Lords Sitting of 3 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

BARONESS PIKE
Irene Mervyn Parnicott Pike, having been created Baroness Pike, of Melton in Leicestershire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness North-church and the Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

LORD LOVELL-DAVIS
Peter Lovell Lovell-Davis, Esquire, having been created Baron Lovell-Davis, of Highgate in Greater London, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ardwick and the Baroness Bacon.
The Lord Robertson of Oakridge—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIME MINISTER: ADVISERS' SALARIES
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what salaries are being paid to those appointed to assist and advise the Prime Minister other than accredited civil servants.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Dr. Bernard Donoughue's salary is £9,828 per annum. The estimated aggregate annual cost of the salaries of the members of the unit which he heads is £35,000.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? This is taxpayers' money, I presume. Is
282
it necessary to bring in these people, these alleged omniscient and omnipotent outsiders, because we no longer have any faith in the Civil Service? Is it not possible for members of the Civil Service to provide the expertise, as in the past?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, these salaries are paid out of public funds, but I am sure my noble friend will recognise the role of a career civil servant in serving with loyalty Governments of any political complexion. They provide what is called official advice, but I think it is being increasingly recognised that Prime Ministers and Ministers require a more political appraisal of events and proposals as they are brought forward—and I use the word "political" with a small "p".
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, am I to understand, therefore, that they are political advisers? Is it not possible for the Labour Party at Transport House to provide political advice? Do they not have the expertise? Is my noble friend aware that I was in four Governments and never required any outside advice, and that I managed to get on pretty well? If there is any challenge against that, I should like to hear it. But why is this necessary? Why have these jobs for the boys"? And when a new Government come in, are these people dismissed'? Is this the American system?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not the American system; and, so far as my noble friend is concerned, I am sure the House recognises that he is unique. Previous Prime Ministers and Ministers have appointed advisers in one form or another. Sir Winston Churchill, in the war-time Government, had Lord Cherwell; and other Prime Ministers have appointed advisers. I think there is general recognition of the fact that, with the amount of paper and pressure that one now has, official advice, worthy though it may be, may not meet the full need; and that therefore there is something to be said for having political advisers—and again I am using the word with a small "p"—available.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I think it is a pity that my noble friend should have furnished the example of Lord Cherwell as an adviser to Churchill. Does he not know that, historically, it

283
has been proved with the utmost accuracy that Cherwell was a calamity?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I will follow my noble friend in that piece of history.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that we are not developing a system of "place men"?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord in any way, but is he able to say, without notice, how many of these political advisers are giving advice to the Prime Minister on political matters relating to Europe?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is an advisory unit which no doubt gives advice to the Prime Minister on all aspects of public affairs.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Parliament, taking the other place and this House together, no longer seems to be able to make any decisions? It merely acquiesces; it does not legislate. Is my noble friend aware, looking at the whole gamut of the other place and this, that political, economic, scientific and other advisers can be found in these two places with political nous as good as any that can be found outside with dandy intellectualism?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no intention of dealing with the other place, but I would agree with my noble friend that this House has a great deal of nous about most things. However, whether it is necessarily the nous that a Prime Minister should rely upon is a matter for comment.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have no wish to disturb the extreme conservatism displayed on the Benches opposite? Is he also aware that we on these Benches think the Prime Minister needs all the help he can get?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble and radical Lord for that constructive assistance. But, my Lords, we shall wait and see.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this further question? If the Prime Minister wants advice, why does he not apply to me? He will not have to pay for it and, what is more, he will be far better off.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will see that the most generous suggestion of my noble friend is conveyed to my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, so far as I gather. Mr. Wedgwood Benn has also appointed some political advisers who are outside the Civil Service? Will the noble Lord agree that this practice must not get too prevalent? Otherwise, it might run riot, because we do not know what the salaries are.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not quite sure where the noble Viscount is seeking to take us, but I will study what he has said and see whether I need to write to him.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, on a more serious note, may we take it that the advisers will be in close touch with the Departments which deal with the subjects on which they advise? Otherwise, there might be some danger in a duality of advice to the Prime Minister. One's mind goes back to certain periods before the war. And can we take it that the advisers will be subject to the Official Secrets Act?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. They are subject to the Official Secrets Act and they are in constant contact with all the Departments of State. While these people give advice to the Prime Minister, this does not in any way question the validity of the official advice that is provided by the career civil servants.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND P.O.W.s
2.57 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the torturing of Israeli prisoners of war by the Syrians, they will take steps to deal with this under the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war; and whether they will take steps towards amending these provisions, if necessary, so as to deal more effectively with such breaches.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all four Geneva Conventions include provisions for a Protecting Power to oversee the enforcement of the Conventions. These provisions were not applied in recent conflicts in the Middle East. The strengthening of the Protecting Power system is one of Her Majesty's Government's prime concerns in their approach to the Geneva Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, which is due to meet again in February of next year.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that two Israeli prisoners of war died after torture; that many of them were maimed and received other injuries, and that men were shot at with blank fire as they were baling out of aeroplanes? Can we not do something in order to urge that these people should be brought to trial, and that some kind of international action should be taken in the matter? If we cannot, is it not essential to have the Convention altered so as to enable civilised people to intervene in these matters?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware of allegations made by both sides in the Middle East conflict. We ourselves made representations to the Syrian authorities when we received news of the allegations which were made. We fulfilled our obligations as one of the contracting Powers to the four Geneva Conventions. I believe that, since the war is now over, it is far better to use all our influence and energy to improve
286
these Conventions, which we are now seeking to do at the Geneva Conference.

HEATING IN LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSES
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider it wise that council houses should no longer be constructed with fireplaces but should rely for heat solely on electricity and gas.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, all new local authority dwellings must contain an installation or appliances capable of meeting the minimum Parker Morris standard of heating. There are many different systems of heating which can satisfy that requirement, and they are not confined to electricity and gas. The choice of system is a matter for each local housing authority.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he would agree that to all intents and purposes the electricity and gas authorities are really monopolies in which the unions can hold the public to ransom, by the cutting-off of heat and light especially in the winter, which may cause the deaths of old people? Though I was pleased to hear that there are alternative systems, would it be possible for the noble Lord to say what those alternative systems are? Apart from fireplaces and paraffin stoves, I can think of no alternative system.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if a local authority chooses to install something other than solid fuel heating at the outset but thinks it right to provide a flue in addition, it is free to do so.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that it is obligatory to have some method of ventilation when gas or any other fuel is burnt inside a house, and that a flue is therefore essential?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if a flue such as the noble Viscount has

287
referred to in his Question is installed, it only provides ventilation for the one room to which it is connected.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that that is better than providing no ventilation at all and that, especially in rural areas—this may not apply in city areas—if one has a fireplace one can at least get wood?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, of course I agree that it is better than having no flue at all.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that, when a council decides to build a house without a coal fire, it does so on the advice of its official architects and other official advisers, and does not this Question show the great value of having the views of a political adviser such as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in view of the probability that all forms of energy, including electricity, gas and coal, will become much more expensive, would it not be advisable for the Government to recommend to local authorities proper insulation of the houses which they build, and also for them to examine the question of centralised heating installations? Is the noble Lord aware of the enormous amount of energy which is being wasted at power stations all over the country which, in Scandinavia, is usually piped to the houses in the vicinity?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure that all Governments—as many Members of this House do—give much advice to local authorities.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that last winter those people living in North London had no gas, and this winter they had practically no electricity, and that the provision of some other form of heating in a council house would be a wise idea, as next winter both gas and electricity may be cut off?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would my noble friend also bear in mind—though I am the last person who should say this—that last winter they had no coal either?

MENTAL HEALTH: AFTER-CARE SERVICE
3.5 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to remedy the serious defects of the services at present available for those suffering from mental illness and mental handicap, bearing in mind the plight of hospital patients now being discharged into a community which does not provide the necessary aftercare.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, while considerable improvements have been made, the pace of development has not matched the hopes which were expressed at the time when the White Paper was issued in June 1971. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services accordingly recently announced her intention to press for higher priority to be given to loan consents so that the pace of development of local authority services for the mentally handicapped could be brought up to the level envisaged in the White Paper.
I want to be perfectly frank and tell your Lordships that the Government are fully aware of the present deficiencies in both health and social services for the mentally ill. We have already expressed the intention of giving high priority to such services in our allocation of resources.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether it would be possible to have greater evaluation of the local authority service already in existence, bearing in mind that to provide the wrong after-care facilities would be wasting resources which are already very scarce? Also, could the noble Lord tell me when the White Paper on Services for the Mentally Ill is likely to be published, to clarify the present uncertain position about the run-down of the hospitals for the mentally ill?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to take first the second point of the noble

289
Countess, it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to produce the White Paper to which the noble Countess referred in the very near future. With regard to the assessment of the situation now to be found in local authority areas, I cannot give an exact account to your Lordships of what is taking place, except to say that my right honourable friend is satisfied with the progress that local authorities are making. The real problem at the present moment is that of money, and I think I ought to say to your Lordships that we have not been able to make as much allocation in this field as the local authorities themselves would like. This lack of progress is not due to lack of effort on the part of local authorities but to the lack of money.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that after-care facilities are being provided by voluntary bodies under the auspices of the National Association for Mental Health? Further, would he encourage local authorities to give every assistance to these local organisations which can provide the services at a lower cost than the local authority itself, but which most of the time have to beg for money from various foundations while finding great difficulty in receiving full grants from their respective local authorities?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend has always accepted that there is a tremendous part for local voluntary organisations to play in this matter, and many of them, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, are in receipt of grants from various sources and various trust funds. However, the problem is so huge that local authorities must in the main undertake the educational and residential facilities which are necessary. As I say, there is no hesitancy on their part to do it; the difficulty is in providing them with means.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, anent this Question, of the plight of discharged hospital mental patients? Some of us who have represented areas with magnificent mental hospitals are aware of the good work of small businessmen and small factory owners in employing discharged
290
mental patients. Could it be put on record by the Government that we appreciate this? Is my noble friend aware that these people do this, when there is a tendency to cast aside thousands of voluntary workers these days in favour of some paid type of service?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept everything that my noble friend has said on this matter but, if I may say so with respect, the Question related to the menially ill and the mentally handicapped who have to be looked after in the community because they have no friends, no families and nowhere to go. I recognise, because I have personal knowledge of it, the amount of help which is given to-day to the mentally ill by a large number of individuals. But those who have no home and no job must become the responsibility of the local authority which must provide the educational and residential facilities.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how much publicity has been given to this matter, in view of the fact that there are large numbers of middle-aged couples without children and with vacant accomrnodation in their homes who might be willing to give accommodation to these people if the situation were explained to them? Has the Department given any thought to that aspect of the question?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a satisfactory reply on this point. I do not know to what extent there has been any advertising on the lines that she suggested, but this is a matter which has been mentioned several times in debates in your Lordships' House and I will take the matter up to see what the position is.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could not the Government endeavour to extend the scope and increase the rate of the attendance allowance, which would go a long way towards relieving pressure both on the hospitals and on the local authorities?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to look into this matter, and if there is anything I can say to him I will communicate with him.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
3.11 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the current industrial action in the National Health Service."
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord WellsPestell will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. and this will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the printing difficulties.

CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Report received.

HOUSING BILL
3.13 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have to say that page 102 of the Bill available to your Lordships is incorrect but a corrected version of page 102 is available in the Printed Paper Office. I regret this error but, as my noble friend the Chief Whip has said, a Statement is being made with regard to printing difficulties at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m.
292
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time, and with permission I should like to speak at the same time about the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It has been said that Housing Bills tend to be scattered through the Parliamentary Order Papers like leaves before an autumn wind. I am told that there have been no less than 51 Acts of Parliament dealing in one way or another with housing policy since 1945. Earlier this week this House sent on its way, for consideration in another place, a Rent Bill which proposes the introduction of security of tenure for certain tenants living in furnished accommodation. And now we have before us the present Housing Bills. This legislative activity is an indication both of the complexity of our housing problems and of the importance which successive Governments rightly attach to the task of tackling them.
Before I turn, therefore, to a description of the main objectives and provisions of the Bills I should like briefly to indicate the nature of the housing situation with which they deal. The national picture is not one in which we can take any great pride, for despite a good deal of progress over the past decade, both in terms of unfit houses that have been cleared away and of poor dwellings that have been improved, we still have about one household in five in England and Wales living in sub-standard accommodation. There are still over a million houses which are statutorily unfit. The central areas of many of our major towns and cities are under the threat of physical decay, and it is in these urban cores that we find the worst concentrations of sub-standard housing. Also, there are millions of people suffering from poverty and other social disadvantages. It is there that one finds poor job opportunities, outworn schools, starved community services, and a grave lack of open space.
In order to deal effectively with such areas of multiple deprivation it has steadily become more and more obvious that we must progressively adopt an integrated policy approach. Piecemeal solutions have proved to be no solutions. We have also learned that, if we are to meet the real—if sometimes unexpressed—needs of local communities we must no longer seek to tackle our older areas by

293
the crude deployment of bulldozers. There have been occasions when areas have been neglected to such an extent that they cannot be saved, and demolition of the houses becomes the only possible solution.
However, we now realise that this sad and socially disruptive result often can and should be avoided. Instead local authorities need to be encouraged to step in early and devise a sensible strategy of gradual renewal, using a mixture of rehabilitation and improvement, of small-scale redevelopment and "infill" building, and of environmental treatment, along with a careful and integrated use of other housing and social service powers. We also need to involve the people living in these areas in the revitalisation of their district more fully than has been the case hitherto. In other words, we need to devise, nationally and locally, a comprehensive, co-ordinated and sensitive approach to the task of urban renewal.
My Lords, it is against this background that we should consider first the Housing Bill. I shall say a few words later about the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that had circumstances been different this is not entirely the Bill we would have chosen to bring forward. If we had unlimited time to conduct a detailed and constructive analysis of the facts and the national housing requirements, we should have introduced, in about a year's time, a measure of a rather more radical nature. But we judged that, with suitable adjustments, early reintroduction of the provisions contained in the previous administration's Housing and Planning Bill would allow us to make a very useful start along the road we intend to follow. I believe that it is common ground between the Parties that there was much in the earlier Bill that was desirable; and those provisions are to be found in the Housing Bill before us now. There was also nothing in the earlier Bill which was inconsistent with the Government's long-term housing objectives.
We decided, therefore, quickly to strengthen certain proposals of the Party opposite prior to bringing forward this Bill, with the aim of getting it on to the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity, thus allowing a start to be made on tackling the areas of greatest housing stress. Nevertheless, certain essential changes have been made during the Bill's
294
passage through the House of Commons, and further Amendments will be proposed at the appropriate time to your Lordships. I shall be describing the more important of these as I turn now to outline the Bill's main provisions.
Parts I to III of the Bill represent the Government's charter for the voluntary housing movement, and since they largely reflect the previous Administration's own proposals I hope we may find that they represent a bipartisan, or indeed an all-Party, realisation of the significant role that housing associations can play in meeting housing needs, particularly in the areas of greatest stress. The difference between the Government and their predecessors in this matter is only one of emphasis. We do not accept that the voluntary housing movement can ever, or should ever, compete with local authorities in meeting the housing needs of an area. We believe it is unrealistic to pretend that within the foreseeable future the number of houses provided by housing associations will form a dominant proportion of the nation's housing stock, although in particular stress areas the proportion can be significant.
Local authorities, the elected representatives of the community, however, have the wider duty and the powers to determine the housing priorities of their areas, and must bear the major share of the task of meeting them. But in doing this they will find it increasingly useful—and indeed many of them have already found it useful—to make use of housing associations, with the flexibility that housing associations can offer to meet specialised needs, uninhibited by some of the constraints within which local authorities quite properly have to work in respect of housing lists and so on. We can, I think, expect to see housing associations leading the way in catering for the needs of particular categories of tenant—especially those not forming conventional family groups—and in developing new forms of tenant participation and cooperative tenure whereby tenants can acquire a real stake in their homes.
For the first time, the Government have accepted in this Bill that the full cost of housing association schemes must be met. Instead of the previous confusing hotch-potch of inadequate grants and subsidies, which left even the best of housing associations living from hand

295
to mouth, the Bill will provide a system of financial support for housing associations which will completely cover the net cost of all new projects—whether by purchase, improvement, or new building—which provide rented housing or hostel accommodation. In addition there are new deficit grants which will, at the discretion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, take care of the inherited burdens of the past.
In order to ensure that the public funds we propose to allocate to housing associations are put to good use, the Bill also provides for a new and stricter régime for the voluntary housing movement. In this new régime the Housing Corporation will play the key part. Under the provisions of Part I of the Bill, the Corporation is given extended powers to provide land and loan finance for housing associations; and also, through the registration system in. Part II, to exercise control over the movement. Registered housing associations will be prevented from disposing of property without the Corporation's consent, and they will be subject to inquiry and audit into their management affairs. This sort of control is something for which the best of the housing associations have themselves been calling for a very long time.
I ought to say a few words about the registration of housing associations. In the longer term, I think everyone will accept that the voluntary housing movement has to be rationalised and streamlined, so that the future growth we all wish to see derives from and is concentrated upon associations with the necessary expertise and management resources. We have considered how far it will be possible for the Corporation to use registration as a means of carrying out this process of streamlining. They will certainly wish to refuse registration to associations which seem too shaky to do a really adequate job, and this will not necessarily reflect on the honesty or good faith of those in charge. But it is clear that in the time available it will not be practicable to use registration to carry out a full restructuring of the movement, so as to eliminate duplication and embody a fully worked out set of housing priorities. This process will, however, follow as a consequence of the system of allocating finance for further development.
296
The whole registration process will be under the control of an Advisory Committee. It has been suggested that there should be an appeals system for housing associations whose application for registration is rejected by the Housing Corporation. This matter has been very carefully considered by the Government. We realise that the refusal of registration could be a serious matter for an association. The new housing association grants provided for in Part III of the Bill will be available only to registered associations, as will loan finance from either the Housing Corporation or local authorities.
Nevertheless, in the Government's view it would not be feasible to set up any formal appeals mechanism. Registration will be a difficult task for the Housing Corporation, and we must give them the necessary flexibility to carry it out properly. The Corporation must be able to exercise their judgment about the competence and stability of associations, often on the basis of confidential information, in a way which simply would not work if it had to stand up to formal justification before an appellate body.
Moreover, it is difficult to see what such an appellate body would, in fact, be able to consider. It is for the Corporation to determine the criteria by which registration is carried out, and it would be very difficult for any other body to assess the extent to which a particular association met those criteria. It would certainly not be right, in our view, for the Housing Association's Registration Advisory Committee to be given an appeals role in respect of all rejected associations, although the Advisory Committee can consider individual cases which are referred to it by the Corporation.
In our view, the proper way to ensure that registration is properly handled is to strengthen the general role of the Advisory Committee. This is why at Committee stage we propose to introduce an Amendment requiring the Housing Corporation to determine criteria for registration in consultation with the Advisory Committee. This, together with the membership of the Advisory Committee (my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has already announced that Mr. Harold Campbell is to be Chairman of the Committee) will, we think, reassure the housing associations that registration will be properly carried out.

297
In addition to its duties in respect of housing associations, the Housing Corporation will also be given powers to provide housing on its own behalf, to acquire securities and for subsidiaries and to guarantee loans from private lenders. These powers are not to be feared as representing some Trojan horse of State control. They will be used for the broad objectives of promoting the provision of much-needed housing by the voluntary housing movement, in full co-operation with the housing associations themselves, and with local authorities.
I turn now to Part IV of the Bill, which contains the Government's proposals for housing action areas, a concept which is the major innovation in this legislation and which will enable local authorities more incisively to improve housing conditions in the worst areas; providing a real alternative to clearance of unfit houses in appropriate cases. It is to these objectives that the Bill relates the more generous improvement grants and the more specific powers for local authorities to purchase property in these areas—by agreement, negotiation and compulsory purchase order if need be—in the interests of residents. It is the Government's belief that bringing rented accommodation into social ownership—primarily into local authority ownership, but we also include within that category dwellings coming into the hands of registered housing associations—will be, in many cases, the most direct, effective and permanent way of meeting the challenge of the stress areas.
The Bill does not attempt to lay down specific criteria which would make an area eligible for declaration as a housing action area, but it makes clear that the physical state of the accommodation and social conditions are the basic guide. Nor does it say what size a housing action area should be. It has deliberately been drawn wide so as to provide a framework within which local authorities can deal with these bad areas, which will vary in their characteristics and size throughout England and Wales.
Within housing action areas a number of special powers will operate. These include: improvement grants at a rate of 75 per cent. with the possibility of grants of up to 90 per cent. in cases of hardship; grants for repair only not
298
associated with improvement; stronger powers of compulsory improvement; the more specific powers of purchase I have just mentioned; and a grant for improving living conditions in the area. We plan to go further than this by adding to and extending the range of special powers to deal with substandard housing.
We shall introduce Amendments while the Bill is in your Lordships' House so that people (other than defined categories of owner-occupiers) selling residential property in a housing action area will have to advise the local authority in advance and declare their interest in the property. Anyone giving a tenant notice to quit will likewise have to notify the authority. This will inform authorities of those tenanted, or formerly tenanted, properties in housing action areas which are up for sale or are in danger of leaving the rented sector: they will thus know what is afoot, and will be able to take appropriate action under their housing powers, including perhaps seeking to buy the property themselves. We regard this as a practical measure for realising the kind of objectives the previous Government had in mind when they suggested the so-called "first refusal" option. They found that that original idea, while beguilingly attractive, proved to be extremely complex when an attempt was made to translate it into legal and practical terms.
The notification system will, as I think the House will agree when we bring our Amendments forward, prove to be a very acceptable alternative way of achieving the result we all wish to see. We shall also propose a new power for local authorities to declare a further kind of area. It will be designed to prevent stress from just "rippling out" from housing action areas and general improvement areas. It will help to discourage anti-social landlords from anticipating more intensive treatment by local authorities by taking steps, as regards their properties or their tenants, which would merely transfer the problems local authorities have to deal with from one area to the next. And it will pave the way for future action. These special areas will thus be both protected and safeguarded, and they will be seen to be neighbourhoods which will receive priority action in the not-too-distant future. I trust that this, too, will commend itself to your Lordships.

299
Within such areas, two of the special housing action area powers should be immediately available—the powers of acquisition by local authorities provided for in Clause 42 of the Bill and the system of notification of property transactions and of notices to quit which I have described a few moments ago. We shall propose that this new type of area may be declarable in respect of areas adjoining (or surrounding) a housing action area or general improvement area. These proposed powers would add substantially to the housing action area concept, providing an essential defence against potential social disruption and deprivation. They would also usefully prepare for future declarations of general improvement areas and housing action areas, and pave the way to dealing with those neighbourhoods by rehabilitation, environmental improvements and a certain amount of redevelopment action to which other social programmes—education, amenities, health and welfare services and so on—could be related.
Another change we have already made—and it is one your Lordships will welcome—concerns the grant for external environmental works in housing action areas. The provision in the Bill as first introduced was limited to improvements to individual properties within housing action areas. Expenditure on improving the environment and living conditions in housing action areas will now be eligible for assistance. The total amount of local authority expenditure, for providing assistance to a housing action area, which will now be eligible for Exchequer subsidy will be £50, multiplied by the number of all the dwellings and other units of housing accommodation in the area; but under the Bill as it was first introduced, only those dwellings improved to intermediate standard were included.
The power to vary by Order the sum of £50, generally referred to in Clause 45(6), has been extended so that it can be varied also for descriptions of authorities or areas. This will enable different treatment to be given to different regions of the country. These alterations to the grant envisaged by the previous Administration will help to widen the concept of housing action areas and make their treatment more relevant to the range of conditions which need to be tackled in
300
areas of bad housing in the different parts of England and Wales. I do not claim that this is more than a modest provision, but it is a useful start, as I think your Lordships will agree. Parts V, VI and VII of the Bill contain new and strengthened arrangements for general improvement areas, for the house renovation grant system and for compulsory improvement powers.
There has been a tremendous surge in the number of houses that have been modernised in recent years with the aid of grants. I am pleased that an increasing number of local authorities are beginning to switch their attention towards the possibility of rehabilitation and away from slum clearance. Indeed, we estimate that since 1967 about 100,000 unfit dwellings have been restored to fitness annually, on top of the 65,000 or so unfit houses that have been cleared each year. The trend—which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a healthy one—looks like continuing. Fewer houses will be cleared in 1974 than in any year since the early 1950s, while very substantial numbers will be improved, many of them with the help of grants.
As I said in my opening remarks, we still have a long way to go before we reach the goal we set ourselves of providing everyone with a decent home. And I also pointed out that the worst areas are concentrated in the hearts ca our older industrial towns and major cities. It is not before time, therefore, that the Government are introducing measures which, while maintaining the drive on house improvement, will redirect resources and effort to where it is most needed and where it will do most good.
In future, the Bill's provisions will see to it that we are more selective and discriminating in the use to which grants are put. In the past, there has been virtually no bar on the kind of owner who could obtain a grant, nor on the kind of improvement which is grant-aided. This has led to obvious abuses that have been raised in this House from time to time. Grants have gone towards the improvement of leisure homes, often to the disadvantage of local people in the villages concerned who find themselves priced out of the market. Speculators, especially in London, have seized on the grants as an aid to their anti-social

301
activities in buying up old properties, winkling out the tenants, converting the properties into high-priced flats and selling at a vast capital gain.
The Bill provides that grants will not henceforth be available for improving second homes, nor will they be available for developers who wish merely to improve houses and then sell them. Grants will go only to genuine owner-occupiers and to other owners who undertake to keep their dwellings available for letting. Moreover, we have reintroduced strengthened conditions to be attached to grants. They will apply to improved dwellings outside housing action areas for five years, while inside housing action areas the conditions will run for seven years. Beyond that, we propose to make a change which will have the effect of guaranteeing that landlords in housing action areas and general improvements areas will be prevented from improving their property and then charging their furnished tenants a vastly inflated rent. We shall he further strengthening the conditions to make it a breach of grant conditions if anyone sells during the five years or seven years period, as appropriate. And there will be provision to stop discretionary improvement grants going to the more expensive types of owner-occupier property; and to stop any grants going to houses built as recently as twelve years ago.
Within this controlled structure we have adopted the proposals in the former Administration's Bill for 60 per cent grants in general improvement areas, and 75 per cent, grants in housing action areas, with grants of up to 90 per cent. in latter areas in case of hardship. And we have retained the proposals for repairs-only grants for needy owners in both these types of special area. We have also retained the proposal that the Government share of the preferential grants should be increased from the normal 75 per cent. to 90 per cent., thus leaving local authorities to carry only a very small part of grant expenditure in these special areas. We believe that this extra measure of support will enable swift and necessary progress to be made towards dealing with the worst housing conditions in our towns and cities.
The extra grant aid will of course be backed by the powers of compulsory
302
improvement in Part VII of the Bill. These powers, too, will be stronger than the earlier proposals in that they now apply to certain owner-occupiers in general improvement areas; moreover, local authorities will be able more readily to use their default powers where they believe the owners do not intend to carry out the required work within the time specified. In the worst cases of course we expect that local authorities would make use of their powers of compulsory purchase, not as a prelude to demolition, but to secure that the management and maintenance of older houses passes into responsible hands. But this does not mean that there is no need for the cornpulsory improvement powers proposed in Part VII of the Bill. The Government accept the view of the many local authorities that have been consulted on this issue, that it would be helpful to them to have this additional power which would enable them to make a more flexible response to the demands and duties placed upon them to remedy a variety of bad housing conditions.
Part VIII of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous but important provisions. I shall not take up the time of the House by describing the purpose of these various clauses, but if any points are raised on them during the debate my noble friend will deal with them when he winds up. As I have said, we are debating two Bills to-day—the Housing Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I think it would be appropriate and helpful if, at this point, I said a few words about the latter. It corresponds broadly to Parts IV to VII of the Housing Bill in that it deals primarily with house improvement grants and housing action areas. However, while the objectives at which it aims are the same as those in the Parts of the Housing Bill I have mentioned (for example, greater selectivity in the operation of the house improvement grant scheme) it differs in the means whereby these are achieved.
These flow from differences in existing legislation. For example, there is a procedure in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969 for the declaration by local authorities of housing treatment areas for clearance, improvement or a mixture of the two, and the Scottish housing action area provisions in the Bill are founded

303
on this existing scheme. I do not think it is necessary or desirable at this stage to attempt to describe in detail the mainly mechanical differences between the two Bills. If any questions do arise, I know that my noble friend Lord Hughes will be glad to answer them when he winds up the debate later to-day.
However, there are two clauses, Nos. 45 and 46 in the Scottish Bill which I think I am bound to mention specifically, since they are not paralleled in the Housing Bill. Clause 45 extends the powers of local authorities in Scotland to lend money to enable people to buy, build or improve houses. This extension is in line with additional powers which were given to local authorities in England and Wales in the Local Government Act 1974 which was enacted just before the last General Election. Clause 46 provides for a new subsidy—the rent income subsidy—which will re-imburse local authorities in general for at least 80 per cent. of the rent income which they have lost as a result of the standstill on rents which the Government introduced shortly after taking Office this year.
My Lords, these are important Bills. Although they deal in the main with old houses, they look to the future and provide the means whereby that future can be one of greater hope, stability and comfort for the people living in our older residential areas. I am confident that this House will wish to welcome these Bills and to speed them on their way to enactment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

N.H.S. HOSPITALS: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
4.48 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to a Private Notice Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I should like, with the permission of your Lordships, to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I should also like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the fact that I have not been able to give him a copy of this Statement, but I have only just received it myself. The Statement is as follows:
304
"Industrial action is being undertaken at some hospitals by several groups of workers.
"Action by these groups is connected with negotiation of salaries for new senior management posts in the reorganised National Health Service. The Staff Side is considering a revised offer made in the Whitley Council last night. In view of this I would hope that the staff concerned will carry out their full duties.
"The technicians' action concerns an arbitration award of 1972 which could not be implemented under the previous Government's statutory pay policy. The Management Side have made offers for implementation after the ending of statutory controls but agreement has not yet been reached. I am keeping in touch with health authorities as regards the maintenance of essential treatment for patients.
"I announced on May 23 that Lord Halsbury had agreed to take the chair of an independent Inquiry into the salaries of nurses and midwives. This was welcomed by the Staff Side of the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council. But one Union, the Federation of Health Service Employees, maintained their view that nurses should receive an interim payment before the Inquiry had reported. They advised me on June 21 that they had imposed certain restrictions on the work of their members and that these would be extended from July 1.
"Having appointed an independent Inquiry I was, and am, unable to agree to make interim payments but I spoke to Lord Halsbury and in order to remove any doubts about the timing of his Report I issued a Statement on June 28. In this I indicated that Lord Halsbury had told me that he would be in a position to give me a firm date for his, Report at the end of July. He was of the view that his Report would be completed by the late summer and I have no reason to believe that it will be delayed beyond then. But I made it known that should it appear in a month's time that the Report was likely to be seriously delayed I would then consider asking Lord Halsbury to make an interim recommendation.
"On June 29 COHSE announced that they had called off their industrial

305
action except for a refusal to undertake non-nursing duties, to work with agency nurses or to work with private patients. The position is not yet clear and action is sporadic and localised. Some nursing and other staff, including some who are not members of COHSE, are threatening to refuse to work with agency nurses or to provide services for private patients. At Charing Cross Hospital certain staff threatened to withdraw their services, including domestic, catering and linen services, unless the private wing was closed by the end of June. To safeguard the patients the Area Health Authority proposed that patients receiving treatment in the private wing should be transferred to general ward beds. In view of subsequent representations from the consultants responsible for the treatment of the private patients on clinical grounds the authority is having further discussions with the union and is meeting the consultant staff this afternoon.
"In all these discussions the concern of the Area Health Authority has been and will be to safeguard the interests of patients as a whole. As the House is aware, it is the policy of the Government, as set out in our Manifesto and reiterated since, to phase out private practice from the Hospital Service and while I can understand the feelings of the staff I cannot condone the action they are taking. We believe that this issue must be dealt with by the Government of the day, and in an orderly way. We established immediately on taking Office a Joint Working Party with the medical profession about this and other aspects of hospital consultants' work in an effort to reach agreement and I hope to be in a position to present our proposals early next year."
The Statement concludes by saying:
"I would ask all those who work in the National Health Service not to damage these negotiations or the interests of patients by action of this kind."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for the full Statement he has made. There are two points in it which I find encourag-
306
ing. The first is the Government's firm decision that they cannot condone action of this kind which may possibly damage the welfare of patients. Something which must be accepted by those who work in the Health Service in any form at all from the top to the bottom, is that the welfare of the patients must be the paramount consideration and it should not be jeopardised at all by trying to play about with Party politics, which can come from another part of the world entirely but not from Health Service employees. I am very pleased to know, too, that the Area Health Authorities are taking what action they can to safeguard the patients. These are two very encouraging matters and I should like to thank the noble Lord for them.
I would also ask him a question on a minor point. Last night I saw in the Evening Standard, which is a moderately reputable paper with quite a large circulation, that members of the National Union of Public Health Employees (I think they are called) had been to the Department of Health and Social Security and somebody there had advised them to take the action they are taking now at Charing Cross Hospital. This is something I find very difficult to believe, because I know the Department fairly well. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to deny that, which will give comfort to me and to other people who read the same article in the newspaper.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter and for giving me an opportunity of replying to this particular point. There is no truth in the allegation that the Department of Health and Social Security have advised members of the National Union of Public Employees to refuse to feed or care for patients in private wards of the Charing Cross Hospital. I would make that quite clear. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was aware of the decision of the management to transfer patients from private wards, but accepted that this was being planned in the interests of patients.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we very much welcome the fact that the Government do not condone the action taken against private patients? Is he aware that private practice has been a perfectly legal part of

307
the National Health Service ever since it began in 1948, and that regardless of what the Government may have in mind it is still a perfectly legal practice within the National Health Service; and it is really monstrous that any union should try to act unilaterally in this way and discriminate against private patients, who are not only paying the rates and taxes which support the National Health Service but also paying the full economic cost of their treatment?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is perfectly right and this is the view that the Government take, and I hope I have made it very clear to your Lordships. Whatever may be the philosophic difference on the matter of private patients between noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on this side of the House, that is a matter to be determined in the future. But the position at present must be maintained, and it is certainly the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this position should be maintained.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: PRINTERS' DISPUTE
3.59 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place with regard to the supply of Parliamentary Papers. The Statement is as follows:
"Members are aware that since June 20 there has been difficulty regarding the supply of Parliamentary Papers. This has resulted from industrial action involving composing staff at the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press.
"Further industrial action was introduced this morning in seven of Her Majesty's Stationery Office's eight printing works by members of the National Graphical Association. Although no formal notice of any action has been received by H.M.S.O. from the Association at national level, it is understood to be in support of the Union's claim for improved pay and conditions which is currently under review.
"Among the work affected is the supply of Government Papers to Parliament. Copies of the documents essential to the business of the House
308
will continue to be made available, in limited quantities, in one form or another.
"Every effort is being made to resolve the dispute which is, of course, taking place against the background of recent difficulties in the newspaper and general printing industry, particularly in London."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. The House has shown restraint in not pressing the Government upon the most inadequate position concerning the supply of Parliamentary Papers. As I am sure the noble Lord will agree, the important thing is to try to resolve this dispute. From my own experience when I had Ministerial responsibility for Her Majesty's Stationery Office I know that solutions are often made harder rather than easier to achieve as a result of exchanges that can easily become rather partisan across the Floor of the House. However, this Statement indicates that the situation has taken a turn for the worse. Seven out of the eight printing works of Her Majesty's Stationery Office have now been affected by this dispute, and the time may he approaching when the degree of inconvenience for Parliament will become intolerable. If this point is reached, the Government may then have to consider other arrangements for the printing and supply of Parliamentary Papers so that the essential work of Parliament can continue. I shall not press the noble Lord any further to-day, but if it proves necessary to make arangements outside the normal printing service because of the industrial situation I am sure the noble Lord will have the support of all Members of the House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not wish to press the noble Lord upon any of the details of the negotiations, but may I ask him what arrangements we can make to ensure that this House can do justice to its legislative function? A number of very important measures are going through different stages in another place; I am thinking particularly of the trades union Bill, to which I understand some important Amendments have been made, and there may be other measures which are affected. If we are to do our

309
job, it is essential that in the hands of those noble Lords who are going to take part in the debates there should be a proper record of what happens in the other place. May we therefore have a look at this matter through the usual channels?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the restraint shown by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the Leader of the Opposition, and by the House as a whole. Recognising that over a period of weeks now we have been operating under very considerable difficulties, I am grateful for the way in which the House as a whole has co-operated, particularly those who have been operating the emergency services. May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that we have had two disputes. The first one has now been reconciled. The current dispute, which the noble Lord recognises is now of very grave proportions, is new and became known to the Government yesterday. Steps are being taken to see whether a solution can be found. Her Majesty's Stationery Office have gone as far as they can within the legal framework under which we are now operating. With regard to printing outside, I believe that one-fifth of all our Papers for Parliament is printed now by private printers. However, it is a very complex service that has to be provided, and it is questionable whether outside printers would be able to give your Lordships' House the same flexibility—the one-off print—which is very much a part of our Parliamentary service.
My Lords, I am particularly conscious of legislation, and I should be very happy, and would regard it as part of my duty, to have consultations through the usual channels about ways and means of overcoming any difficulties which may arise. I hope that any noble Lord—it is not just a question of those who are sitting on the Front Benches—who may have any particular difficulty will approach my office and I will see what steps can be taken to help him. However, at the present moment the less said about the conflict the better. I hope that we shall use ingenuity to overcome the present difficulty regarding Papers.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while paying tribute to those who are
310
operating the emergency services and recognising the great sense of justice of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I ask him whether those who are responsible for all the extra duplicating work—one can see it today in the case of the Housing Bill which we are discussing—are receiving extra remuneration either from this House or from the National Graphical Association?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a service which is provided by a unit that was set up to deal with such a situation. I think that the less said at this stage the better, but I hope that in a more convivial way this House will be able to show its appreciation to those who have carried a very heavy burden during the last few weeks.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend consider one way in which he might be able to help this House when we come to deal with some of the complicated legislation that comes up from another place? The Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill has been mentioned already. We shall not have before us the Hansard report of the Committee stage of that Bill in the other place which has undergone fairly considerable amendment. Would my noble friend therefore consider the possibility of having a memorandum drawn up which, in 1,500 or 2,000 words, would describe the way in which the Bill has been amended in the Standing Committee of the other House? Perhaps some of the other legislation could be dealt with in the same way.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, speaking as a Minister who will be taking part in this particular legislation, the fact that my noble friends opposite will not be able to have all the Hansard copies of the Committee stage might well be an advantage! However, in regard to my noble friend's suggestion, during the last few weeks I have made available to those noble Lords who have been leading on some rather complex legal legislation the Explanatory Notes on clauses. I will see whether that material can be made available. If I am unable to obtain sufficient copies for all I may be able to obtain sufficient copies to put into the Library for noble Lords to study. But certainly for those noble Lords who will have the responsibility of leading for their Parties

311
I will undertake that that material is made readily available.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, when the supply of Papers to your Lordships' House is interrupted, as it has been not for the first time on this occasion, and without wishing to enter into a dispute across the Floor of the House upon the merits of the case, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House consider that this House should at least know what it is that the trade union has a grievance about? Would the noble Lord consider giving an undertaking to circulate to Members of your Lordships' House a statement prepared by the trade union so that we may at least be aware of the grievances that it feels?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will consider that suggestion, but I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that although explanations may be given upon an industrial dispute and may well be understood within this general atmosphere, when they are published in the newspapers or in an OFFICIAL REPORT that may reflect the situation quite differently and perhaps cause greater difficulties when one is seeking a solution to an industrial dispute. So far as the, suggestion of the noble Lord is concerned, I will look at it and see whether we can help in this respect.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord inform us whether the agreed procedures for conciliation and for settling disputes in the industry have been gone through'? One wonders why this latest dispute has been, sprung upon us so suddenly?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord please forgive me? I suggested that at the present moment one ought not to go into the details of the problem. I should prefer to leave it as I have already explained.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises what a wonderful organisation Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been? The service that we have had in both Houses of Parliament for a very long time has been the envy of many another Parliament. We come now to the point where it is suggested that we may contract printing outside, and indeed we must do it if they fail us in this matter. However, would it not
312
be well to put it to the heads of the Stationery Office that a great tradition is in danger of being broken, because once we contract printing outside, that loyalty and efficiency, which together provides us at such short notice with our Papers, will have gone for ever?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Viscount has said about the great tradition and the great service of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I will certainly see that the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount, which I know will be shared by everyone in this Chamber, are conveyed to the head of the Department.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord give a simple answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hankey; namely, whether all the usual procedures of conciliation have, in fact, been carried out or whether this is a short cut?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought I had the sentiment of the House when I resisted the invitation to go into any details. If I were to go one stage to meet the noble Lord I think that I should be on a slippery slope. I would prefer to take the sentiment of the House and to remain silent on this issue.

HOUSING BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.11 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, in this House, we seem to be having a sequence of Bilk concerned with housing, but this is not surprising because housing is a matter of such importance to everyone throughout their lives. The Bill before us to-day, unlike the Rent Bill is not politically controversial. Although there are Amendments which we shall seek to make to it during the Committee stage, we on this side of the House shall support it at Second Reading.
As in the case of the Control of Pollution Bill this Bill is similar in principle to that introduced by the last Government, although this Bill has a different title. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his very detailed explanation of it. As we are taking two Bills together to-day, which I believe is a somewhat unusual procedure, I shall

313
confine my remarks to the Housing Bill and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who will be speaking later in the debate, will deal with the Scottish Bill. I am sure this is the best procedure for, although I understand that the two Bills are similar in principle, it is right that the Scottish Bill should receive full and proper treatment in this debate.
As I have said, my Lords, we support the principle of the Bill. It is a piece of legislation similar to that introduced by the previous Government and based largely on the White Paper—Better Homes: the Next Priorities. This White Paper identified, broadly speaking, three new areas of policy. First, there is the whole concept of housing action areas—a proposal contained in Part IV of the Bill. Secondly, it recognised that a great deal more needed to be done to bring up to standard the many properties in this country at present falling into decay, or those which do not have the basic amenities, or which need structural repairs to bring them into a fit condition. We have recognised the real danger, that as fast as new houses are built, older houses fall into disrepair and decay, so that when we come to look at the net increase in housing it is disappointingly low.
The third new principle is the extension of the functions of the housing corporation and the voluntary housing movement, a development which is most welcome, in that I believe it will provide a real alternative in housing to being either an owner occupier or a council tenant. I think it is recognised now that we have seen the provisions of the Rent Bill that there will soon be very few, if any, private landlords and very few private lettings. This is not something which I myself welcome, although I believe the Government do. However, it is important to recognise it as a fact so that the Government and local authorities will recognise that they too will have greatly increased responsibilities. For they will undoubtedly be called upon to house many people who are at present housed in private accommodation, and at the same time they will be asked to meet new and varied needs, to which I believe so far they have given no consideration at all.
Although I welcome the extended functions of the housing corporation, I hope it will not be used simply as another means of extending the municipalisation
314
of houses. I do not wish to dwell at length on the many disadvantages which could arise if we were to reach a stage where this country was a nation only of owner occupiers or council tenants. The polarisation of society into two separate groups would be most undesirable. The frequent inflexibility of local authority housing policies would mean that many people whose needs did not fit local authority housing schemes would suffer. Of course, not all people wish to to become tenants of council houses. But I believe that the housing corporation, as well as local authorities, should consider the variety of housing now needed and extensively offered in the past by the private landlord, and consider what provision they can make to meet that demand.
I should like to touch on two specific points. In the course of our deliberations on the Rent Bill we debated at length the difficulties facing young people in the future, and especially students. On reflecting further about this matter I should like to ask the Government whether, under Clause 28, it would be possible for student unions to be eligible for grants from the housing corporation. As I understand it, the difficulty facing student unions at the moment in providing hostel accommodation is that local authorities are restricted by circular as to the types of institution to which they can lend money. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for the Environment considers that the provision of accommodation comes more rightly under the Department of Education and Science. It is true that some local authorities offer surplus council housing to students, but it seems to me that one way of improving the present situation, which we all recognise to be one of great seriousness, is for student unions themselves to be responsible for providing some hostel accommodation. They, above all, should know the needs of the students. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government would consult the National Union of Students about such a proposition, and whether, if it were agreed, they would consider establishing a pilot scheme in some university town.
The second point which I should like to make is in regard to co-owner-ship schemes. This is an extremely complex subject, but I understand that co-ownership schemes are usually

315
administered by housing societies defined under the 1964 Housing Act, and that they aim to provide on a non-profit making basis cost-rent housing under co-ownership arrangements. In this respect, they differ from housing associations, whose tenants pay a fair rent. There is a great variety of schemes and between September 1, 1964, and the end of March, 1974, the housing corporation provided 48,119 housing units in 1,255 different schemes. The advantage of such schemes is that they provide a further variety of choice in housing, and as the housing corporation says—and I quote:
"… they give a modern home without any of the worries of an owner occupier in facing what can sometimes be heavy costs of repairs and maintenance and having to sell your house when you wish to move…"
They go on to say
"To give value for money based on the cost of providing the dwellings and the services that go with them."
However, the schemes have recently run into difficulties. At a time of rising interest rates and at the same time rising house prices some co-owners are at a disadvantage as compared with owner occupiers. For instance, some who entered the schemes in 1968 or 1969 are now having to pay, sometimes out of a fixed income, a much higher rent than they originally expected or now find that they can afford. I quote this simply as one complication, but there are others, for those who wish to leave a co-owner-ship scheme. But because of the complexities of the scheme, I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of co-ownership schemes, and for this misunderstanding I believe that the Housing Corporation must bear some measure of responsibility.
My Lords, I do not wish to go into further detail on this complex subject at Second Reading, but I should be glad to know, although I do not expect an answer to-day, whether the Government have any proposals or have considered an amendment to this Bill for dealing with the difficulties these schemes are presenting. In pointing out the difficulties, I should at the same time say that I hope a way of overcoming them will be found, so making co-ownership schemes work effectively to the benefit of the co-owners; add to the variety of choice in housing available, and enable
316
young people to get a foothold in the housing market.
Turning now to local authorities, I feel that I can only ask again, as I did on the Rent Bill, what advice the Government are going to give to local authorities in order that they can meet the new demands to be made on them. For example, are they right to continue to build ever more two- or three-bedroomed houses and flats? What provision are they going to make for single people? I think this to be an important point for the future. It has recently been drawn to my attention that taking the South-East, where the need for this sort of housing provision may be thought to be high, figures provided in a recent report of the National Economic Development Office, 1974, suggest that by far the greatest growth in private households between mid-1969 and mid-1981 will be in the one-person household. It is estimated that married couple households, the classic types whose need the housing policy of all Parties has been designed to try to satisfy, will grow by about 7 per cent. in that period, yet one-person households will grow by three times as much, over 20 per cent. In this connection, I wonder whether the Government have considered advising local authorities that they should review their housing waiting lists to see what has happened to everybody who has been on the list for some time, to see whether what they are proposing to build fits the wishes of the people on their list.
My Lords, I should like to press the Government to consider encouraging local authorities to sell council houses. This leads to a diversification on council housing estates. Anyone who is at all familiar with large council housing estates knows they can give rise to serious social problems. By mixing in owner-occupiers among the council tenants, one gets a mixed society, and one which I think benefits both groups of people.
I am very glad to see that the Bill retains the excellent objective of the Conservative Housing and Planning Bill; namely, the concentration of effort and resources on housing stress areas, now called housing action areas. We on this side of the House believe that in these areas it is necessary to act quickly, and that we should concentrate our resources on them. Of course, this is a policy of

317
selectivity, of concentrating help where it is needed most. For this reason, I hope that these areas will not be too large. I shall read with care what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, if I understood it right, on the possibility of extending them into a neighbouring area which might be known as a general improvement area, because it seems to me that once an area has been designated a housing action area, it ought to have only a limited duration. If we give indiscriminate help over too wide an area, we shall give less effective help in the area of those most in need.
I think it is useful for the House to know that support for the housing action area legislation has come from Shelter. I quote from a conference that was held a little time ago. In the Summary it is said:
"But in my view"—
that is the view of the Deputy Director of Shelter—
"it is by far the most relevant piece of legislation for securing improvement in conditions in the worst areas of housing stress that we have seen. It is based on a much better understanding of the economic and social forces at work in stress areas than in 1961. 1964 and 1969 Housing Acts."
My Lords, I am, however, concerned about Clause 46 which, as I understand it, gives powers to the Greater London Council to declare a housing action area or a general improvement area, if necessary against the wishes of a London borough within whose boundaries the housing action area might be. It seems to me that this goes against all the principles of local authority freedom as I have always understood them. But I understand that the proposals are departures from the basic principle which has so far been followed in London government; namely, that in matters of local housing improvement, the Greater London Council should not act except with the consent of the borough concerned. I hope for an assurance that the Government will look at this matter again, otherwise I intend to put down an Amendment on Committee stage.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I say that I also welcome most warmly the fact that the Government have retained Clause 64 which empowers local authorities to pay a grant for repairs. This follows
318
upon the grants for standard amenities, and the discretionary grants available for improvement, and should enable the excellent record of improvement of older homes of the last Government to be maintained. Not only does such a policy prevent the loss from the nation's housing stock of older housing, but equally important, it means that older houses, in which many people prefer to live, are repaired and brought up to date. It means the rehabilitation of areas rather than redevelopment of them, and that the community can be kept together. This in itself is so important for those living in the older parts of our cities, particularly the older people. May I also add a warm welcome to the grant for improvements to the environment. Everyone who has looked at the kind of improvements that can be made knows that it can do so much by tree planting, by effective layout in the poorer areas to improve the quality of life for all who live in them. For all those reasons, we wish to see this Bill on the Statute Book. As I said at the beginning, although we shall want to move some Amendments to it, in principle we support it.
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Housing Bill, although I am somewhat confused by the addition on the Order Paper of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, because I am sure your Lordships will agree that for any Episcopalian to express any opinions about what should or should not be done North of the Border would be most unwise. Only yesterday when I asked a Question on housing, I suffered the shrapnel from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and if I were to talk about Scotland to-day I might find some Jenny Geddes hurling her stool at me. So I confine myself to the Housing Bill so far as this country is concerned.
I welcome the Bill, as I did that put forward by the previous Administration. I welcome it even though, in my view, it does not go far enough. I have worked in London for more than 15 years, and I think that the housing situation has deteriorated nearly every year. Some of your Lordships may remember that 10 or 11 years ago the then Bishop of London and I led a procession to St. Paul's Cathedral and then to mine in Southwark.

319
Many hundreds of people, including the Lord Mayor of London, joined this procession. We thought the position was bad then, but it is infinitely worse to-day. Even compared with 1970, the situation is worse. Then there were 12,800 in temporary accommodation provided by the local authorities. More recently, pressures have reached the level where local councils arc having to place upwards of 700 families in London in bed and breakfast accommodation in hotels.
The homeless, alas, are only one category of people who are at a disadvantage in London. There are thousands of families living in overcrowded accommodation, which is so damaging to family life and is responsible for truancy, violent behaviour and many of the other social tragedies with which we who live in London are only too familiar. I am sure it is the housing situation which, niore than anything else, is responsible for violence among young people, and the conditions are worst precisely where there is the least hope of solving the problems. It is the Inner London boroughs, where the authorities are faced with almost insoluble problems, that demand all the sympathy and encouragement we can give to help them as they face these very difficult housing problems. Yes, my Lords, it is an appalling situation, and that adjective is not an over-statement.
The Bill sets out to tackle the situation and, in particular, the extended powers of the Housing Corporation as set out in the Bill are greatly to be welcomed, as they will facilitate greater activity on the part of housing associations thus providing an increase in the stock of rented accommodation. An increase in rented accommodation is something which is so much needed to-day. In 1940, which is only 30 years ago, 61 per cent. of all households lived in accommodation rented from private landlords. To-day the figure has dropped from 61 per cent. to between 17 and 18 per cent. and frequently the rents charged are exorbitant. I will not take up the time of your Lordships, but I speak as one who has to deal with the housing of young people. Reference has been made to students by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, opposite, and I am sure she knows as well as I do the most pathetic stories of students who are being asked for anything from
320
£14 to £15 for a single room; and I could cap that with even worse illustrations.
It is not just a question of those who are seeking rented accommodation for the reasons I have indicated. There are also those who are driven to it because they simply cannot afford to buy their own houses owing to the mortgage situation. According to a report in The Guardian last month, the building of private houses is likely to fall this year by over 40 per cent. Meanwhile, the number of households in this country is increasing due to various factors, including earlier marriage, the rise of one-parent families and because people are living longer. Housing associations are just one means of dealing with this serious problem. I welcome this Bill, because there is to be more generous treatment towards the housing associations. But I would ask the Government to bear in mind that it is felt in some quarters, rightly or wrongly, that the housing associations that are likely to be registered will be the larger ones with the greater resources and expertise. I can well understand that, but I would say to Her Majesty's Government that there are many smaller housing associations dealing with small sites which also need to be encouraged and which have a great deal to contribute.
The growth of the voluntary housing movement is to be welcomed, although it provides but a small percentage of rented accommodation between the private and the local authority landlord, and it cannot, of course, begin to solve the housing crisis. Much more needs to be done on a wider scale. We have to utilise all the resources possible, whether it be development land which is owned by central Government, or by local authorities, or by nationalised industries or, as I indicated when I asked my Question yesterday, land which is not wanted by the railways or the hospitals or the energy boards. And I admit, having been reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, yesterday, that there may very well be land owned by the Church which is not used and which, too, should be used for the building of houses.
In addition to that, we ought to consider the responsible use of the present stock of houses; and under that heading I include council houses as well as private

321
houses. I sometimes think that the rules applied by some local authorities deter tenants who would be quite prepared to offer accommodation to people other than members of their own family. Sometimes the rules are so hedged around that it becomes very difficult for a person living in a council house to let out a room to anyone other than a member of the family. Again, local authorities might do more to encourage people who no longer want to live in large houses, or who ought not to want to live in large houses, to move to smaller ones.
I have in mind an elderly widow whom I visited the other day. She had a large council house in which there were four bedrooms, for she had had a large family. The family has now flown from the nest, the husband is dead, and she lives alone in that house. Some local authorities encourage tenants to move to smaller houses and the scheme recently announced by the London Quadrant Housing Trust, whereby free accommodation is provided for the elderly or single in return for the purchase of family-sized properties, could well be copied elsewhere. I hope very much that the Government will urge local authorities to pursue such a path, and to do all they can to encourage people living in large houses to move to smaller ones and thus free the larger houses for families.
I welcome Parts IV and V of the Bill which deal with housing action areas and general improvement areas, as they enable local authorities to designate areas in which they have special powers to bring about improvements without the customary delays. Especially do I welcome the power that is given to local authorities to demand that landlords inform them of houses they wish to sell, so that local authorities have the opportunity to buy those houses and use them before the speculators can step in. However, we should not be under illusion with regard to the number of housing action areas that will be required in London. Nor should we be under any illusion as to the cost of these proposals, because very costly they will be. Especially is this true of the five or six Inner London boroughs, where there is so much to be done by way of restoring the houses that are rapidly deteriorating and by improving the general amenities of the areas.
322
In conclusion I have two points. First, I hope that there will be a determined effort to deal with the overspill areas and with the outer London boroughs. I am well aware—and the Government will know it—that this is a delicate matter. There is a natural reluctance on the part of the outer boroughs to welcome people from the inner boroughs, especially if the rates are going up in consequence. I know that people living in the inner boroughs tend to look upon the outer boroughs as a foreign land and wish, if they are to be re-housed, to remain in their present locality. However, we have to face facts and this is just impossible in many instances. There has to be a coming and going between the inner boroughs and the outer boroughs and the overspill areas. I urge the Government to encourage the local authorities to face these facts.
Secondly, in considering housing—private accommodation and council accommodation—I hope that we shall re-think our attitude towards the people who are serving the community, the social workers and teachers. We know only too well of the difficulties that face the education authorities in London where schools are without sufficient teachers, and where boys and girls have to go home because there is no one in charge. I believe that the problem would be partially solved if accommodation could be found for the teachers. It is hard enough in all conscience to take up teaching in some areas in London. It is even less attractive if people have to travel miles from the other side of London or from outside London, to these inner areas. In tackling this subject, perhaps the Government will do what they can not only to provide rented accommodation for those to whom I have already referred, but for those people who are essential in maintaining the fabric of our society.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, in the very few remarks that I wish to make I shall refer entirely to voluntary housing, but even then in no great detail, except perhaps to inform the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken that I am a member of a housing association which, in Sussex, is using Church land for the purpose of housing. I do not know whether the noble Baroness,

323
Lady Summerskill, will be interested to hear that.
In general, I have some rather mixed feelings about those parts of the Bill dealing with voluntary housing. I should like to make clear that that does not in any way arise from the contents of this Bill. I welcome the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for introducing it, and particularly for those new amendments which deal with the difficult situation created by the rent freeze. I hope that the Bill will reach the Statute Book as soon as possible. My reservations arise from the changes that are now taking place, perhaps quite inevitably, in the nature of the housing society movement itself, and the direction in which it seems to be moving. It seems to me that that may be affected by the way the Bill is worded.
My noble friend Lord Hylton, and those with whom I normally work in this matter, may not agree with what I am saying; but I go back a long way, and I must confess that 20 or 30 years ago I found it a heartening experience to go round and find all over the country small groups of people, often quite humble, people, who, without any pay or reward, were moved out of pure altruism to help to house their more unfortunate neighbours. As their object was to give satisfaction, they usually did so. But as legislation became more complex, and as more and more we had to rely on Government statutory finance, it became apparent that these matters were beyond the competence of part-time amateurs, and so paid professionals had to be introduced. Yet, I suppose it could be said that, however amateur and incompetent those small groups were, there would not have been a voluntary housing movement had it not been for their inspiration. I cannot believe that the great charitable trusts such as the Guinness Trust, the Rowntree Trust, the Sutton Trust, and a few others like that would have expected or welcomed whole sections of the Housing Bill directed to their interests. I feel that we owe a great deal to those original, small associations, and one of the reasons I intervene in this debate at all is because I thought that somebody ought to pay public tribute to what those early pioneers did.
324
Things are different now, and in a situation where paid professionals employed by housing associations are spending largely Government and local authority money and are subject, if my arithmetic is right, to something like 35 different forms of Ministerial direction, it is obviously a very different sort of voluntary effort to what it used to be. Nevertheless, I agree that it is difficult to see how it could be altered. Clearly if you have to use Government money on a big scale you must be prepared to accept the safeguards that go with it. It is also true that the voluntary principle is preserved in that the decision to initiate schemes, the promotional work, is still undertaken by unpaid amateurs. However, I can foresee some possibility of this function also being invaded by the professionals, perhaps by the Housing Corporation, and others. Indeed, it is possible that, in the course of time, the whole voluntary principle may, by imperceptible steps, become entirely eroded, and that the so-called voluntary housing movement will have degenerated, or developed, according to how you may think of it, into really another and second form of statutory housing. There may be some who really do not approve of voluntary housing and would welcome such a development. All I can say is that I would regret it.
4.49 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I must declare my interest to-day because I am at the moment chairman of the National Federation of Housing Associations under, I might add, the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Fiske. I was also the founder of a small village housing association in Somerset. It is a particular pleasure to-day to follow my noble friend Lord Gage, because I can well remember the day in January, 1972, when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on his Motion dealing with the difficulties and problems facing housing associations. I tried to draw attention to their knife-edge finances, and to the gap which existed then, and still exists today, between the fair rents which associations are permitted to charge and the economic rent which they need to cover their costs. I said something two years ago about the difficulties of controlling the equity in housing association assets, particularly where those associations are

325
not charities. I also mentioned the importance of the ethics of housing association committees and their general members.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the Bill to-day. I welcome its bipartisan approach because I think it provides a framework within which the very serious difficulties which have bedevilled housing associations can begin to be solved. In saying that, I should like to pay tribute to the extreme helpfulness, friendliness and courtesy of officials within the Department of the Environment with whom we have been in dialogue ever since the White Paper came out, during preparation of the previous Bill and in the various stages in another place of the Bill which we are considering to-day. I welcome very much the stronger powers that have been given to the Housing Corporation. I would join with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in hoping that when it comes to the registration of housing associations the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Housing Corporation will not automatically assume that bigger is necessarily better and that they will bear in mind that voluntary bodies are quite different from statutory bodies. Their motivation is completely of another sort and therefore they cannot just be merged at will or amalgamated simply because it looks tidier on paper.
I welcome also very much the Government Amendment which provides special support to deal with the problems arising from the rent freeze and from the much higher level of interest rates which we now have. The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a real challenge to the voluntary housing movement. In my view there will be no competition whatever between housing associations and local authorities. They will, as in the past, work in a complementary way and in no sense in competition. I strongly hope that the associations will rise to the challenge and will, over a period of years, begin to produce a proportion of housing in this country more similar to the Scandinavian countries where they are significant providers of housing.
If I may turn from the limited aspect of housing associations and societies to wider questions of Government housing
326
policy, I would welcome the susbtantial extra funds for housing which the Government have provided since the Budget, of which mention is made in the D.O.E. Circular 70/74. This, I feel, should be compulsory reading for every member of every local housing authority up and down the country. There are not only extra resources coming into housing but also greater borrowing powers for the Housing Corporation and extra money for housing action areas. With this greater amount of cash, I feel the ball is now firmly in the court of local housing authorities. I hope that they will feel a real sense of urgency; that they will pull out all the stops, and that if they find the extra resources are still not sufficient, for them to do the job which is needed, that they will come back to Central Government and clamour for yet more.
I should like to say a word about urban renewal—I welcome the emphasis on it—and about housing action areas. As I have told your Lordships before, there is a strong case for knitting together the various policies which deal with educational priority areas, with urban aid areas and with housing stress areas. What we need is a coherent urban strategy. In working that out, I would ask the Government to bear in mind the considerable volume of experience that was built up in Liverpool during the period of the SNAP experiment in the Granby Ward of Liverpool 8. This, I think, tends to show that we need a social programme and the active participation of the residents of housing action areas as well as the physical housing work itself. I realise that the Government have had these things in mind and were not able to incorporate them into this Bill, but if they remain in power I hope that they will do so in a future Bill.
There is a slight danger, I think, over this housing action area idea that there will be too few areas, with just a token one area per borough being thought to be enough. In my view hundreds, if not thousands, of such areas will need to be declared and will need to be worked through. Just to give some evidence from London, in no less than six London boroughs one-quarter of all the wards are housing stress wards. There are 68 such stress wards scattered somewhere through Greater London, and 39 intense housing

327
stress areas have been pinpointed, mostly within Inner London, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
There has been general welcome to the Bill. I join in that wholeheartedly, but we should not shut our eyes to the serious problems which are still to be seen on all sides. Just recently there has been gloomy news from the Building and Civil Engineering's "Little Neddy". They are gloomy about the amount of house building that will be achieved in 1974 and 1975. We have also recently heard that the brickworks are laying off men because of surplus bricks piling up at the kilns. Two days ago the Finer Committee on The One-Parent Family published its Report. There are thought to he some 620,000 one-parent families in Britain. If I may quote from The Times to-day:
"The Report says the financial difficulties of the one-parent families are second only to their disadvantages in the housing market. Many one-parent families have no homes of their own and share with other people ".
A few months ago The Times, in an editorial in connection with the National Children's Development Study, said that if all the disadvantaged children of Britain could wake up tomorrow in good housing, that would be the greatest single improvement that could be made to their lives. On this point of one-parent families, a body with which I have worked for many years, the Catholic Housing Aid Society, in addition to making 54 recommendations to the Finer Committee, has just published two pamphlets which drew out the meat from eight years of experimental work. One is called What Chance a Home: Housing difficulties of one-parent families. The other is entitled Housing and Marriage Breakdown. The families we are considering are the ones where social disadvantage, poverty and bad housing coincide to the greatest degree. The Bill will help them to some extent, but it is something which requires greater thought and very much greater action in future.
If I may turn to the London situation, this was developed at some length by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I myself described 1973 as being a disaster year for housing in Greater London, and no one attacked that point of view or denied it. It seems that in London we suffer from some
328
rather severe difficulties in the machinery which is supposed to provide new houses and to improve old ones. If I may quote from the Layfield Report, they said on page 219:
"All the evidence supported the view that the interests of the boroughs and the Greater London Council are quite naturally in conflict. Any scheme must provide for the resolution of this conflict. None of the common housing policies are being achieved, and unless the London Government Act is amended the housing proposals in the Greater London Development Plan will remain largely academic".
The right reverend Prelate pointed out very forcefully, as some of us have been trying to do at intervals since 1965, that the outer London boroughs simply have to come to the rescue of the inner London boroughs. In this connection, it was a great step forward, I think, when the Anglican Bishops, the Catholic Bishops and the Free Church leaders appealed in December, 1973, to their congregations in outer London to put pressure on local authorities to make more land and more housing units available for inner London. The right reverend Prelate has been asking Questions about dockland, surplus Government and nationalised industries' land, and I call upon the Government to make sure that something more effective comes forward than we have had up till now from the Action Group for London Housing which has been giving its mind to this problem.
My Lords, in conclusion, I once again welcome this Bill. I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to be present during the Committee stage, but I hope that the Bill will very swiftly be on the Statute Book because it is so badly needed.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I hope that I shall make the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland feel more at home as I speak briefly on the Housing (Scotland) Bill (which I welcome on behalf of the Opposition), especially since the Government allowed various Amendments and gave assurances on Clause 19 last Wednesday in another place. I shall not go into many of the general principles of the Bill because they are similar to those of the English Bill, upon which my noble friend Lady Young has already given our views. I felt sorry that the right reverend

329
Prelate the Bishop of Southwark felt unable to give himself the pleasure of talking on Scotland for fear of a Jenny Geddes. I do not think that, with my theological background, he need have feared anything from my side. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Elliot was the one who frightened him, but I do not see a Jenny Geddes in her.
Nevertheless, the Scottish housing scene is, I think, one which we would all agree varies considerably from one area to another. We have some 180,000 to 190,000 houses which are unfortunately still substandard, but this number is being dealt with. Recently, when we were in Office, we were demolishing or putting closure orders on some 20,000 of these houses every year. I hope the present Government will adhere to our plan to eliminate this nasty blot on our housing landscape. Last year we were pleased with the result of new building in Scotland, which also saw, of course, the greatest ever increase in homeownership. We had just over 12,200 houses in the private sector completed, with over 16,300 houses under construction in that sector at the end of last year. In the public sector we completed over 17,800 houses. These are good figures, my Lords.
In the field of housing improvement in 1973 we had a record of over 92,500 houses given grants compared with only some 13,679 in 1968. As has been said on many previous occasions, a house given a grant is a house saved; and these 92,500 grants actually represented 25 per cent. of all grants made last year in the United Kingdom. When you think of Scotland, with its population of 5 million or 6 million and compare it with the United Kingdom, with its population of 55 million, that is a most fantastic figure. It shows how, when in Government, we were doing everything to encourage house improvements.
My Lords, although much has been achieved there is still one hell of a lot to do, especially in the Glasgow area. Although one regrets the passing of the 75 per cent. grant for improvement, leaving the 50 per cent. grant instead. I am sure this was right, because selectivity is now clearly necessary. It is, therefore, very welcome that in areas for housing action the grants will still be 75 per cent., and I know that there are powers for this
330
to be varied, if necessary—up, not down. Part II of the Bill, dealing with housing area action will, I think, be widely welcomed. The only point I should like to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, although I am sure he is fully aware of it already, is that older people in areas for action, whether of demolition or improvements, are still very worried, understandably, when news of such impending action gets around. People need to be reassured, and I should like the noble Lord to confirm that the Government will be requesting local authorities to allay these worries more than by merely putting notices in the local Press. I hope that meetings can be held in local halls, where some sympathetic officials could answer questions and explain any points which might be worrying people. Perhaps even a local office, possibly only a room, might be opened nearby' any proposed action area, where again some kind person could be on tap to explain the full position to worried people in that locality, and their rights. Because I think we would agree that it would be tragic if, in improving people's housing environment, we did so at the cost of personal worry and unhappiness.
We, when in power, were very generous financially to the Scottish housing sector, and I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not wish his Government to lag behind our record. The Bill, I think, provides a useful framework wherein the all-important task of housing people in dignity and pleasant surroundings can be continued, and I wish the noble Lord well in his work ahead in this respect.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, if I may intervene at this point, I do not want to talk for very long, but having had more than 16 years' experience of local government I wish to confirm what my noble friend has just been saying about the improvements in housing that have taken place due to the existing grants. I am afraid that I cannot talk for the whole of Scotland; I can talk only for my own part, which is Midlothian. But I welcome the extension of the principles of the old Act into this new Bill. In thinking about the Bill coming before us today, I endeavoured to look at what had been said in another place. I could not

331
but be struck by the amicable relations between the different Members of the other place and by the number of Amendments which were accepted by the Government. In fact, any attempt to pick holes in the Bill which is before your Lordships' House will show that almost any point which may be raised will have been well discussed in the other place.
I certainly welcome the Bill, but there is one point which I wish to make. I should like to pick up what my noble friend Lady Young mentioned in regard to student accommodation. Student accommodation falls between two stools. I suspect that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will make considerably more money available for ordinary housing, and that the grants available there will be considerably more than will be available for student accommodation. The reason for this anomaly is that student accommodation is really the responsibility of the University Grants Committee, and the amount of money which is given to it at present means that any university accommodation for students has to be paid for largely from university funds, with only a small proportion—though it is now up to nearly 30 per cent.—coming from the State. I think that it will be very important that the Government should have a close look at this. I do not suggest that the present system should be altered, but I would suggest that the Government should take a good look at the possibility of increasing the amount of money at the disposal of the U.G.C., to enable universities to put up better and more suitable accommodation.
5.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, it is a very easy and a very pleasant task which falls to me this afternoon. This is very largely due to the way in which my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy moved the Second Reading of the Housing Bill. He went into the Bill in such detail that I am quite certain that he has lightened my task very considerably, because a lot of questions which might otherwise have been asked have been answered in advance. Secondly, the Bill—perhaps rather unusually for a Housing Bill—has received an almost universal welcome from all taking part, though given the different political views
332
which the Parties hold—for instance, on the value of the private landlord in the present circumstances—it is understandable that in some directions the welcome of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was a little muted. On the other hand, the right reverend Prelate took the view—which was also expressed by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy in moving the Second Reading—that this is not the Bill which the Government would have wished to introduce had there been ample time to produce a more radical measure.
We did, however, approach the position with the need to do something immediately in mind and the best way of doing that seemed to be to work—as has been done in other directions—on the proposals of the previous Administration, making such changes in them as we considered advantageous, though I appreciate that the Opposition may consider them to be steps backward. By and large, however, the Bill is very similar, although expanded, to what would have been done had a General Election not intervened. I should also say that, in this generally happy atmosphere, the thought occurred to me in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with whose views I find myself unable to disagree in any particular at all, that one or other of us must be sitting on the wrong side of the House. However, that is probably because I always listen to him on housing matters, and it may be that in some other fields his views and mine may diverge, which probably accounts for the fact that we face each other instead of being one behind the other.
To come to some of the points which have been raised during this very useful and enjoyable debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the question of student accommodation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has also added his voice. Without hesitation, I can say that the Government agree that there is scope for participation of student unions in the provision of accommodation, and I am told that there are already some small scale examples of this in existence. We shall certainly do our best to encourage developments along these lines, which we think would be very much in the interests of everybody concerned. On the other subject of making more money available to the University Grants Committee, I would hesitate to express a

333
view because I doubt very much whether even within the very easy attitude of your Lordships' House, that could be regarded as coming within the terms of a Housing Bill, even a Housing (Scotland) Bill.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but I wonder whether I could get this point straight. Is he saying that it would be possible under Clause 28 for a students' union to borrow money from the Housing Corporation for a hostel?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I very carefully confined myself to the note which came to me from the Box, and if it was not their intention that that should be so they have given me a piece of misleading information. I hope, therefore, that what the noble Baroness is asking is possible, as if, in due course, I am told that we are both wrong she will probably present me with great difficulty if she tables an Amendment—though I would not attempt to dissuade her from doing so.
On the subject of co-ownership, it is undoubtedly the case that there have been very considerable difficulties, not because it is a bad way of doing things, but because, as the noble Baroness said, it is a complex way of doing things and it is sometimes very difficult to get people to understand the difference between a co-ownership and an ordinary housing association development. These difficulties have, of course, been aggravated by the very substantial increases in interest rates which, as the noble Baroness said, have put a number of people in real difficulties when they have found themselves under an obligation to pay more than they had contemplated, and, in some cases, more than they feel is within their means. The Government are reviewing the role of co-ownership as a system of housing, because it may be that there are better ways of meeting the need at which co-ownership is aimed. However, I am afraid that it will not be possible to incorporate any conclusions on this subject in the present Bill. That is perhaps another of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy said that we would have preferred to have had a little more time in which to produce a more wide-ranging Bill.
334
On the subject of the sale of council houses, I understand that the Minister for Housing and Construction has made it clear that the Government have no doctrinaire views on the sale of council houses by local authorities but there are many cases of acute housing shortage where the prime need is to add to and not to subtract from the stock of rented accommodation. Thus the Government, while not promoting such sales, would expect local authorities to examine very carefully whether this is a step that could safely be taken without any risk arising to the general housing situation, and that, in particular, no families as a consequence would be left either in unsatisfactory housing or without housing accommodation at all.
I should say that in the Scottish context the Government have reverted to the position which existed before 1970. We have withdrawn the general dispensation given to local authorities to proceed with sales of council houses without reference to the Secretary of State. We have gone back to the position where, if a local authority wishes to sell council houses, it must put up all the circumstances which exist in their area and seek the Secretary of State's consent to such a sale. Because of my responsibilities for housing in Scotland, these eventually land on my desk. So far I have received only one such application, which is under consideration at the present time.
On the subject of housing for single people, to which the noble Baroness spoke and to which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also directed the Government's attention, we accept that more needs to be done for single people as part of the whole range of housing needs. A bulletin will shortly be published by the Department of the Environment on Goscote House in Leicester, designed by the Department's architects. This incorporates a range of units designed with single people in mind—completely self-contained units, and what are called "clusters", in which friends can share certain facilities. The hostel provisions in the Bill will also help single people. They will secure for the first time that the generous Exchequer support previously reserved for housing will be available for hostels, instead of what, I think I am entitled to say, were

335
the rather derisory grants which were available for this purpose in the past.
The noble Baroness then asked me whether the attention of local authorities would be directed to the need to review their housing lists, with particular reference to the type of housing which they should be building. This is something which most good housing authorities do in any event, but I can certainly see nothing but good, once this Bill is on the Statute Book, in directing authorities' attention to the need for constantly reviewing their position, so that they are building the houses which are really needed in the 1970s rather than the houses which were needed in the 1950s or the 1960s.
The last of the noble Baroness's points—and it was also touched on by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—was on the question of the G.L.C.'s powers, although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, took the same line as the noble Baroness. We have very carefully considered this question. The Government want, as do the G.L.C., the maximum of agreement between the G.L.C. and the London boroughs. The powers in the Bill are default or reserve powers for the G.L.C. to proceed without a London borough's consent, and they are, in fact, back-up powers only. But the Government think that they must be there. The risk of inaction in areas of stress is not one which the Government are prepared to take, small though that risk might be. If therefore there is good will on the part of the G.L.C. on the one hand, and the borough concerned on the other, it should be possible for results to be achieved by agreement. What we are determined not to allow to continue is the position where there is no result because there is no agreement between them. In these circumstances, somebody must have the power to act and that somebody must be the G.L.C.
I thought I had noted the noble Baroness's last point, but she had one other to which I want to refer. She expressed the hope that the housing action areas would not be too large. I am inclined to agree with her. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that they should not be too few. He expressed the view that what we have to guard
336
against is authorities just making a token contribution to what is wanted. He said that perhaps we needed not a few but hundreds and perhaps thousands of such action areas. I think that possibly the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are in agreement on this point and that what both would like to see are as many areas as are needed, but each of them being of a size which makes it possible to do the job as quickly as is reasonable in the interests of all those living in them, and that cannot necessarily be the way of tackling it if too big a development is being taken as the unit.
The right reverend Prelate raised the question of local authorities sometimes being too strict in their requirements, and he spoke of two aspects of this matter: first, the question of people being allowed to let out a room to someone in need of housing. I had noted that in our more usual Scottish context of, "taking in a lodger". I know that some authorities are particularly strict in this direction. There are many cases where this would provide a very satisfactory solution both for the tenant of the house and for the person who is looking for accommodation. I hope that local authorities will look on this in a reasonable way having regard to the fact that if they are too lax in their requirements they can create other evils altogether. It was not unknown in harder times that families who were re-housed from over-crowded conditions, because of the need or the desire to supplement their incomes, created entirely new over-crowded conditions by taking in far too many lodgers in the new house. It is a question of common sense being applied both by the local authority and by the occupant of the house. I will suggest to my honourable friend that this is a point to be borne in mind in any circulars which may be issued by him to local authorities—and perhaps with particular relevance to London.
On the subject of overspill areas and the outer London boroughs, and the difficulties which exist not only between the boroughs in the centre and the boroughs on the outskirts but also the people in the centre and the people on the outskirts, I should have had (as a Scottish Minister venturing into London problems) the same sort of trepidation as the Bishop had in venturing to Scotland if it were not

337
in fact very much the same sort of problem with which I am familiar in Glasgow, where the need to get people to go out of Glasgow and to get houses in areas where it is possible to provide them presents very great difficulty. It is a matter where one can go only by persuasion.
That reminds me of what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said about the need for being kind to old people who are being moved. It is not always a kindness to move people from an unfit house into a perfectly good one if in the process one makes that person totally unhappy about being taken from one area which he knows and being put into an area which he does not know and which he or she decides in advance that he or she is not going to like. We are all far too familiar with the number of cases of people who move back into a bad house in an area which they know. It is a difficult point but I think we all agree with what the right reverend Prelate has said about the desirability of doing these things where they can be done with the willing consent of the people who are being moved.
The registration of housing associations was another point touched upon by the right reverend Prelate and it also comprised part of the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. We agree without any hesitation that obviously it would be wrong to refuse registration to small associations just because they are small. The test of registration must be their fitness and ability to do the job which is required, and that will not necessarily be confined to large associations. It will undoubtedly be the case that some of the very large and expert associations will be the best vehicles for carrying out the work in many areas, but they will not be the only ones, and we would certainly not adhere to the view that because an association is small it should not be registered. The test will be: can it fulfil the criteria which will he laid down and to which the Housing Corporation will work?
The noble Viscount paid a very well deserved tribute to the work of the early housing association pioneers; as he said, they were totally voluntary people, not even assisted by professional workers. As the years have gone by the housing association has changed very much in character. It still remains a part of the voluntary spirit, part of the voluntary
338
effort, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, the associations rely more and more on the assistance of paid experts in carrying out their work. To sum up what he had to say, he accepted that in the changed circumstances where so much of the funds came from the Government the change was necessary, but he nevertheless accepted the change with regret. No doubt we would all subscribe to a certain extent to that point of view, but with the tremendous dependence on public funds I think the change is a necessary one.
I have already referred to my reactions to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It was very pleasing that he should not only find what we were proposing to do for housing associations so helpful and welcome, but that he regarded other provisions of the Bill in relation to local authorities as being worthy of the same degree of welcome. I cannot say that I am familiar with the experiment in Liverpool to which he referred, but I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Department are, and I will certainly make it a point to ensure that the Minister's attention is directed to what the noble Lord said on that subject. I also accept his suggestion that the local authorities must be encouraged to use their new powers with enthusiasm, and I would agree also that if they find, as they almost certainly will in the course of time, that still wider powers are needed they ought to come back to the Government of the day and demand these extra powers.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, regarding land for building in London, a comprehensive survey of land available for housing in London was carried out by the boroughs early in 1972 for the Action Group on London Housing, to which he referred. The first results of the survey were published in the group's Second Interim Report in August 1972. The figures were revised and updated, particularly in the light of the group's series of visits to 14 London boroughs, and published fin their Third Interim Report in July 1973. Work has been continuing to keep the information up to date. On the basis of the need to maintain the annual total housing programme in London at the maximum sustainable level of around 35,000 starts per year, the Action Group estimated that it

339
would be necessary to ensure the provision of land for some 140,000 dwellings in the period 1972 to 1975. The evidence from the latest updating of the land survey suggests that sufficient land is available for up to 124,000 dwellings leaving a deficit of around 16,000 even on the assumption that all this land will be brought into early use. I feel that is perhaps rather an unwise assumption to make. Further gains can be expected from the continuing updating and refining of the returns and more land should become available in due course from docklands and from the current review of the Green Belt put in hand last year. Action is continuing to ensure that all surplus land held by Government Departments and the nationalised industries is released as soon as possible. I want to assure noble Lords that this is an aspect of housing activity which the Government are determined to pursue with zeal and enthusiasm.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, dealt solely with the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I would agree with him that the previous Administration has good cause to be satisfied with two aspects of housing progress in Scotland. The amount of work which was carried out in improvements, was due very largely but not entirely, to the 75 per cent. grant which was available for improvement. I want to take a little of the credit for that to myself because it was when I had responsibility for housing at the Scottish Office that I was successful in getting changed the circumstance that repairs which were necessary to enable the improvement to be carried out should also rank for grant. Before that everything of the kind was excluded which meant that a whole host of necessary improvements were not started. There is no point in putting a bathroom into a house if it has a rotten roof which they could not afford to do anything about, with the result that they just allowed the rest of the house to get as bad as the roof. That was done in the time of the previous Administration and the last Government built on that. I am sorry that financial and other circumstances do not make it possible to continue the 75 per cent. grant. The Government made a concession on this matter for those who had
340
approval before September 30, but this was as far as we could go.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, a need for being selective. Some of the grants in the past went to people who should not have received them and who merely put the grant into their pockets as an extra profit, and the people who bought the house got little or no advantage from it. Thus, we are being selective. On the question of houses for sale, the previous Administration also had cause to be pleased about the extent to which houses for sale increased substantially, although latterly, because of a tremendous rise in interest rates, that increase was very much slowed down. We are now going through the effects of that from which this Administration hopes to be able to recover. However, on the question of building houses to rent, I was a little surprised that the noble Lord allowed his enthusiasm for the work of the previous Administration to lead him into expressing general approval for what had been done in housing, because in the building of houses to let the accomplishments of the previous Administration in Scotland were lamentable. I say nothing about what happened South of the Border, but I suspect there was no greater enthusiasm for what they accomplished here.
During the last three years of the previous Labour Administration we succeeded in creating in each year a new record for the total number of houses built in Scotland and I would certainly hope that we would get back to what the previous Labour Government did in house building rather than to what the previous Administration did. So the noble Lord must be content that I give him praise for two aspects and not be too sad that I should find it necessary to be rather condemning in my attitude to what was done in the building of houses to let.
On the subject of old people being moved from central areas, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and on this subject I can give him complete reassurance. Everyone in the area will receive a notice of what is proposed in clear and simple language which they can understand—and producing that will present a real

341
problem for the civil servants! In addition, the Government will be advising local authorities to carry out further consultations with the residents by holding meetings or visiting individuals, as the local authorities think fit. So this is the note on which I wish to close, by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we shall be doing exactly what he asked: in other words, (taking us back to the point made at the beginning concerning political advisers) the Government have had nice political advice on this matter from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said and to say that the halo is now shining even more brightly!
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TORQUAY MARKET BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE JEWS (GOLDERS GREEN) BURIAL GROUND BILL
Reported without amendment.
ORKNEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on June 19 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
JURIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.