quite clear that the Birmingham criteria so far as fair rents are concerned are not the criteria in the Bill.

The second one—I will go through the whole of them if the noble Lord wants me to—is the one I particularly read earlier on, making it clear that wages had been taken into account as an element in arriving at fair rents; and, as the noble Lord has recently read out, those are excluded from the criteria laid down in the Bill. So here we have totally opposing criteria. In these circumstances it should not be very difficult for the Government to let us know what the answer to Birmingham is. Is it the same as the answer which people took it to be at the time of the municipal election, or is it now a new answer? It would be helpful if the Government could give us a considered view on what is, after all, a very simple matter. We are not asking for a final consideration, because that is not what was promised. What was promised to Birmingham was an indication on the basis of an informal application. That is what was promised on the part of the Government. If the Government are going to say that they stick to the criteria and the arithmetic in the Bill and that they reject everything to do with the Birmingham figures and the Birmingham criteria, then one can understand that; that makes a logical approach to the Bill. But, of course, Birmingham may have something to say about that. If the noble Lord is able to make a further statement, I would be grateful to him.

LORD DRUMALBYN

For the reasons I have already given, I cannot make a further statement on this subject. As I have explained, the Government are not yet in a position to give the indication that has been asked for. I hope that I have made myself quite clear.

LORD DIAMOND

I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying, and he understands what we are saying with regard to the progress of the Bill; namely, that it would be unfair to ask Parliament to continue with the Report stage of a Bill which sets out one set of criteria when we cannot get from the Government an authoritative statement on whether another set of criteria is to take its place. In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 110ZR: Page 65, line 14, leave out ("section 71(5)") and insert ("subsection (2) or subsection (5) of section 71").

The noble Lord said: This small Amendment is to make it expressly clear that the amount that an authority can round off to a multiple of 5p under subsection (7) is the total rent payable; that is, including any sum attributable to rates or the use of furniture or the provision of services. As a result of this Amendment, the amount of rent of any dwelling which results from an increase towards fair rents can be adjusted to produce a multiple of Sp whether or not the rent includes an element for rates or furniture or services. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 64 [Increase towards fair rents before 1973–74]:

11.15 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZS: Page 65, line 16, leave out ("£26") and insert ("£13").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment, Amendment No. 110ZT; ZU; ZV and ZW. This series of Amendments is proposed to achieve more moderate increases towards fair rents than those in the Bill. The reason is the well-known one of the new economic situation since the Bill was debated in another place. Amendment 110ZV proposes to leave out "£1" and to insert "35p" which is the figure proposed by Birmingham.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This Amendment is not acceptable to the Government and I think I have already indicated the reasons why. In effect, it would halve the rate of increase towards fair rents, which would mean doubling the time before fair rents are achieved. We do not believe that this would be justified. When the Opposition were in Government they allowed local authorities to increase rents by an average of 37½p a week in any 52 week period with reference to the Minister, under the Rent (Control of Increases) Act 1969. So it would appear that the Opposition has rounded this figure down to 35p in order to assure the maximum rent increase beyond which they think local authorities should not go. When the 1969 Act was in operation, many authorities did not have a rebate scheme at all. In the light of present-day rental values and incomes, the rate of progression under the Bill is not out of line with the limit set by the Opposition in 1969, and rebates will be available now for those tenants who cannot afford the rent increases required under the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the change in economic circumstances. When one compares those circumstances with 1969, I think it would not be unfair to say that a rent of 50p nowadays would be justified where a rent of 37½p was justified in that time of stringency. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but again it would dislocate the whole of the Bill and we do not consider that it would be right to do that.

LORD DIAMOND

I see no chance of persuading the noble Lord, and so I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 110ZX: Page 65, line 35, at beginning insert ("where the effect of the decreases hereafter referred to is to cause the Housing Revenue Account to pass into deficit, then").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will convey to those of his colleagues who found it a little too difficult to stay to listen to our debates the number of Amendments which have been withdrawn in order to meet the Government's programme. Perhaps in those circumstances we may be allowed to speak on one or two Amendments, although perhaps that also is against the wishes of the Government Front Bench. However, I will continue to deal with these Amendments as fast as I can. This Amendment proposes to insert: Where the effect of the decreases hereafter referred to is to cause the Housing Revenue Account to pass into deficit, then ". the proposals in the Bill should apply. The reason for the Amendment is that it is felt that there is no justification for penalising a housing authority which has reduced rents in the relevant period so as to reduce the surplus on the housing revenue account. If it had reduced rents for any unsatisfactory or malevolent purpose, the Government might feel that they would have to exact the proposals in the Bill. But where a housing authority has merely sought to reduce the surplus on its housing revenue account, as surely it is entitled to do, I should have thought there is no justification for penalising the housing authority which, in effect, these proposals involve.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I shall be very glad to convey to my colleagues the fact that the noble Lord has been good enough not to move some of the Amendments he put down, with a view to making further progress. I thought I detected a slight irony in the way he put it, but nevertheless we are grateful for his co-operation.

The effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the operation of subsection (5) to cases where the decreases referred to in the subsection cause the housing revenue account to pass into deficit. The noble Lord has said that if the decreases do not lead to a deficit we should have no reason to object to the Amendment. But even if the decreases in rent do not lead to a deficit for 1971–72 or 1972 or 1973, the loss of income resulting from them could well cause a deficit for subsequent years which would not otherwise have arisen; or cause a larger deficit than would otherwise have arisen, and so necessitate a larger amount of subsidy or rate fund contribution for such subsequent years. Increased expenditure for subsequent years, or the cost of rebates or other factors, might well make the position of the housing revenue account for those years less favourable than seemed likely when the rent decreases were made between July 19, 1971, and the coming into force of the Bill.

If the financial situation of an authority is such that the decreases in rent have no effect other than to reduce the amount of the housing revenue account surplus for subsequent years, the decreases have the broad effect of depriving the ratepayers of half that part of the surplus which fails to materialise as a result of the decreases and of depriving the taxpayers of the other half. It is hardly equitable that, in order to enable tenants to pay a rent which is even further below the fair rent than otherwise it would be for 1971–72 or 1972–73, the taxpayers and ratepayers should lose the relief which could be given to them by a surplus towards which the taxpayers will certainly have contributed by past subsidies and towards which the ratepayers may well have contributed by past rate fund contributions. So although at first sight this Amendment might have seemed reasonable, I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will appreciate why we cannot accept it.

LORD DIAMOND

I understand what the Minister is saying. He is saying that he cannot accept the Amendment. But I want to make it clear that we do not share his view for one moment that a subsidy previously given is a loan which has to be repaid. I want to get that absolutely clear, because if that is part of the Government's thinking then at no time does a subsidy mean a subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said that where a subsidy has been given in the past by the taxpayer it is right that the taxpayer should now recoup himself. I have always understood that a subsidy means what it says. It is a gift for the time; a plain gift. It is not a loan. We could never attempt to move on the basis that where a local authority has been given a Mayday gift for good reasons existing at the time then that gift should be repaid at a later date. Therefore I find myself in considerable disagreement with the reasoning behind the noble Lord's unwillingness to accept the Amendment, but in view of the lateness of the hour I would seek your Lordship's permission to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.23 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 111: Page 66, line 26, after second ("rent") insert ("after the 4th May 1972 and")

The noble Lord said: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will realise that May 4, 1972, was the date on which an Amendment as made in another place on Report stage to nullify retrospectively rent-free weeks which had been decided by councils fully in accordance with the provisions of the Bill as it stood at that time. I must criticise most strongly the action of the Government in deciding to veto perfectly legitimate decisions of local authorities which were arrived at in full accordance with the provisions of the Bill as it stood at that time. One of the most important decisions that we have to make of this Bill is that it has been retrospective in its effect in negating decisions which had been made by local authorities in full justification of the powers which they possessed at the time prior to the date of this Amendment having been made on Report stage in another place. I cannot see how the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could justify such action on the part of the Government. The local authorities which took the decision to grant rent-free weeks did so in accordance with powers which they were able to exercise at that time and on which they had taken legal opinion. For example the Tonbridge Urban District Council, of which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is, I am sure, aware, had gone to counsel and had been advised at the time that rent-free weeks could be allowed within the provisions of the Bill as it stood. I do not want to go into the details at this late hour but I am sure that the noble Lord is quite familiar with what has happened.

As soon as local authorities decided to grant rent-free weeks, as they were perfectly entitled to do at the time, the Government, in another place, introduced an Amendment on Report stage on the date which I have mentioned in my Amendment invalidating that decision. How can we justify that when the noble Lords opposite are continually saying that they want to give greater freedom to local authorities? They vetoed what had been done by these local authorities fully in accordance with the powers that they possessed under Acts of Parliament as they then stood. Then the Government come forward with this Amendment on Report stage and retrospectively prevent them from doing it. Tories in the past have criticised the Labour Government when they have introduced what has been called restrospective legislation. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships of the case of Burmah Oil, on which there was some considerable controversy in your Lordships' House before I came here, when I was a Member of another place. I fully sympathise with the attitude taken by your Lordships on that occasion. But I suggest that your Lordships ought to be consistent, and that when the Tory Government introduce retrospective legislation of this kind you ought equally to be opposed to it, and to declare your abhorrence of legislation brought forward in this way during the course of proceedings on a Bill to invalidate the perfectly legitimate decisions which have been made by local authorities in respect of a matter such as rent-free weeks.

We know how this has occurred. The Tory Party became aware that councils, such as the Tonbridge Urban District Council, had decided to overcome the provisions of Clause 63 by granting rent free weeks to their tenants. As soon as this became known to the Government, they decided that they were going to bring forward an Amendment on the Report stage that would prevent those local authorities from going ahead with their decisions.

I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asking him for his opinion on the matter of rent free weeks, and saying that I hoped he would give me the benefit of his judgment before we reached Clause 64. In order that we can get this matter on the Record, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I read out the letter which I received from hint in reply, because I think it deserves wider currency than it has obtained so far and should be known to the local authorities who are going to be vitally affected by the provisions of this clause. The noble Lord wrote: During the Second Reading debate on the Housing Finance Bill I undertook to write to you about the granting of rent-free weeks during the period commencing with 19th July, 1971, and ending with the date of the coming into force of the Bill. Clause 64(5) provides that where any rent decreases take place then, notwithstanding that that they may be wholly or partly restored, the increases towards fair rents in 1972–73 as provided for in the remainder of Clause 64 shall be further increased by an amount which produces a total weekly rental equal to the total weekly rental lost by the decrease. Subsection (8) of the clause makes it expressly clear that a decrease in rent could arise from the granting of extra 'rent free' weeks or some similar arrangement under which no rent is payable by a tenant for one or more weeks. However, the subsection would not apply to an arrangement whereby, for administrative convenience, no rent is collected during certain weeks but a correspondingly larger amount is collected during the other weeks of the financial year. The subsection also makes it clear that any rent free weeks' granted by authorities under the guise of rebates from rent or waivers of rent and which are unrelated to the personal or domestic circumstances of the tenants should be treated as being decreases of rent for the purposes of subsection (5). Some authorities have granted such rent-free weeks, not for reasons of administrative convenience, but in order to reduce the income in the Housing Revenue Account. This is presumably on the grounds that part of a surplus or an emerging surplus should not be allowed to accrue to the Exchequer and the ratepayers under paragraphs 17 and 18 of Schedule I to the Bill but should be used to give the tenants a decrease in rent. Such a decrease in rents would normally have been made only in anticipation of the Bill and could well result in more subsidy being payable to the authority under the provisions of the Bill. Such a decrease in rents ought therefore to be made good unless there are special reasons, in which case the Secretary of State would issue a direction under subsection (7). The subsection does not inhibit the granting of genuine rebates from rent to tenants on grounds of need under Section 113 of the Housing Act 1957. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having read out the whole of that letter which I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, but since it contains important guidance to the local authorities on where they stand under this particular clause, I believe it is for the benefit of local authorities and of the tenants who are going to be affected by these provisions that everyone should know the precise attitude of the Government on this matter. That has not been made entirely clear so far.

Going back to the particular case of the Tonbridge U.D.C., of which I have no special knowledge—I happened to come across it purely by chance and to have received the views of the Urban District Councils' Association, of which the noble Lord will be aware, endorsing what the Tonbridge U.D.C. have said—I believe that the Amendment is widely acceptable to the authorities concerned. I also suggest to the noble Lord that it is entirely wrong for a Government at a late stage of the Bill suddenly to introduce Amendments on Report stage which invalidate the perfectly normal and reasonable behaviour of local authorities, entered into in the light of the provisions of the Bill when it was first presented in another place.

If one is going to say that every time a Bill is presented to Parliament and local authorities, or any other bodies affected, take action to deal with the situation in the light of the circumstances for the benefit of the people they serve, the Government should come forward in the later stages of the Bill—on Report in another place or even in this place here—and try retrospectively to invalidate what those local authorities or other bodies have done, then it would be an unfortunate and an evil day for democracy. For whatever Government are in power to decide that they will twist and turn in order to prevent publicly-elected bodies from serving the interests of the people, as in this case—how can this be justified? How can any Government justify it? The noble Lord is looking very uncomfortable, and I am pleased to see it. He knows that it is wrong; he knows that the clause should be withdrawn; he knows that local authorities have the right to do their best for the people they represent. They have done that, and have been squashed by the Government. The Government must withdraw this clause: otherwise eternal shame will rest upon them.

11.40 p.m.

LORD BERNSTEIN

I have nothing to add to the remarkable statement of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, except to say this. I think that your Lordships should know something about these wild men of Tonbridge who have given relief to some of the tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said he had no knowledge of them, but I have. They are members of what is known as the Conservative local council.

LORD DRUMALBYN

What the noble Lord seems to be saying is that the Government are entirely impartial in dealing with local authorities, and I am glad to hear him say so. I think it is right to say that there is really nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever in this provision. Indeed, may I point out first of all to the noble Lord that subsection (5) states: If in the period beginning with 19th July 1971 and ending immediately before the coming into force of this Act decreases, whether simultaneous or not, were made in the rents of more than one per cent. of the authority's Housing Revenue Account dwellings as at the coming into force of this Act, the increase towards fair rents in the year 1972–73 … shall be increased by an amount which produces a total weekly rental equal to the total weekly rental lost by the decreases. The reason for this was quite clear. The reason was that it was intended to avoid any local authorities' seeking to get round the Bill by decreases of rent; this was going to prevent their getting the advantage of so doing. The date of 19th July, 1971, was the date when the White Paper received the approval of the House of Commons after a debate. The policy was approved.

LORD BERNSTEIN

White Paper?

LORD DRUMALBYN

Yes, Fair Deal for Housing. Everyone knew what the policy was.

We come now to the subsection that the noble Lord complains was amended on 4th May in another place. The first part of the subsection reads as follows: Subject to section 71(5) below, the decreases to which subsections (5) and (6) above apply include any case where there is a reduction of rents (affecting more than one per. cent. of the dwellings in question) for any period, however short …"— I repeat, however short. That was the subsection as it stood before the Amendment was introduced. Does anyone, when he reads or hears that, think that that was not intended to cover rent rebates?

LORD AVEBURY

Yes.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord says there was counsel's opinion to say that waivers of rent, reductions of rent, free weeks and the like, were not covered by that. The White Paper dealt with yearly reductions in the residual subsidy, and so forth, and the yearly increase in the rent to be made. It was on a yearly basis, so obviously the rent contemplated in the White Paper was on a yearly basis. It was abundantly clear. Is there anything to be ashamed of when the Government intended this to be so and believed that it was so? Mark you, it is not something that has been tested in the courts. It was just something that was the opinion of counsel, and obviously it was at variance with what the draftsman thought his words meant. Is there anything wrong in the Government making what it intended absolutely clear? It had always been the Government's view that such decreases ought to count, and in fact did so count, as rent. The purpose of the Government Amendment at Commons Report stage was merely to place the matter beyond all doubt. It would be unreasonable now to amend the Bill to accommodate those authorities which sought to employ a device designed to decrease rents at the expense of the taxpayer.

LORD AVEBURY

The noble Lord is being completely disingenuous, as he knows. I was not going to quote him but I shall produce the letter from the Clerk of the Tonbridge Urban District Council, which relates to the conversation which he had with an official in the Department of the Environment, of which I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware. The Clerk of the Council says that the Department of the Environment informed the Treasurer's Department that their lawyers had advised them that because of the combined effect of Clause 64(5) and Clause 71(4) rent-free weeks would be caught by the provisions of the Bill, so as to make it necessary for local authorities to increase rent in the next financial year by the gross loss of weekly income. He goes on: On receiving this information I spoke to the Department personally and explained fully the Council's intention, and put the direct question as to whether they would suggest that a proposal to grant rebates under the provisions of section 113(3) of the Housing Act 1957 came within the ambit of their lawyer's advice. The official stated that he was not suggesting that their lawyers' advice related to rebates. I explained the Council's intentions fully to him and nothing emerged during the conversation to throw any doubt upon the decisions already taken by the Council. This was the last official contact we had with them up to shortly after the 4th May 1972. The noble Lord has been wrongly advised by the Department about the conversations that took place between the Tonbridge Urban District Council and his Department and he should go back to them and ask for further information before he comes to this House and gives an explanation of the sort that he has afforded to your Lordships this evening. It is totally incorrect, as the Committee will see from the passage that I have read out from the letter from the Clerk of the Urban District Council, unless the noble Lord is going to say that this falsifies a conversation which he had with an official in the Department. I am sure he will not say that; he would not impugn the integrity of the Clerk of the Tonbridge Urban District Council. The noble Lord knows that he is wrong and he ought to withdraw what he has already said to the Committee, go back to his Department, and promise to produce an Amendment on Report stage.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I must rise for a moment to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I have the original Bill in front of me and Clause 64 has hardly altered at all and its meaning certainly has not been altered in the Amendments that were made in another place before it came to your Lordships' House. I am very sorry that the noble Lord opposite should take this view. I think his attitude is grossly unfair, and I must say so.

LORD KILLEARN

May I say that official communications have nothing to do with the Legislature?

LORD AVEBURY

With what?

LORD KILLEARN

Official communications between officers of the Council and officers of the Ministry have nothing to do with this House.

LORD AVEBURY

Why not?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am surprised at the noble Lord. Why he should say that I know I am wrong I really do not know. It is most unusual, and I may say almost unprecedented.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD DRUMALBYN

Why should I know what transpired between an official of an urban district council and an official of the Department on a particular matter which is not actually raised in this Amendment? I have dealt with this and I stand by what I have said. The intention of the Government was as I have said. The noble Lord, from the letter he himself read out, made it quite clear that there would be occasions when rent rebates might be permissible, but that is not to say that in the conversation that he has ventured to quote all the factors were present in everybody's mind at that time. The noble Lord really ought not to make allegations of that kind in this House. I have stated what I know to be the case, and that is, that it was the Government's intention throughout that any form of reduction in rent should be covered by subsection (5).

The Secretary of State is given the power to waive the effect of subsections (5) and (6) and no doubt where he considered it appropriate he would do so and where the rent-free weeks take place and are done in accordance with practice—and some authorities have done it for years past—no doubt a waiver might be made in appropriate circumstances. That, it seems to me from what the noble Lord read out, was what was intended.

The noble Lord must realise that the part that I quoted from the subsection, as it now is, was intended to cover the sort of case that the noble Lord has quoted here. The whole purpose of subsection (5) is to prevent the frustration of the purposes of the Bill by rent reductions. That is the purpose of these particular provisions and if in this case—and I am not passing any judgment on any of these things—that was the purpose it most certainly must be honoured.

LORD AVEBURY

I must defend myself on this. Noble Lords opposite have criticised me for reporting what the Clerk of the Urban District Council, Tonbridge, told me he said to the Department. I am only telling your Lordships what I received from him. He said that he had had a conversation with an official from the Department and I have already told your Lordships what the result of that conversation was. I do not know whether noble Lords who have intervened in the debate are calling me a liar or whether they are calling the Clerk of the Urban District Council of Tonbridge a liar. I have quoted from the letter and I must accept from the Clerk of the Urban District Council, Tonbridge, that he accurately reports what was said in the conversation that he had with the Department of the Environment.

It may be that there was a misunderstanding, in which case the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could tell us so, and that when he asked the advice of the Department they were not fully aware of the import of his question and as a result of that the Tonbridge Urban District Council was led up the garden path. Is that what the noble Lord is saying? Or is he accepting that a decision was made by that urban district council in the light of proper advice which was obtained by their officers and which they had instructed their officers to obtain, advice which led to a decision which was subsequently overturned, but for which they cannot possibly be blamed. In the light of the facts that I have given, no one will say that the Tonbridge Urban District Council, or any other urban authority—I have merely quoted them as an example—had decided to grant rent-free weeks and which went to the extent of asking the Department whether this was allowed under the terms of the Bill, could possibly be criticised now for the decision that they took, or, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is justified in saying that the meaning of the Bill was perfectly clear when counsel's opinion had to be obtained and when chief officers of the local authorities had to consult the Department as to the meaning of this Clause and were clearly informed that they could, as I am suggesting they were perfectly entitled to do. If the noble Lord is saying that councils and chief officers were so stupid as not to understand the provisions of this Bill as it originally stood, why did they introduce an Amendment on Report stage, as I

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 [Increase towards fair rents in 1973–74 and subsequent years]:

On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?

12.4 a.m.

LORD DIAMOND

I should like to ask the Government one or two questions. This is the clause which deals with the increase towards fair rents in 1973–74 and later. We have just passed the clause which deals with the increase in rent before 1973–74. The first thing I want to ask regarding Clause 65 is what effect it will have on situations like the Birmingham one or the Newcastle one, where one has a likelihood that the increase towards fair rent is going to be less than the stipulated increases in each

have already outlined? I believe that the noble Lord and his Government have caused immense damage to local authorities who exercised their powers legitimately as they stood at the time, and it is up to them to make restitution.

11.56 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 111) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS
Avebury, L. [Teller.] Delacourt-Smith, L. Shepherd, L.
Bernstein, L. Diamond, L. Tanlaw, L. [Teller.]
Beswick, L. Garnsworthy, L. Winterbottom, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Ferrers, E. Mansfield, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fortescue, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Amherst of Hackney, L. Gage, V.
Atholl, D. Gainford, L. Rankeillour, L.
Balfour, E. Glasgow, E. Redesdale, L.
Belstead, L. Gowrie, E. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Hailes, L. St. Helens, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. [L. Chancellor.) Sandford, L.
Chesham, L. Sandys, L.
Cowley, E. Hood, V. Sempill, Ly.
Daventry, V. Kemsley, V. Strange, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Killearn, L. Terrington, L.
Digby, L. Kinnoull, E. Tweedsmuir, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Latymer, L. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Elles, Bs. Limerick, E. Vivian, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Lothian, M. Young, Bs.
Falmouth, V. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

year. The second question relates to subsection (9). That subsection appears to give the Secretary of State additional discretion. It states that he … may on the application of any authority direct that this section shall apply, for any year specified in the direction, with such adjustments as appear to the Secretary of State desirable for the convenience of the authority in the administration of the increase towards fair rents, and any such adjustment may be as respects all or any of the authority's qualifying dwellings. I am asking for help with regard to the phrase the administration of the increase towards fair rents". I am asking whether this subsection gives additional flexibility along the lines of Clause 63(4), or whether it merely gives some flexibility in relation to the administration of the increases; that is to say, in spreading the increases among the different dwellings.

My third question is: what is the situation where the Minister has given a direction under Clause 63(4) for the year 1972–73, assuming that he has been satisfied that there is no need to increase the rents by £1 a week on October 1 and has given a direction that the increase shall be x, which will bring the amount up to the full fair rent? As we are to have a full fair rent in 1972–73, will the Minister be empowered to reopen the rent for 1973–74 on the basis that there has been further inflation, money buys still less and the general level of rents has gone up? If the 1972–73 figure has, by the use of Clause 63(4), been directed by the Minister to be increased by such figure as will bring it to one the Minister is satisfied is the fair rent for that year, will the rent be increased yet again in the following year? The Bill provides for only a triennial review. Will the rent be increased yet again because the value of money having fallen—and it is a likelihood—rents have generally increased in the private sector? Therefore, can he say, "There has been a 10 per cent. increase in rents, and what was a fair rent last year must be increased by 10 per cent. this year"? I hope that the answer is "No", but I ask the question in order to be quite clear what the Minister's powers are.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord has asked me three questions. The first was what effect will this clause have on Birmingham in 1973–74, if the Secretary of State allows a lower amount of increase towards fair rents than is prescribed in the Bill. I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord appreciates that fair rents will go on being increased until a fair rent is reached for each dwelling. There might well be some reduction in the first year in respect of a particular place, but it would not follow that all dwellings in that place had reached their fair rent in spite of the fact that the average increase was allowed to be below the full amount prescribed in the Bill. So the answer must be—and it is a hypothetical answer—the same as the answer to the third question. It would depend on whether by that time all the rents in the place had reached fair rents. Otherwise the increases in respect of those dwellings that had not reached fair rents would go on until they had.

LORD DIAMOND

May I interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in regard to the first question? Obviously I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I instanced the situations in Birmingham and Newcastle. I should have kept it exclusively to Birmingham. According to the figures given by the director of housing there was not a single case in Birmingham in October in which the increase in order to reach the fair rent as determined by Birmingham was as much as £1. Therefore, if the Birmingham figures had satisfied the Government and the Government had made a direction under Clause 63(4), not only on average, each Birmingham rent would have been a fair rent in 1972–73. My first question therefore is: in a case like that does one take it that there is no further increase in rent in 1973–74?

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has come round to his third question at the same time. That is exactly what I was trying to point out. If there were such a case in the Kingdom—and despite Birmingham's estimate it is by no means certain—and every house in the place had reached its fair rent in the first year, presumably there would be no further increase in the remaining part of the triennium. This is not a question which I would ask, but this is the way I read the Bill. If I am wrong, I shall tell the noble Lord.

Turning to subsection (9), I can confirm that the adjustments would be for administrative convenience only; they could only be marginal and could not, for example, involve postponing by a period of months the relevant date and the date of the increase towards fair rent. I think I have covered the third question in what I have said.

LORD DIAMOND

I had better pursue the third question because the third question is not related to Birmingham; it refers to any case in which in year one or year two in the triennium a fair rent has been reached and in a situation of falling purchasing power we have got, according to normal expectations, to make an automatic increase each year in the market level of rent as in the market level of any other commodity. In those circumstances, it not being the third year of the triennium, is it the Government's intention or, more specifially, is it within the Minister's power, to increase rents further notwithstanding the fact that a fair rent was achieved which would have remained a fair rent had the purchasing power of money remained constant?

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

May I ask my noble friend whether I would be correct in saying that the point that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is making is the stage at which a fair rent is registered in this period? Is that correct?

LORD DIAMOND

If it is registered in year one, for example, does it remain binding for year two and year three? One recognises that at the end of year three one has reached the end of the triennium and it has to be reviewed. Is it binding for year two and year three, notwithstanding that there is a possibility of the general market rent level being higher as a result of the purchasing power of money being lower?

LORD DRUMALBYN

As I read the Bill, that is so, because the rents are reviewable in three-year periods. So that, so far as I can understand the matter, it would be necessary to have fresh legislation to alter that. What I thought the noble Lord might have had in mind was whether, in the case where there had been a direction in 1972–73, there could again be another direction in 1973–74. There could if the fair rent has not been determined by then, but if the fair rent has been determined then the question will not arise.

LORD DIAMOND

I am going to ask the noble Lord whether he would take advice and if he would be good enough to confirm his view on this point at some stage or other, because I think there is somewhere in the Bill a provision which says that "any change of circumstances"—I think those are the words in some clause or other—entitles the Minister or somebody to vary the rents.

LORD STOW HILL

It is Clause 67.

LORD DIAMOND

I want to be quite sure that the change of circumstances does not cover the normal inflation which we can expect so long as this Government remain in power. That is the real point of the question.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Clause 67(3) says: Rents may be increased to reflect"— (a), and (b), and then (c): any other change of circumstances". I shall take advice on the interpretation of that, and I shall let the noble Lord know.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Rent exceeding a fair rent]:

12.19 a.m.

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 111J.

Page 72, line 4, at end insert— ("(10) Where an authority reasonably believe that by virtue of this section a person may be entitled to recover from the authority a sum of money in respect of the extent to which the rent exceeds a fair rent, they shall not in respect of the dwelling be bound to comply with the provisions of sections 64, 65 and 66 of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: The hour is late and this is a somewhat technical Amendment, but I hope your Lordships may think that it serves a useful purpose. It is designed to provide that where the local authority think that there may be a right in a tenant to recover rent under Clause 68, they are not under an obligation to impose the increases toward a fair rent under the provisions of Clauses 64, 65 and 66. Your Lordships will see that the whole purpose of Clause 68 is to enable a tenant who has paid more than a fair rent to get the excess back. I hope your Lordships may think it not an unuseful Amendment for this reason, that considerable anxiety has been expressed and reiterated throughout our debates that some of the provisions of the Bill will impose an extremely heavy burden on the staffs of local authorities. One of the burdens would consist in seeking out, under the provisions of Clause 68, persons who are entitled to receive back an excess of rent overpaid over fair rents, particularly where the tenant who paid the rent has died and a question arises as to who in his place as his successor is entitled to recover back the excess. In an endeavour to lighten the burden of local authority staffs, the Amendment I propose is designed to relieve the local authority from the obligation to which I have referred under Clauses 64, 65 and 66 of imposing the increase towards fair rents where the local authority, when they bring their judgment to bear on the matter, realise that there is a likelihood that in any event the tenant has paid more than the fair rent and therefore will be entitled to recover the excess or probably will be in the position of being entitled to recover some excess.

If one goes back to Clause 63 one finds that in subsection (1) there is what at first sight seems to impose an absolute obligation upon local authorities to charge these increases towards fair rents. Subsection (1) is unqualified in terms and imposes on local authorities a duty in all circumstances to impose the increases towards a fair rent. When one looks at subsection (2) one finds that the obligation arises both in relation to subsection (2)(a) dwellings for which a fair rent has been determined and (b) dwellings for which no fair rent has yet been determined, so that there is a dual obligation.

May I treat each of them separately? If one takes paragraph (a) and asks what, if any, is the qualification of the absolute obligation to charge increases towards fair rents in respect of dwellings for which a fair rent has been determined, one finds in Clause 63(3) the qualification. That qualification is expressed in the words: Nothing in the following provisions of this Part of this Act shall authorise the authority at any time to increase a rent to an amount in excess of the fair rent for the dwelling …

I need not read the rest. So one finds that there is a qualification on the absolute obligation imposed by subsection (1) by this subsection (3); namely, that in no circumstances must a local authority charge more than the fair rent by charging these increases towards a fair rent. So far, so good. One would have thought, therefore, that the Amendment I propose could in no circumstances bite on the case of houses for which a fair rent has been determined. But if one looks at the next subsection there seems what at any rate at first sight appears to be a contradiction.

Subsection (4) is the one which enables the Secretary of State to give a direction. He can give a direction when the amount of an authority's increase towards fair rents in the year 1972–73 or 1973–74, as determined under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is such that,… that increase towards fair rents is likely to bring the rents of 2 per cent or more of the authority's qualifying dwellings substantially above the fair rents for those dwellings, …

I submit to the Committee that that seems to involve a contradiction because subsection (4) clearly contemplates that there will be cases in which notwithstanding the qualification introduced by subsection (3) the increases charged towards fair rents will in the case of more than 2 per cent. of the dwellings have resulted in the tenant paying substantially more than the fair rent which has been determined. So there seems to be a contradiction between subsection (4) and subsection (3).

If that is the case and if there are circumstances in which, notwithstanding subsection (3), tenants may be paying substantially more than a fair rent and therefore the local authority may be clearly of opinion that the imposition of the increases towards fair rents would mean that the tenant would certainly have the right to recover the excess, it seems absurd that they should nevertheless have to go through all the requirements of Clauses 64, 65 and 66 in imposing the increases towards a fair rent. The Amendment I propose would relieve them of that obligation where it is perfectly obvious that to impose the increase would result in their having to repay to the tenant the amount of the excess. That would lighten the burden on the local authorities.

Then I turn back to subsection (2) of Clause 63 which imposes the obligation to charge the increase in relation to dwellings for which no fair rent has been determined. I suppose those are the dwellings in relation to which the local authority has not yet determined the fair rent. It is not only a problem which exists until the first of the triennial impositions of the fair rent standard, but also it is a continuing problem; because if one looks back at Clause 61 one finds that that clause deals with dwellings brought into being after the provisional assessment of the fair rent in any one of any of the triennial periods. There would therefore certainly be a number of houses in those triennial periods in respect of which rent is being paid before the fair rent has been assessed with regard to that house and that rent may be in excess of what ultimately is likely to be assessed as the fair rent.

The Amendment would also relieve the local authority of having to go through what would be the rather farcical procedure of complying with Clauses 64, 65 and 66 in those cases as well; in other words, imposing an increase towards the fair rent when in point of fact they are of opinion that already the tenant is paying more than what is likely to be assessed as the fair rent. Those are the reasons for which I hope the Committee will think this a sensible Amendment designed to relieve the burden on local authorities, if I have understood the position correctly. I am afraid it is somewhat technical. I have tried to give some indication of the broad lines on which it is moved but I should feel satisfied if the noble Lord would say that he would like to look at this further between now and Report stage. Certainly I should not press the Amendment if he would give an indication that that is what would be his intention.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Before my noble friend replies I should like to point out that it is part of the case that under this Bill where a local authority could have two-, three-, four- or five-apartment houses, it might be that in the first year the rent of the two-apartment houses reached a fair rent whereas it might be some time before, say, a five-apartment house reached a fair rent. I sympathise with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has just said. I have been into this thoroughly and from the advice I have received I am satisfied that this sort of thing will even itself out in the next two or three years. In view of that, the situation will probably never arise. I am not very happy with the wording of this Amendment although I was very interested and pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised this point.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I share the pleasure of my noble friend Lord Balfour that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, should have raised this point and should have done it so clearly and lucidly. His analysis seemed to me to be correct but I should like to study what he has said. The question "What is a fair rent?" in the early stages before the fair rent has been determined is one of considerable difficulty, as we know from the different criteria that are being applied apparently by different people in reaching a decision on it. That is why it is for the Secretary of State to decide under Section 63(3) whether there should be any modification of the amount of increase towards fair rents in the years 1972/3 or 1973/4 insofar as during that time there has been no fair rent determined for the dwellings. That is all common ground.

Subsection (3) states: In this subsection "the relevant date" means—

  1. (a) in the year 1972–73, 1st October 1972, and
  2. (b) in any later year the relevant date as defined in section 65 below."
It merely says: Nothing … shall authorise the authority at any time to increase a rent"— this is a rent—not the whole of the rent— to an amount in excess of the fair rent for the dwelling and accordingly no increase towards fair rents shall be made in any year if on the relevant date in that year the rents for all the authority's Housing Revenue Account dwellings are fair rents. We are back at the original difficulty of the date of 1972/3.

I should like to look at what the noble Lord Lord Stow Hill has said. The conception is quite clear, that before there is any departure from what is prescribed in the Bill the authority of the Secretary of State shall be obtained to make a variation. I do not at first sight see how that could be reconciled with a mere belief on the part of an authority, however reasonable, that a person may be entitled to recover from the authority a sum of money in respect of the extent to which the rent exceeds a fair rent. They will not be bound to comply with the three sections that deal with increases towards the fair rent. I do not see that, but I should like to look at what the noble Lord has said and I hope therefore that he will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD STOW HILL

I am very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Drumalbyn for what he has just said. In view of his indication that he would like to give it further consideration I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 [Increases towards fair rents: supplemental provisions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 69 shall stand part of the Bill?

12.34 a.m.

LORD STOW HILL

I desire to probe the Government in the hope that they may accede to the arguments which I should like to advance. I will start by submitting to your Lordships that this clause is a rather disagreeable one from the point of view of local authorities. It is the sort of clause that one finds in a Finance Bill designed to prevent evasion of tax liabilities. It is a clause the object of which is to frustrate what are supposed to be the possible manœuvres of local authorities; for example, in converting what are called short periodical tenancies into long periodical tenancies in order to avoid the obligation of charging higher rents. Therefore it does contain a reflection on the purposes of local authorities, and my submission to your Lordships is that if the Bill will stand without that clause, it should, for those general reasons, be omitted. I submit that, without infringing the purposes of the Government in the least, it can perfectly well be omitted if the Government persuade your Lordships to pass Clause 70.

May I elaborate that point quite shortly? Clause 70, as I analyse it, does this. It provides that in the case of any tenancy—that is to say, a short periodical tenancy or a long periodical tenancy or even a very long lease—other than an existing weekly tenancy (and a weekly tenancy is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)) and some others which are referred to but which are not important for this purpose, it shall be an implied term of the tenancy that the local authority may raise the rent—and that I get from subsection (2): It shall be an implied term of the tenancy that the authority may increase the rent payable under the tenancy with effect from the beginning of any rental period by a notice given to the tenant"— within a certain period. In other words, every single tenancy, long, short, medium or very long, with the exception of existing weekly tenancies, are to have an implied term that the local authority can raise the rent payable under that tenancy with effect from the beginning of any rental period.

One then asks oneself: what is a rental period? And what is the meaning of the expression, "with effect from the beginning of any rental period"? When one turns over the page one finds the answer to that question in subsection (5), which reads: If any rental period exceeds six weeks this section shall apply as if references to the beginning of the rental period include references to the beginning of the second or any subsequent week in the rental period". If I have correctly understood this clause, it provides that in the case of any tenancy other than a weekly tenancy it shall be an implied term that the local authority can by notice raise the rent with effect from the beginning of any rental period; and, however long may be the rental period, the rent may be raised from the beginning of the second or any subsequent week in that rental period—that is to say, the rental period covered by the tenancy.

If that analysis of the powers given by this clause be right, what more do the Government want? Supposing the local authority, with evil intent, has converted a short periodical tenancy into a tenancy for 15 years at a fixed rack rent over the whole of the 15 years, that tenancy for 15 years, or lease, as I will describe it, to be subject to an implied term that from almost any week the rent can be raised by the local authority. So what on earth is the point of having Clause 69 in the Bill, and its somewhat offensive undertones, if the Government are also going to ask and be accorded by your Lordships the power contained in Clause 70? I hope that I have made my question clear. I would ask the Government, if they think they are already given the necessary powers by Clause 70, to agree that one can perfectly well strike out of this Bill Clause 69. It is for that reason that I move your Lordships to leave out Clause 69.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is a difficult pair of clauses to understand. Both Clause 69(3) and Clause 70 are designed to avoid possible methods of frustrating the progression to fair rents; and I suppose that all clauses designed to avoid the frustration of legislation, whether of Finance Acts or anything else, are somewhat unpopular, certainly with those people who are affected. Clause 69(3) deals with a case where a weekly, fortnightly or monthly tenancy is converted, say, into an annual tenancy. Clause 70 deals with a tenancy which is converted into a fixed-term tenancy, say for three or five years. Before being so converted, the tenancy would perhaps have been weekly, fortnightly or monthly. That is a broad explanation of the difference between the two clauses.

Subsection (1) of Clause 69 would seem to be rather different, in any case, from subsections (2) and (3); and I am not sure that we should be right to leave out the whole of Clause 69 merely because we do not like those two subsections. The point here is that subsection (2) was added in another place on Report, and I think one can be fairly certain that it would not have been added, with Clause 70 already there, unless there had been some reason to think that it was necessary. Subsection (2) says in effect that if a local authority converted a weekly or monthly tenancy into an annual tenancy a week or two before October 1, 1972, the result would be that the first rental period after October 1, 1972, would not begin until a year later, during September, 1973. There might be good reasons for doing this in a few cases, but if the local authority did this with a considerable number of their houses they would frustrate the progression of their houses towards fair rents. The subsection therefore requires the authority to satisfy itself that any long-term tenancies it may create will permit the progression towards fair rents required by the Bill, without putting an unfair burden on other tenants.

Subsection (3) is more or less the obverse of the same coin. It deals with the position where a local authority has already converted more than 1 per cent. of its Housing Revenue Account dwellings from short-term to long-term tenancies since July 19, 1971. In that case the terms of the tenancies would revert to what they were before the change in all respects except the rent, which would be covered rent for the houses in question. This is to prevent local authorities from giving longer periodical tenancies, say for three years, and so frustrating the progression towards fair rents. However, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the local authority has good reasons for giving such tenancies in particular cases he may direct that that particular subsection shall not apply to them.

Clause 70, to which the noble Lord referred, deals with cases where there are in existence tenancies for long periods at fixed rents. It enables local authorities to alter the rent without otherwise altering the terms of the tenancy so as to bring it into line with the progression towards fair rents. It does not oblige them to do so unless they cannot otherwise comply with the provisions leading to increases towards fair rents. If the local authority does give notice to increase the rent then the tenant has the right to terminate the tenancy. Again the Secretary of State is given power under subsection (1)(d) to exclude any dwelling, either by a general or a particular direction from the provisions of the clause; for example, if the local authority let dwellings on fixed-term tenancies to the W.R.V.S. to enable them to house families who need special social and welfare attention it may be reasonable to exclude them.

Subsection (b) deals with cases covered by the clause under which the rent is less than for any earlier period; for example the local authority might seek to end the provisions of the Bill by granting a tenancy for three years which provided for a decrease of rent of 75p a week. In that case the local authorities would have to increase the rent provided for in the second and third year by 75p per week for the first year and £1.50 for the second year. In addition it could make increases towards fair rent by making use of the implied terms of the contract introduced by subsection (2). So I hope I have said enough to make it clear that these two clauses have somewhat different purposes. But, having said that, again I will look very carefully at what the noble Lord has said to see whether any adjustment in one or other of the clauses is needed.

LORD STOW HILL

Again I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord. May I say just two words on what he said so that he may consider them. I should have submitted that it was beyond doubt that Clause 70 would certainly include long and short periodical tenancies and it is not only limited to tenancies for fixed terms. It does not say so and is quite widely drawn enough to include periodical tenancies. The noble Lord also referred to the fact that Clause 70 includes tenancies granted before the coming into force of this Bill, but it is not limited to tenancies granted before the coming into force of this Bill. It applies to them equally whether they came into being before the Bill came into force or after. So I respectfully submit that the noble Lord should also give that reconsideration.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Did the noble and learned Lord say "includes"? The clause says, other than a dwelling for the time being subject to a tenancy granted before—

LORD STOW HILL

I will not continue the controversy. The noble Lord has been so kind as to say he will consider the points, and I say no more on those words. An Amendment was down to leave them out in any event; but I do not wish to continue the controversy in view of what the noble Lord said. I am grateful for what he said and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71 [Supplemental]:

12.50 a.m.

LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 1110: Page 75, line 6, at end insert ("but if the tenant shall dispute such determination he shall be entitled to refer the matter to the rent scrutiny committee who shall adjudicate thereon.")

The noble Lord said. I beg to move Amendment No. 1110 which provides that matters may be referred to the rent scrutiny committee—and I must apologise because the term should of course be "rent scrutiny board"—if the tenant should "dispute such determination": that is a dispute arising in connection with an apportionment of amounts fairly attributable to the use of furniture and similar matters. The purpose of the Amendment is that it seemed reasonable that the tenant should be able to appeal to the rent board where, in circumstances such as this, there was a dispute as between him and the housing authority. I beg to move.

EARL FERRERS

We are here considering the progression to fair rents and there is no reason to suppose that a local authority will find it diffcult to comply with a duty to make the furniture or services element a fair one. If an individual tenant objected to his authority that they had not complied with this duty in relation to his rent the authority could be expected to alter any apportionment that was unfair as a result of a genuine mistake. A systematic failure by the authority to make fair apportionments over a wide scale would obviously be picked up by the district auditor, who would ensure that the progression to fair rents takes place in accordance with statute. Even if the authority makes the furniture or services element unfairly large this cannot result in the rent being increased above the fair rent as determined. It could only result in the rents being progressed to the fair rent more quickly. Equally, if the authority makes the furniture or services element unfairly small this would result in the rents being progressed to the fair rent more slowly than they should be. So it will not affect the fair rents, and it would merely be the progression to the fair rent which would be affected only marginally.

LORD DIAMOND

I thank the noble Earl for what he has said and I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 111P:

Page 75, line 6, at end insert— ("(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (2) above, an increase of the part of any rent attributable to rates, or to the use of furniture, or to the provision of services—

  1. (a) shall be disregarded in determining whether there has been a general rent increase or in determining the amount of that increase, and
  2. (b) shall not count towards the increases towards fair rents which the authority is to make.")

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in the provisions of Part VI relating to general rent increases and increases towards fair rents, the amount of the increase in rent relates only to the occupation element of the rent. This ensures that these increases are computed on the same basis for every dwelling and that a tenant whose rent includes an element for rates or furniture or services is not given an unfair advantage over a tenant whose rent does not include such an element. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 [Introduction of new subsidies for housing associations]:

12.52 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 111Q:

Page 76, line 17, at end insert— ("(5) Provided always that the provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to continue to pay to a housing association the same subsidies as are payable at the date of passing of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: We are now moving into a somewhat quieter stage of the Bill. I think it is agreed between all three Parties and people of non-Party persuasion in this House that housing associations are a desirable form of social organisation. For this reason I do not attempt to raise any element of controversy in discussing this subject.

The two sections of the Bill with which I am dealing this evening—or rather in the early hours of this morning—are Part VII, which deals with the housing associations and the subsidies that apply to them, and Part VIII, which applies to the rent limit for dwellings let by housing associations, housing trusts and the Housing Corporation. The housing associations exist in various forms. They are administered in many cases by the tenants themselves in the form of management committees. They are laymen, and they have to face this complex Bill. I would have thought that even those noble Lords who are steeped in the matter find that this is a rather difficult Bill. If that is true, how much more difficult must it be for laymen to see how this Bill affects the housing associations for which they are responsible. In general, the Amendments that I and my noble friends have tabled, and which other noble Lords have tabled, are designed partly to probe the intention of the Government and to protect the various individuals who inhabit houses administered by housing associations, from any risks that they may run by not understanding this complex Bill completely.

One thing is very clear, and this really is the point which my Amendment is designed to bring out, that the Secretary of State throughout has very substantial powers. My Amendment reads: Provided always that the provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to continue to pay to a housing association the same subsidies as are payable at the date of passing of this Act. There must be no retrogression and throughout, as we shall see, the Secretary of State has great powers to reach decisions on the basis of facts presented to him. This is a good thing. It is on the basis of just indicating to your Lordships that my Amendments and those of my noble friends are not put down in a mood of hostility but to protect laymen who may find it somewhat difficult to understand this Bill that I beg to move Amendment No. 111Q standing in my name on the Order Paper.

LORD SANDFORD

I think all members of the Committee would agree that in moving into Parts VII and VIII which are to do with housing associations we are moving into rather calmer and less controversial waters, and for that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage who some weeks ago moved a Motion which we debated here and which was concerned with the anxieties that housing associations were feeling at that time about the Government's intention with respect to the provisions in these two Parts, particularly to the phasing out of the subsidies which they had up to now enjoyed. Following that debate, and to a large extent as a result of it, Her Majesty's Government have been able to meet the fears and the anxieties expressed by the associations and the bodies that represent them and to meet those points in full. Anyway, that is our understanding, and perhaps in the course of the debates on some of these Amendments we shall hear whether in fact that can be confirmed.

The noble Lord's Amendment leads straight into this particular question of the way in which the existing subsidies can be continued and assured and raises the whole question of whether the transition will be damaging or not damaging to the associations which we all want to see supported. I can deal with it best, if the Committee would agree, by going rather wide and referring straightaway not to this particular Clause 72 but to Clause 75, subsection (1), which is the point to which I will want to refer the Committee in dealing with each of the next 5, 6, 7 or 8 Amendments. It is here that the Secretary of State, having been furnished with information as to their financial position by a housing association, has powers either to slow down the rate of withdrawal of the existing subsidies or even to suspend the withdrawal altogether.

The slowing down is achieved by a substitution of a smaller amount for that provided for in the Bill, the £5 for the first year or the £20 for the subsequent years, or the reduction of that amount to zero, which has the effect of suspending the withdrawal of the subsidy altogether. I am happy to be drawn on further points of detail on other Amendments if necessary, but I think what I am saying now in answer to the noble Lord's first Amendment will probably serve for the other Amendments, which are just alternative ways of reducing or modifying or altering the provisions made in the Bill for the withdrawal of the existing subsidies.

LORD AVEBURY

May I say that the noble Lord has given some rather vague assurances in relation to Clause 75(1) which I think ought to be amplified before we leave the particular Amendment under consideration at the moment? I realise that we are not talking about Clause 75 at all. The noble Lord has moved an Amendment relating to an earlier clause, but since the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has opened again the whole question of subsidies for housing associations, I think that the Committee is entitled to a certain amount more clarification than he has given us. After all, the housing associations have been in communication with the Department for some time, as the noble Lord has said, and they have expressed anxiety as to where they stand under this Bill.

All the noble Lord has said, as I understand him, is that he is prepared to consider sympathetically any representations which they may make to the Department to exercise the discretion which the Secretary of State has under Clause 75(1) to give them either a delay in the withdrawal of subsidy or the total abolition of the powers which the Secretary of State would otherwise exercise under this Bill. I think before we leave this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, ought to give us a little bit more information about what his intentions are. I do not question his sympathy for the housing association movement at all; we all know the noble Lord has been extremely helpful to housing associations over the years, and that during the course of the proceedings on this Bill he has entered into consultation with them and has given every indication that he wants to see the housing association movement prosper.

I suggest that if that is the case, if the noble Lord wants to implement these undertakings, he should give us some more precise indication of the way the Government is thinking than he has so far divulged to the Committee. I personally do not question his bona fides. I am only suggesting that before we get to Clause 75, which is the operative one, now that we are on Clause 71, it would be a convenient moment for the noble Lord to declare his intentions more fully to the Committee, so that, if necessary, at a later stage we can put down appropriate Amendments, or we can speak more fully on the subject when we come to the Question, That the clause stand part. Those are the two alternatives which are open to the Committee, and the noble Lord could cut short the discussion and enable us to proceed if he would explain a little more and be a little more forthcoming concerning the Government's intentions on this matter.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I had intended to say something on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? But in view of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, perhaps I may make my remarks on the present Motion. Unlike some noble Lords who have spoken I want to take the opportunity of thanking the Government for what they have done in turning this Bill, as originally drafted, into something which I trust will give the housing associations a real future. I very much hope that we can look forward to this agency filling the place that the Minister originally hoped it would fill and that gradually it may make a bigger and bigger impact on the supply of rented accommodation and even be accepted as such by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who are rather despondent about the future of rented accommodation.

I am speaking now in connection with the Federation of Housing Associations. We do not propose to support any of the Amendments which have been tabled, although I understand now that they are not moved in any hostile spirit, so that it would be unnecessary for me to take them as such. If this is to come about, there is one further aspect of the situation which has not called for any Amendment but on which Government assurances may be of the greatest value. It seems absolutely essential that if the best results are to be achieved there should be established immediately a central body representative of the 2,050 associations of all sorts, shapes and sizes to carry on doing much the same work as the Federation has been doing hitherto—namely, negotiating with the Government on behalf of the large number of associations. I am quite certain that there will be numerous administrative matters at least which will continue to demand attention. This central body should act in a judicious way to stimulate growth, to promote activity, particularly activity of the right kind, to advise the associations of the best way of doing this and to make allocations out of the comparatively small central funds which the Federation at present possesses. Again, this is a matter which demands knowledge and judgment, and I would hope that Her Majesty's Government would have sufficient confidence in this central body to consult it in the matter of the discretions the Minister has reserved to himself. That is one of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred.

I hope that the Minister will consult with the central body. It would be very difficult for him to consult with any of the 2,050 bodies. The Minister might have some difficulty in reaching decisions without appropriate advice. As I have said before, these are voluntary bodies, and we require a certain amount of judgment and knowledge to deal with them properly.

The Government may ask: "What is stopping you from doing this? Why not carry on with the Federation as before?" That sounds simple, but I do not know that it is so simple. In 1968, a Labour Government set up the Cohen Committee to consider and report on the proper role of voluntary housing, including the role of the housing corporation. That Committee took evidence but failed to reach any conclusion, and in 1970 a Conservative Government decided to take over the evidence and to produce a scheme. In 1971, they produced a paper which foreshadowed fairly comprehensive legislation which might well render the Federation unnecessary. We do not know for certain whether such legislation will be forthcoming, but the prospect of it must have a somewhat unsettling effect on our small paid staff. That might not matter so much if there were not one further uncertainty.

Our small permanent staff have been paid over the years, but—to anyone accustomed to local authority ways of doing things—in a very odd way; partly out of affiliation fees, partly from charity, and partly by varying Government grants on quite a small scale. In fact, by local government standards an agency such as ours, building, as we now do, between 14,000 and 15,000 houses a year, must seem ridiculously understaffed. Your Lordships will see that these three prospects—first, being worked extremely hard; secondly, being superseded in a few years time; and, thirdly, perhaps being phased out for lack of money even before they are phased out—give a bleak outlook for any worthwhile staff. We certainly do not want to ask the Government for money, because we value our independence too much. But it would be a real tragedy if at this present critical juncture, for one reason or another, there were no properly staffed and equipped central body. I know that further talks are now being held and I do not wish to press my noble friend to say anything at all definite tonight. But if he can assure us that he is aware of, and is sympathetic to, the points I am trying to make, that will give our staff some much-needed encouragement.

LORD SANDFORD

If I may take up the last point first, it is of course very much in the interest of Her Majesty's Government that there should be a strong and effective voice to speak for the housing associations' work, and we very much hope that a resolution of these problems can be reached. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Gage that a straight subvention from the Government would not be the right solution, because that would indeed lead to loss of independence, and such independence is as desirable to the Government as it is to the Federation itself.

To turn to the Amendment—and for the time being I resist the temptation to be drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, into a premature discussion of the details of the operation of Clause 75—the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, made it clear that he was moving Amendment No. 111Q as a probing Amendment. It is one way of ensuring that subsidies would be continued just as before, if that were thought desirable. But for the reason which I have set out—namely, that there is power in Clause 75 (1), if necessary, to suspend altogether or to slow down the rate of withdrawal—I submit to the Committee that this method is not necessary or apt. But I will certainly go into further detail of the operation of the subsidies to take the place of the existing ones, as we move on to the other clauses in this Part of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 The basic residual subsidy]:

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 111R.

Page 77, line 6, leave out subsections (6) to (9) and insert— ("( ) The withdrawal factor for the purposes of this section shall be such positive amount equal to the surplus accruing to the association from its completed building schemes (aft erallowing for any deficits) or such negative amount equal to the deficit accruing to the association from such schemes (after allowing for any surpluses).")

The noble Lord said: We are now entering the working part of these two sections of the Bill. They remind me of the problem that used to beset us at school in the early days of our study of algebra when we were told that we had to calculate what happened to the water in a bath when we pull out the plug and the water flowed out at a certain rate and we turned on the taps and the water flowed in at another rate. If we had a good day we got the answer right. During the rest of the evening, with the exception of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, we shall be dealing with plug-holes and taps, and that is the basis on which I am going to tackle the problem. Clause 75 deals with the basic residual subsidy, and all my Amendments are aimed, as I said earlier, at protecting the individual housing association and its tenants from the complexities of the Bill. What I hope to see is that in a situation in which there are negative and positive balances the tenants always comes out best and enjoys the best results from these two possible situations.

LORD SANDFORD

As I said, I need on each of these occasions to refer to the provisions we have made for securing withdrawal and compare it with the various alternatives which each of these Amendments proposes. In this case the advantage that I would claim for Clause 75 (1) is that the system that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is proposing in this Amendment would be governed by purely mathematical considerations which would, as he says, either slow up or speed up the rate of withdrawal. I doubt if this would be as sophisticated and refined a system as that which could be applied by the Secretary of State, with all his knowledge of the factors presented to him by the housing association and through the exercise of the powers he is being given in Clause 75 (1). It would be a way of speeding it up or slowing it down, but not as good or as flexible a way as the one we have provided. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

I am glad to know that the procedures of the Secretary of State are more sophisticated than mine. On the basis of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 111S: Page 77, line 19, leave out ("£5") and insert ("£2.50").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I will deal with this Amendment and Amendment No. 111U together. These are reductions of The sum produced by multiplying £5 by the number of dwellings determined under paragraph (a) of subsection (7) above; and the sum produced by multiplying £20 by the number of dwellings determined under paragraph (a) of subsection (7) above; … This is fundamentally a slowing down of the outflow of subsidies, and since I am trying to ensure that the associations have as little trouble as possible during the transition phase, I am trying to slow down the rate of outflow from the funds that are available to them. I do not quite know—and perhaps the Minister can explain to us—how the figures £5 and £20 were reached. Were they guessed out of the top of a head, or were they based on sophisticated calculations? I beg to move.

LORD SANDFORD

Again, perhaps I may take the last point first. The figures of £5 and £20 are based on the expected rate of the increase of the existing rent to the fair rent. The £20 is the amount corresponding to the increase over a full year; the £5 is the increase over one-quarter of a year, which will apply for the first year of the operation, because this system cannot begin until January, 1973—the date on which the rent allowances become payable. I hope that deals with the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks. As to the first part, what he is proposing in his Amendment is within the scope of the Secretary of State's powers. He could prescribe some smaller amount than £5 or some smaller amount than £20, and £2.50 and £10 are such smaller amounts. But the Secretary of State, in the exercise of his power, has discretion to use any other smaller amounts, and I think the noble Lord will see that that is more flexible.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

Since the whole power of modifying the rate of outflow lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, I feel there is no real cause for alarm, and I beg leave—

LORD AVEBURY

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, if, before we get to Report stage, he will give us a sample set of calculations on which we can base our judgment of these Amendments, so that, if necessary, we can bring forward further Amendments on Report stage? Of course, if we are entirely satisfied with the provisions that he has made, then we can avoid raising further Amendments when we reach Report, as the noble Lord would no doubt like us to do. But we are rather galloping through these provisions regarding housing associations. We seem to be making extremely speedy progress at the minute, and I do not think it is fair to the housing associations that we should rush through as we are doing now. I realise that we are at a late hour of the night, but these provisions are very important for many thousands of people and for many people who have to run housing associations, and to accept the rather brief explanations of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, without question simply because we have reached the hour of 1.20 a.m. is, to my mind, not satisfactory. But I should he quite prepared to carry on with the provisions of this Bill and to look at subsequent clauses if the noble Lord would reassure the Committee by saying that, before we reach Report stage, he will let us have some arithmetic which we can show to the housing associations so that we can ask them whether they are satisfied with the assurances that he has given. If the noble Lord would do that, I am sure we could make much faster progress than we are doing so far.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I rise to my feet once more to say that what has been transcribed into this Bill has been the subject of very long and detailed discussions between the Department and the officials of the Federation of Housing Associations. I do not say that the Federation is representative of every sort of housing association, but I think they are pretty representative. They tell me that they would prefer to get on with the Bill and to get it passed knowing very well that there will be a great number of difficult administrative matters which have still to be solved. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who is President of the Federation, whose health does not permit him to be present here tonight, would agree with that. I appreciate the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in this matter, but I do not think that it is so casual as it would seem. We recognise that here is a great deal that may be solved administratively rather than by changes in the law. However, I can speak only for this Federation.

LORD SANDFORD

I am certainly very willing to consider whether there are calculations which I could let the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have to elucidate still further the way in which these subsidies operate. We were able to help noble Lords opposite when we discussed Part I in respect of the much more complicated subsidies introduced in that Part and it may be that we can do the same in respect of this Part. Alternatively, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could see some of the correspondence between the Department and the Federation which might help him. I will certainly consider that point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74 [The special residual subsidy]:

1.23 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. IIIX: Page 78, line 26, after ("appropriate") insert ("but including particularly co-operative housing associations and other organisations whose tenants choose, or are substantially represented upon, the governing body ").

The noble Lord said: I have included this Amendment because I feel that when we consider how the Bill is to work we should lay stress on the work of cooperative housing associations and other organisations who are to choose or to be substantially represented on the governing body. I mentioned this in my opening remarks on this Part of the Bill. These people require the clear assurance and explanation from the Secretary of State for which I and Lord Avebury have asked. It is all very well when housing associations are run by professionals and by lawyers, but when you have a managing body consisting of members of the general public living within an association there has to be some clarity about the way the provisions of the Bill are applied so that they may understand and obtain the benefits. For this reason I have put down the Amendment.

BARONESS YOUNG

The Government are very anxious that there should be consultation with housing associations, but the point at question here is that many co-operative housing associations are also co-ownership societies, whose members own jointly the dwellings that they occupy. Such associations are not eligible for subsidy under Part I of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and cannot qualify for special residual subsidy. Therefore there is no point in consulting them about a subsidy for which they do not qualify. Those co-operative housing associations which are not co-ownership societies are eligible for this subsidy. The Government believe that their interests, as a group, are adequately represented by the National Federation of Housing Societies because most of them are members of that Federation, and the Secretary of State will certainly consult the Federation under the provisions of subsection (4)(b). I hope that that explanation meets the noble Lord's point.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

In view of the assurances from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?

1.30 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

May I at this stage make three points briefly? May I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who was accusing me, I think, of rushing on a bit? We have the possibility of discussing a very important Amendment in the name of Lord Brooke of Cumnor about the requirements of students. I should have thought this a rather limited but important section of the housing association's needs to which we should give some attention. So I am pushing on over what I consider to be secondary issues in order to get to what I think is a primary issue which is included in Lord Brooke's Amendment. I hope that Lord Avebury will forgive me, I am not being slovenly but I want to get on to this rather meaty Amendment.

May I ask the Minister two points? The first refers to the position of hostels. I am a little mystified about this. Hostels are mentioned in Clause 74(9). I want to know why hostels have to have special treatment. In Clause 100 there is a rather peculiar definition: 'hostel' means a building wherein is provided, for persons generally or for a class or classes of persons, residential accommodation (otherwise than in separate and self-contained sets of premises) and either board or facilities for the preparation of food adequate to the needs of those persons, or both. A hostel seems to be differentiated from other forms of association if facilities for the preparation of food are included in the administration and articles of association of the hostel association. I should like to know why there is this rather sharp differentiation of hostel associations from other forms of association.

The third point arises from information received in a brief and perhaps the Minister will have some sympathy if I read from the brief on this rather technical point. I understand that the majority of qualifying schemes will be under construction but some are currently under negotiation. For these pipeline schemes, approval under Clause 74 will be taken as approval of form HCY1 subject to three conditions. The first of these, and it is the only one I am going to raise, is that the erection costs do not exceed the yardstick plus 10 per cent. Those of us who have had a finger or more than a finger in the construction industry would hold the view that a yardstick plus 10 per cent. in the present rate of the inflation of building costs is entirely unrealistic. For this reason I should like the Minister to confirm that it is the case that if form HCY1 is forwarded to the Minister it is not tied down by erection costs exceeding the yardstick plus 10 per cent.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I think there are 2,050 associations in the Federation and about one-third of them could be described either as a home or as a hostel. I share the noble Lord's mystification but I think this indicates that the whole question of these definitions should be gone into much more carefully.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

I rather think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, agreed to do that at an earlier stage.

LORD AVEBURY

Perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for me to make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for an error which I made on June 8 when we were discussing hostels on Clause 2. At that time I said that Section 15 of the 1958 Act applied to local authority hostels and not to those which were provided by organisations such as the Y.M.C.A. The noble Lord quite rightly corrected me in a letter which he wrote to me, referring me to subsection (2) of Section 15 where similar provisions to subsection (1) applying to local authority hostels are extended to those which are provided by voluntary organisations. I incorrectly informed your Lordships that organisations such as the Y.M.C.A. were not covered by Section 15 of that Act. The noble Lord has quite rightly put me on the right track on this matter.

The point I was making still remains: that organisations such as the Y.M.C.A. which are providing hostels are not absolutely certain where they stand under the Bill, and I am not altogether certain when I look at Clause 74(9) whether I am any clearer about the matter. The Y.M.C.A. does a tremendous job in making accommodation available for single persons and for persons who have no other source to look to. They cannot go to the local authorities, who are not interested in them, and they do not have the ability to pay for the sort of accommodation which private landlords are offering. Organisations such as the Y.M.C.A. are offering a service which, I suggest, nobody else can provide.

I am sure that your Lordships who are familiar with these matters will agree with me that they are filling a gap which is of immense importance and that if they were to drop out it would be—I make no exaggeration—disastrous. If we are doing anything in this clause—and I am not suggesting that this is the case, but I think the noble Lord should explain it—which will make it any less easy for the Y.M.C.A. or for any other organisation providing hostel accommodation to do what they are doing at the moment, then we should give serious consideration to some Amendments. But I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is extremely sympathetic to the provision of accommodation for single persons, particularly by organisations such as the Y.M.C.A. who are doing their best in difficult circumstances, will give us some assurance on this clause so that we do not need to come back to the subject on Report stage.

LORD SANDFORD

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the remarks which he made relating to our earlier exchanges. I take note of the question that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, asked me, but I am wondering whether he would accept this from me. As he said, there are a number of quite substantial Amendments ahead of us on these next two Parts, and there is a separate clause, Clause 90, devoted specifically to hostel subsidies. I would suggest, if the Committee agrees, that for those two reasons we should defer further consideration of hostel grants and the importance of hostels—and there is no doubt that they are important—on this Motion that Clause 74 stand part, and concentrate our attention on the matter when we reach Clause 90.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 [Residual subsidies—supplemental]:

1.41 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 111Y: Page 79, line 22, leave out ("having regard to their normal sources of income").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 111Y and 111Z together. These two Amendments relate to Clause 75, to whose importance the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has drawn our attention. This is perhaps one of the key clauses of the Bill. It cannot be said too loudly or too clearly or be made too widely known that the powers of the Secretary of State can modify the various sums of money mentioned in the clause down to the point when he can say that the actual amount which is substituted shall include zero; that the pipe shall be closed and that subsidies will be continued. It was to underline the importance of this principle that I put down these two Amendments. I beg to move.

LORD SANDFORD

I agree that Clause 75, and particularly subsection (1), is cardinal to everything that we have been discussing up to now on this Bill, and a good deal of the discussion with the Federation has been around this point. I do not think it would be right for me to read right through the agreement which has been reached with the Federation on this point, but a statement of the principles which the Secretary of State would follow has been agreed upon with them. The considerations that he would have in mind, for instance, in deciding what their normal sources of income were, and the sense in which he would interpret this, have all been agreed upon with the Federation, and that statement of principles was incorporated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the Committee stage in another place. I really have nothing to add to that. It runs to about three pages in my brief, and I think the noble Lord will find there a full explanation.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I agree that this is an important matter, but I accept what my noble friend says. I think the position is partly met by Amendment Nos. 112 and 113. I value the assurances given. This does have effect on the charitable donations which the Federation have been receiving, and the last thing one wants to do is to frighten them off. I hope we may be satisfied that this agreement will have no deleterious effect on that important source of supply.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

In view of the fact that there is clearly a channel of communication between the Minister's Department and the Federation of Housing Associations and that the principles have been laid down so that anyone who wishes to do so may read them, I shall be pleased to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.46 a.m.

LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 112: Page 79, line 23, after ("expenditure") insert ("(including loan charges)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, and at the same time to speak to Amendments 113, 118 and 124. The effect of all four Amendments is to meet the request made by the voluntary housing movement that capital borrowed from housing associations' own funds should be treated for the purpose of the Bill as if it attracted loan charges, in the same way as capital borrowed from an external source.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

I am glad that the Government have agreed to this proposal, and I support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDFORD

I beg to move Amendment No. 113.

Amendment moved—

Page 80, line 11, at end insert— (""loan charges" includes any loan charges made by a housing association (including charges for debt management) whether in respect of borrowing from any capital fund kept by the housing association, or in respect of borrowing between accounts kept by the housing association for different functions, or otherwise.")—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 [The new building subsidy]:

LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 114: Page 80, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("if they").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is really no more than a drafting Amendment in order grammatically to improve this subsection.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1.48 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 114A: Page 80, line 27, at end insert ("and shall include all costs admissible for loan sanction and promotion costs").

The noble Lord said: This is an area of the Bill in which I have put down a number of Amendments, in conjunction with my noble friends. They really revolve round the percentage of the original deficit which is to be met by a subsidy. The original intention of the Government, as I understand it, was that the percentage would be placed at 90 per cent., but that due to a point put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and representations, the figure for the first three years for which subsidies are available has been raised to 100 per cent. This is an extremely valuable decision, since if this figure of 100 had not been put in the Bill I am assured by people who are in a position to know that many housing associations would have gone out of business, and one of the few sources of rented accommodation available to the general public would have been withdrawn. For this reason, I am moving a series of Amendments to make certain that these deficiency payments are not allowed to lapse with the passage of time, but are constantly met with subsidy, assuming that the inflow of funds which is foreseen in Part VIII of the Bill does not take place as rapidly as had been foreseen.

LORD SANDFORD

I am glad the noble Lord recognises that the changes made here, following our debate earlier on, before the Bill was before us, have met the fears and anxieties of the housing associations. On this particular Amendment the explanation I should like to offer to him, in inviting the Committee to resist the Amendment, or in suggesting to him that he might not press it but withdraw it, is that whereas it may well be appropriate to allow certain costs for the purposes of loan sanctions—that is to say, for instance, the tolerance above housing yardsticks—it is not necessarily appropriate to allow the same amount in the calculations leading to calculations for subsidy. This point we have met before in an earlier stage of the Bill and it applies here.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

In view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.52 a.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

I beg to move Amendment No. 115 and at the same time I should like to have considered Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. These are in fact drafting Amendments and they remove these forward-looking references to subsections of Clause 76 which are considered superfluous at this stage.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 42, leave out ("as estimated in accordance with subsections (7) to (11) below").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

I beg to move Amendment No. 116.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 46, leave out ("as estimated in accordance with subsections (7) and (11) below").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

I move Amendment No. 117.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 10, leave out ("as estimated in accordance with subsection (7) to (11) below").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDFORD

We have already debated this point, and I beg to move Amendment No. 118.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 29, after ("expenditure") insert ("(including loan charges)").—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

I move Amendment No. 119 and should like to have considered at the same time Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. These are drafting Amendments. They set out expressly the procedural provisions governing the Secretary of State's Order taking powers under Clauses 76 and 90.

Amendment moved—

Page 83, line 9, leave out subsection (14) and insert ("(14) An order under subsection (13) above shall be made with the concurrence of the Treasury by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under that subsection.")—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 agreed to.

1.55 a.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 119Z: After Clause 77 insert the following new clause—

Housing for Students

".—(1) The expressions 'housing society', 'housing association' and 'housing trusts' shall include a society, an association, a body of trustees, a trustee, a corporation or a company which is established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of constructing, improving or managing or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improvement of residences for students and which otherwise complies respectively with the following statutory provisions, namely:

Section 1(7) and (8) of the Housing Act 1964, the definition of 'housing associations' in Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1957, and the definition of 'housing trust' in the said Section 189(1). (2)(a) the following amendments shall be made to the Housing Act 1957, namely:

  1. (i) in sections 119 to 124, the expressions 'houses', 'housing accommodation' and 'dwellings' shall include residences for students;
  2. (ii) in section 128 and in the definition of a housing trust in section 189(1) the expression 'houses' shall include residences for students and the expression 'the working classes' shall include students; and
  3. (iii) in the definition of housing associations in section 189(1) the expression 'houses' shall include residences for students.
  1. (i) in section 1(7) and (8) the expressions 'house' and 'houses' shall include residences for students; and
  2. (ii) in section 1(7)(c)(i) after the word 'letting' there shall be inserted the words 'or for the provision, by letting or licence, of residences for students'.

The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with whom I have been in touch, I beg to move the new clause, Amendment No. 119Z. It is in fact in virtually the same terms as a later new clause of mine, Amendment No. 122, and I suggest that it might be for your Lordships' convenience if we considered at the same time three further Amendments standing in my name—Nos. 123, 140 and 142. I think I should also observe that there are four other Amendments in the Marshalled List, Nos. 119ZB, 126A, 139E and 141A, which all bear on one or other aspect of this general subject of student housing. As those four Amendments stand in the names of other noble Lords, I cannot ask that they should be considered together, but it may be convenient for your Lordships to have a general debate on the whole subject. It seems to me to be a subject of great importance, and I venture to think that it is considerably less controversial—at any rate in the Party sense—than many of the other Amendments which we have been discussing on this Bill in the last seven or eight days.

I want to make a wholehearted appeal to the Government to approach far more actively this problem of student housing. At this time of night I do not think there is any necessity for me to quote to your Lordships facts and figures showing how acute the problems of student accommodation already are and how much more acute they will become with the further growth of universities and colleges. My second point is that there are many student housing associations—I believe some 30 of them—which are anxious to prove that students are prepared, by means of self-help, to make a contribution towards solving their own problems and I submit to your Lordships that this is something which Parliament should support by every possible means. Thirdly, in so far as this problem cannot be solved for students, that is bound to have an adverse impact on the general housing situation in all those places where there are universities and colleges. It is vitally linked up with the general housing problems of those towns and cannot be considered in isolation from them.

The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I moved or supported Amendments very similar to these when the Labour Government's Housing Bill of 1969 was under consideration in your Lordships' House. We received friendly reactions from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who was in charge of the Bill, though he explained why not much had happened until then. Afterwards we met another of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who was very sympathetic, but it did not result in any marked improvements, so far as I could see, in the way of Government action.

Let me say here that the student housing association with which I was at that time in close touch seemed to me a most responsible, level-headed body. I have had in my time to read countless memoranda and presentations of cases, and I have seldom seen anything that was better argued and more carefully set out than the written material produced by that body. I believe that this has been recognised also in the Departments. So this is not a case of a few students trying to extract some advantage for themselves from public money; rather it is a case of students getting together and being prepared to work extremely hard and carefully in order that students can, by self-help, be enabled to do something practical to solve their own problems of accommodation.

These new clauses and the related Amendments are designed to make it absolutely clear on the face of the Statutes that student housing associations are included within the general category of housing associations that can qualify for Government assistance. The case of both Governments—the present Government and their predecessors—has been that there is no need for amendments in the law because the present law is wide enough to permit local authorities to extend the benefits of housing association law to student housing associations. That may well be so, and in that case these Amendments of ours may be otiose. But this seems to be the one way in which to seek to bring home to the Government the necessity of doing something by adminis- trative action which the Government itself state the law allows.

I was somewhat discouraged by the words of the present Minister, Mr. Amery, in Standing Committee E on March 28, when he said, in answer to similar Amendments moved in another place: There is nothing in the Bill which … discriminates against students. They are entitled to receive allowances or rebates and nothing in the Bill would prevent a student housing association from being subsidised. … It has been hitherto an administrative decision not to do so. Nothing in the law prevents it. That may be, and doubtless is, the position; but it does not seem to me to be a position that your Lordships' House can accept. We must press further. We must by some means or other obtain action. In any event, the local authorities have in the main been slow to believe that they were empowered to assist housing associations, and that is one reason for making it plain on the face of the law that they can. They have been further discouraged by the Department of the Environment's refusal of approval even to schemes agreed between student housing associations and the local authorities concerned. I know that this happened in Brighton in respect of the University of Sussex, and I believe that it has also happened in Southampton in relation to the University there, and may be elsewhere, too.

The reason given by the Department is that it has now been decided that student housing is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and not of the Department of the Environment. My first comment on that is that the Department of the Environment, as the Ministry with overall responsibility for housing, cannot opt out of this. In so far as adequate provision is not made for student housing accommodation, it simply means that the pressure on general housing wherever there is a university or college or polytechnic will be so much the worse. The students will be the more sharply in competition with others like themselves, but outside the student field, for cheap accommodation: in particular, families with low incomes, people like nurses and apprentices who are living on their own away from home, and so forth. And that kind of accommodation is in short supply, and is not increasing; in general, with the pressures on private landlords, its availability is diminishing. So this problem of student needs, unless it is solved by the Government as a whole, is going greatly to worsen the general housing shortage in the places affected. In saying all this I am not singling out the present Government for attack; I would have said just the same kind of thing about its predecessors. I am not doubting that there is good will; what I am doubting is whether there is sufficient readiness to act.

That brings me to my second comment on the decision of the Government to leave responsibility for all this to the Department of Education and Science. My second point is that that Department does not seem seized of the urgency of the matter. I believe I am right in saying that about three months ago—nearly three years after your Lordships had agreed in debate on the 1969 Bill that problems of student housing associations were truly urgent—the Department of Education and Science told the local authority associations that it had started thinking about a research project on the problems of student housing associations. It would not surprise me at all to know that the reaction of the local authority associations was that these problems were urgent and certainly could not await the outcome of research projects belatedly started.

My object in tabling these Amendments is to ventilate the whole subject afresh and to try to stimulate action, and also to rebut the view that it is reasonable for the Department of the Environment to wash its hands of this integral part of the housing problem and leave it to the Department of Education and Science with its more academic and apparently non-urgent approach. I beg to move.

2.8 a.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

I am certain the whole Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for staying to this late hour to raise this important issue. He said he would not weary your Lordships with figures, but I would like to give two figures to indicate the size of the problem. In 1970 there were just under 500,000 members of the student population. Ten years later it is expected that there will be just over 700,000, an increase of 200,000. I would remind your Lordships that the age of majority these days is 18 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has pointed out, there is an exercise in "buck passing" going on between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and Science. We know that it is administratively possible for the Department of the Environment to assist student housing associations. We know also and have learned that the will is lacking.

I think there is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Every one of us is two separate beings; we employ ourselves by day and we are a householder as well. But whereas it is perfectly possible for a young man married at 21 to get a house within a housing association, a student of the same age and also married finds it extremely difficult; and really there is no difference in their situations at all. One happens to be working in a factory; the other is setting out to prepare himself for an occupation of a somewhat different kind, although he, too, might finish up in a factory.

It is as nonsensical to say that student housing is a problem for the Department of Education and Science as it would be to say that industrial housing was the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. This is an exact parallel, and if one states it in this way one can see what a nonsense the whole situation is. All I wish to do at this late hour is to support most strongly the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and ask the Department of the Environment to recognise the fact that students in these days are mature beings. Many of them are married and most of them are responsible, and they are as capable of taking part in and running specialised housing associations designed for students as are any other social groups in this country.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I well remember the occasion referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor when we had a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, expressed great sympathy but also said that other priorities came before students, rather suggesting that if the resources were devoted to students it would mean suffering for other classes, such as the elderly. I cannot believe that is true to-day. The position is really quite different. One Party has the same arguments directed against it by the other Party, and so it goes on. From what I remember of this question, and having discussed it at considerable length with the Federation of Housing Associations, I would agree that a real effort ought to be made now to put the matter on a new footing.

2.12 a.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for their constructive speeches. They have put their points very cogently and succinctly. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Gage for supporting them. I took the precaution of looking up the debate on the 1969 Act, as it is now, and noted what was said there. I should like to summarise the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He said that for housing purposes students were treated the same as anyone else. Certainly that is the case so far as the law is concerned. If they are in housing need, they may be housed, like anyone else, by a council, especially if they are married and have a family. If they want to form a housing association, as the law now is they could enter into an authorised arrangement with a housing authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment, to provide housing and to get housing grants. Under the Bill the situation changes a little since for subsidy purposes a student housing association would deal directly with the Department of the Environment, so that there would be only one discretion to be exercised and not two.

My noble friend Lord Brooke referred to schemes which housing associations had agreed on with local authorities and for which the Secretary of State had refused to make grants. I can tell him that the Brighton case is not closed and that the Department of the Environment has told the local Member of Parliament that it will consider further approaches from the local authority and the University of Sussex about the actual need for student accommodation in Brighton and how it might best be met. I am not certain I quite agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when he drew the parallel between the steel workers being the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry if students were to be regarded as the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. The reason here is that the periods are different. A man who takes a job in the steel industry would hope and expect to remain there for several years, whereas the term of a student, even a research student, is apt to be limited. There is also the fact that only a limited number of students regard the university town in which they reside as their home.

I would not myself decry in any way the idea of a research project on student housing, because that would be the best way of determining a national policy on this matter. So far as there is a national policy at the moment, it is that the Department of Education and Science is responsible for student housing and it has done a good deal in this field. In the years 1966–67 to 1970–71, there was an increase in the number of students in residence from 35 per cent. to nearly 40 per cent., and in terms of numbers there was an increase of one-third or 22,750. The number is expected to grow by one-third of the 1970–71 figures in the present quinquennium. So it is not that the special needs of students, as students, are being neglected. The question is really whether in particular areas the pressure on accommodation through the growth of students is becoming too much for local authorities to meet. This can really be said to be a local problem and that is the way it is being regarded at the present time.

I assure my noble friend that this matter is being taken very seriously, and the mere fact that the Brighton case—where student housing associations have been in touch with the local authority and the Secretary of State—is still open indicates this. I hope I have said enough to show that this issue is not being neglected in any way. The Department of the Environment has always accepted that married students have the same claim on housing provided by local authorities and voluntary bodies as all other married members of the community. At the moment, as part of the study of student accommodation issues, Ministers at the Department of Education and Science have been holding talks with a number of organisations, including the National Union of Students, concerned with such matters. Once the Secretary of State for Education and Science has completed her consideration of the various points put to her, she will be better able to judge in what ways further accommodation might be provided. If she thinks it appropriate, she will be free to propose solutions which would involve providing accommodation for students under existing housing powers. Meantime, she is currently considering the University Grants Committee's advice, both on the general development of the universities in the 1972–77 quinquennium, and on the provision of further residential accommodation related to it.

What comes out of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in the previous debate, is that there is no legal impediment so far as student accommodation is concerned. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said that what is required is an Amendment to make it clear in the face of the law that student housing associations are not debarred. They are not debarred. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explained why, in his view, it would be a mistake to make special reference to students. All I can say is that the Department of the Environment as well as the Department of Education and Science are looking at these problems on a place-by-place basis and the Secretary of State for Education and Science is consulting those concerned and considering the University Grants Committee's recommendations. I hope that I have said enough to show that this problem is very much on the mind of the Government. But I am bound still to take the position that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took in 1969, that it would not be appropriate to make special mention of students' housing needs in the various Statutes, nor would it necessarily be effective to do so.

This debate has drawn the attention of the Government, if this needed to be done, to these problems once again. The powers are there. What is not yet there is the wider study that is necessary before a national policy can be formulated. But I hope that from the discussions and consultations that are going on we may reach a decision on whether it is better to treat this problem, as it is being treated at present, on a place-by-place basis or on the basis of a national policy. But I can assure my noble friend that it is being treated on a place-by-place basis at the present time.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

Before the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, comes to reply I want to make two points. First of all, if there is to be a research project (and I have no objection to it), cannot a date be fixed by which there shall be a report? It could be 18 months or two years. It is a very old device to set up a committee or a research project in order to postpone an unpopular or unpleasant decision. Let us give it even two years, but that is the longest time it should get in which to report. A second point I want to make is that the Minister's speech reminded me of a couplet of Pope's: Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive Officiously to keep alive. That seems to me to be the attitude of the Government at the moment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for the trouble he has taken to reply to my remarks on this new clause; but it would be an exaggeration to say that I am satisfied with his reply. I intend to withdraw this Amendment and not move the others standing in my name because I must accept that technically there is nothing in the law to exclude students. The fact is that up until now, in practice, they have been generally excluded from these facilities.

In 1969 the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replied to a similar Amendment. He said that at that time his right honourable friend was giving advice to local authorities based on the general idea that these student housing associations ought to provide housing for the same sort of people as councils themselves normally housed. He went on from that to argue that councils did not normally house young single men and women—although some of them do—and that therefore there would not be very much chance under his Administration for the single student. But what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said to-day proves that in certain towns and cities special action has got to be taken for single students. I was not quite sure that I followed his argument about having a national policy yet basing it entirely on local inquiries in certain places. I welcome the local inquiries; it may be that this problem must be settled bit by bit, but we cannot drift on having one local investigation after another and no national policy.

My noble friend referred to the University Grants Committee. He quoted some figures of the number of students for whom accommodation had been provided. I guess—though I cannot be quite sure—that those figures related solely to university students and did not include the students at non-university colleges—the polytechnics and so on. That part of the problem is certainly unsolved. I must give notice to the Government that I shall continue to press this matter even when this Bill has reached the Statute Book. I have served as Minister for Housing, and I know that one has to look ahead and take administrative if not legislative action well before a problem festers so badly that it needs surgery. I hope I have satisfied your Lordships to-night that there is a real difficulty here which can be solved only by much greater application of urgency in the Departments concerned. Having said that—

2.27 a.m.

LORD BESWICK

If the noble Lord is going to withdraw his Amendment, I wonder whether he would allow his noble friend opposite first to give some answer about the time-scale involved. My noble friend asked whether there was to be any time by which these researches would be concluded. I should like to ask whether all these talks about which we have been told are going to lead to some sort of decision within a measurable time; and, if so, what is that time.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am sorry that I cannot answer the question about how long a research project would take; nor do I know when the consultations will actually mature. But, of course, plans have to be made for the next quinquennium—the 1972–77 quinquennium—so that decisions on expenditure for the next quinquennium by the Department of Education and Science can be made; and it is on this side, I suppose, that the special provisions for single students would lie. But I should like an opportunity to go into this further, and if the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on this I will gladly try to answer it.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will go into this further. I hope he will go further not only into the ques- tion of date but into the whole subject in all its aspects. I see that in the discussions on the 1969 Bill I poured rather cool water on a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that a working party should be set up. I said: I confess I am sometimes suspicious of working parties, which spend a lot of time working but may not produce expeditious results. I think those words of mine have been justified by the history of the past three years. Nevertheless, we cannot take the matter further tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I think perhaps we have gone as far as we need go tonight. I beg to move the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.