PART VA

HL Deb 15 July 1974 vol 353 cc957-1000

Priority Neighbourhoods

49A.—(1) Where a report with respect to an area which consists primarily of housing accommodation and which, in accordance with subsection (2) below, is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, is submitted to the local authority within whose district the area lies by a person or persons appearing to the authority to be suitably qualified (whether or not that person is or those persons include an officer of the authority) and, upon consideration of the report and of any other information in their possession, the authority are satisfied that, having regard to—

1. (a) the physical state of the housing accommodation in the area as a whole, and
2. (b) social conditions in the area,

the requirements in subsection (3) below are fulfilled with respect to the area, the authority may cause the area to be defined on a map and by resolution declare it to be a priority neighbourhood.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an area is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood if, immediately before the declaration, it surrounds, or has a common boundary with,—

1. (a) a housing action area other than an area in respect of which the Secretary of State has notified the local authority as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of section 36 above and has not yet sent a further notification under subsection (4) of that section; or
2. (b) a general improvement area in respect of which a confirmatory resolution, within the meaning of section 28 of the Housing Act 1969, has been passed.

(3) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) above are—

1. (a) that the living conditions in the area are unsatisfactory;
2. (b) that it is not, at the date of the resolution, practicable for the local authority to declare the area or any part of it to be a housing action area or a general improvement area or to declare as a housing action area or a general improvement area an area which includes any part of the proposed priority neighbourhood; and
3. (c) that it is necessary to secure in the area all or any of the objectives specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 35(2) above and that that need can best be met by declaring the area to be a priority neighbourhood.

(4) In considering whether to take action under subsection (1) above with respect to any area, a local authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State, either generally or with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, with regard to the identification of areas suitable to be declared as priority neighbourhoods.

(5) As soon as may be after passing a resolution declaring an area to be a priority neighbourhood, a local authority shall—

1. (a) publish in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality (of which at least one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper) a notice of the resolution identifying the priority neighbourhood and naming a place or places where a copy of the resolution, of the map on which the neighbourhood is defined and of the report referred to in subsection (1) above may be inspected at all reasonable times:
2. (b) take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the resolution is brought to the attention of persons residing or owning property in the priority neighbourhood and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning any action to be taken with respect to the neighbourhood should be addressed; and
3. (c) send to the Secretary of State a copy of the resolution, the map and a copy of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) above and a statement containing such information as the Secretary of State may for the time being require, either generally or with 959 with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, to show the basis on which the local authority satisfied themselves that the area concerned was suitable to be declared a priority neighbourhood, having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above and any relevant guidance given under subsection (4) above.

(6) Section 36 above shall apply in relation to the declaration of a priority neighbourhood with the substitution—

1. (a) for any reference to a housing action area of a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and
2. (b) for any reference to section 35(4)(c) above of a reference to subsection (5)(c) of this section.

(7) In this section "housing accommodation" means dwellings, houses in multiple occupation and hostels."

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 27A, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 27B, 27C, 27D, 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A. This is a group of Amendments on priority neighbourhoods which fulfil promises made by the Government at earlier stages of the Bill. They consist of new Clauses 49A, 49B, 49C and 49D. On insertion into the Bill they would make up Part VA. They entail consequential Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5, which are numbered 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A in the List. I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took these linked Amendments together.

The length of the Amendments springs from the need to deal with all the procedural details involved, and I shall deal later with the most important procedural matters. But the concept of priority neighbourhoods is the most important point. Also, as I shall seek to show, it is straightforward and can be described quite briefly. As I announced on Second Reading of the Bill, the Government are proposing a new power for local authorities to declare a further kind of area. The name we now prefer for this—and various names have been used from time to time—is "priority neighbourhood". I should like to recall to your Lorsdhips the purpose of this area and to relate the areas to the Amendments now before the Committee.

Clause 49A is the key provision. Priority neighbourhoods are designed to prevent housing stress from just rippling out from the housing action areas and general improvement areas which local authorities have declared: in a phrase, to hold the ring. They will have an important role in discouraging those who might otherwise try to anticipate more intensive later action by local authorities by taking anti-social steps, whether with re-regard to property or tenants, which would merely transfer the problems which authorities have to deal with from one area to the next. They will thus add to the housing action area concept. The declaration of priority neighbourhoods will also pave the way for the future more intensive action which can be taken when that neighbourhood's turn arrives in the authority's overall strategy for tackling bad living conditions in their area. They will be a useful preparation for future declarations of housing action areas and general improvement areas when the needs of these neighbourhoods can be tackled 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.

The ways in which the Amendment seeks to secure these purposes are as follows. Clause 49A provides that priority neighbourhoods may be declared only in respect of an area adjoining or surrounding a housing action area or a general improvement area, and only where it is not practicable for an authority to deal with unsatisfactory living conditions in that area by declaring it a housing action area or a general improvement area right away; that is, an authority has to be satisfied that in the circumstances a declaration of a priority neighbourhood is the best way forward. Two provisions otherwise only available in housing action areas would apply in priority neighbourhoods. First, there are the more specific powers which Clause 42 gave to authorities to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily, including the restriction on the recovery of property subject to a compulsory purchase order. This is secured by means of subsection (1)(d) of Clause 49C. Second, the system of notification of certain transactions in housing property and of notices to quit. The Committee will recall that I outlined this also on Second Reading: the Government's Amendments for this purpose will be tabled for Report.

Finally, we shall propose that certain conditions attachable to improvement grants (for example the period during which an improved property is to be kept available for letting) will be mandatory in priority neighbourhoods, as in housing action areas, as opposed to being discretionary elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the Amendments are very largely concerned with procedures the procedures (concerning, for example, a report on the area, publicity, the giving of information, the powers of the Secretary of State, and the relevant authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods) all follow the provisions in respect of housing action areas, provisions which have been in the Bill since it began its passage in this Parliament. Such differences as there are spring from the fact that the special powers in a priority neighbourhood are to be more limited than in an housing action area. If any of your Lordships should wish me to go into procedural matters further, I shall of course do my best to answer any particular points which may be raised.

I commend these Amendments to this Committee. In doing so, I should like to acknowledge that they follow up the type of approach advocated in the Milner-Holland and Layfield Reports. They also take further the message of the D.O.E. Circular 50/72 and the last Administration's White Paper The Next Priorities. I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Amendments as a useful way of promoting, on a statutory basis, ways of dealing with problems of housing stress and the need for future action which we have left untackled for too long. I beg to move.

9.3 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation of these very long new clauses, and for the notes on these clauses which he sent me which reached me over the week-end. This is a new concept which is being introduced at this stage. The noble Lord was able to explain the principle of it at Second Reading, but it is something which has not appeared in any discussion of the Bill so far. I am not clear what the real difference is between a general improvement area and a priority neighbourhood. If I understand the point correctly, it is that a priority neighbourhood will always be adjacent to a housing action area, but what happens on the edge of the priority neighbourhood?

There is a real danger that the effectiveness of a housing action area, which is a relatively small area in which there will be a crash programme in which all the resources of the local authorities will be turned to improve the housing, will be diluted by having it extended into a priority neighbourhood. I am not in principle against trying to do more for older houses wherever they may be. The practical facts of life are such that the improvements of properties are expensive to carry out. Not only are they expensive in money but, equally important, they require a great many specialist staff such as public health inspectors, surveyors, builders and the social services to support them. Of course if these are spread over a larger area, by definition they will be less effective in the smaller area. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could tell us how he sees the use of staff working in what is a larger area. He would agree it would be a pity if the concept of the housing action area, which is accepted as being such a valuable one, were to be diluted because it was being spread over a rather large area instead of concentrating resources on one or several small selected areas.

The other point I should like to raise is the same as the one I raised on housing action areas. This is with regard to consultation with residents. It seems to me that precisely the same point would arise in priority neighbourhoods. When we have our meeting in the Department we might consider consultation with the residents because in this connection it will be just as important.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me an opportunity of elaborating. There can be nothing but advantage in getting more on the Record. Earlier when I was speaking, I hesitated to go into too much detail because I realised that I was speaking at some length, but the noble Baroness has given me cause. Perhaps I can best reply by giving more detailed information on the clauses which are involved in the Amendments to which I have spoken.

Clause 49A provides for the declaration of priority neighbourhoods by local authorities. As with housing action areas, they must have received a report compiled by suitably qualified persons, who need not necessarily be local authority officers, and they must have regard to both physical and social factors. But a priority neighbourhood must adjoin or surround either a housing action area or a general improvement area. The authority must be satisfied that living conditions are unsatisfactory, that it is impracticable to declare the area as a housing action area or a general improvement area, and that the need to secure the improvement of the housing accommodation in the potential priority neighbourhood, the wellbeing of its residents and the proper, effective management and use of that accommodation, can best be met by declaring it as a priority neighbourhood. Declarations must be advertised and notified to the Secretary of State as with housing action areas. The Secretary of State has powers under Clause 35 to cancel a housing action area declaration which will also apply to a priority neighbourhood declaration.

Clause 49B provides for housing action areas, general improvement areas, to be converted into or incorporated in property neighbourhoods either wholly or in part. Clause 49C provides that the housing action area provisions; that is, the duration, reduction, duty to inform the Secretary of State of action taken, acquisition of land and provision of housing by local authorities, and the application of certain procedural provisions of the Housing Acts, shall apply in priority neighbourhoods as in housing action areas. Clause 49D provides that local authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods will be the same as for housing action areas and general improvement areas; that is, the councils of districts and London boroughs, the Common Council, and in the circumstances provided for in Schedule 4 the Greater London Council.

The noble Baroness has indicated that she would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter, and indeed we shall be very pleased to have consultation with her about it. The concept of priority neighbourhoods was foreshadowed in the Second Reading in another place and in Committee there. If the noble Baroness is content with what I have had to say about the individual clauses, and would leave it for us to discuss when she comes to the Department, it may well be that we can make progress.

BARONESS YOUNG

I do not wish in any way to prolong this discussion. I am not altogether happy about this concept but at this stage of the Committee I should like to read what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said and to take up the opportunity to have this meeting and to discuss it further. I should say to him that my only worry about it is that we might spoil the concept of the housing action area by spreading the staff too thinly on the ground. But this is a matter to which we can always return at Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.16 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 27B.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 49 insert the following new clause:

Incorporation into priority neighbourhoods of general improvement areas, housing action areas, or parts thereof.

49B(1) If a local authority propose, by a resolution under section 49A above, to declare as a priority neighbourhood an area which consists of or includes land which, immediately prior to the declaration, is comprised—

1. (a) in a housing action area declared under section 35 above, or
2. (b) in a general improvement area declared under Part II of the Housing Act 1969,

they shall indicate on the map referred to in section 49A above the land which is so comprised (in this section referred to as "the relevant land").

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section; with effect from the date on which such a resolution as is referred to in subsection (1) above is passed, the relevant land shall be deemed (according to its status) either—

1. (a) to have ceased to be a housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) above or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) above; or
2. (b) to have ceased to be a general improvement area, or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the general improvement area by virtue of a resolution under section 30(1) of the Housing Act 1969 passed on that date and approved by the Secretary of State.

(3) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that the area declared by them to be a priority neighbourhood is no longer to be such an area, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to the relevant land.

(4) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that any land which—

1. (a) is within the area declared by the authority to be a priority neighbourhood, and
2. (b) consists of or includes any of the relevant land,

is to be excluded from the priority neighbourhood, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to so much of the relevant land as is comprised in the land so excluded.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 27C.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:

Application to Priority Neighbourhoods of certain provisions of Part IV

49C.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the following provisions of Part IV of this Act shall apply in relation to a priority neighbourhood as they apply in relation to a housing action area, namely,—

1. (a) section 38 (duration of housing action areas);
2. (b) section 39 (reduction of housing action area);
3. (c) section 41 (duty to inform Secretary of State of action taken);
4. (d) section 42 (acquisition of land in housing action areas);
5. (e) section 43 (provision, improvement etc. of housing accommodation by local authorities); and
6. (f) section 46 (application of certain provisions of Housing Acts).

(2) In the application, by virtue of sub-section (1) above, of the provisions of Part IV of this Act specified in that subsection—

1. (a) for any reference in those provisions to a housing action area there shall be substituted a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and
2. (b) any reference in any of those provisions to any other provision of Part IV of this Act shall be construed as a reference to that other provision as it applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, in the application, by virtue of subsection (1) above, of section 38 above—

1. (a) for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to section 35(1) above there 966 shall be substituted a reference to section 49A(1) above; and
2. (b) for any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (5) of that section to 2 years there shall be substituted a reference to 5 years.

(4) A local authority may not exercise the power conferred by section 39 above, as applied by virtue of subsection (1) above, in relation to a priority neighbourhood unless the land which would be left in the priority neighbourhood after the exclusion of the land in question—

1. (a) would then constitute an area which, having regard to subsection (2) of section 49A above, would be appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, or
2. (b) would then surround or have a common boundary with an area which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, constituted or formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area; or
3. (c) would then consist of or include land which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY I beg to move Amendment No. 27D.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:

Local authorities for the purposes of Part VA

49D.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the local authorities for the purposes of this Part of this Act are the councils of districts and London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London. (2) Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Act, as modified by subsection (3) below, the Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 49A above with respect to any area in Greater London. (3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above, Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect as if for the words "section 35", in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words "section 49A". (4) In relation to, and to any premises in, an area which, in accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act as applied by virtue of subsection (2) above, has been declared a priority neighbourhood by the Greater London Council, any reference to a local authority in—

1. (a) sections 49A to 49C above, or
2. (b) any provision of Part IV of this Act specified in section 49A(6) or section 49C above, as that provision has effect by virtue of either of those sections, or
3. (c) the provisions of the Housing Act 1957 applied in relation to priority neighbourhoods by section 46(1) above, as that section has effect by virtue of section 49C(1)(f) above, 967 shall be construed, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Greater London Council, to the exclusion of any other council.").—(Lord Carnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [General provisions relating to applications for grants]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 48, line 36, at end insert— ("and the applicant for the grant is, or is the personal representative of, the person who made the earlier application").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to correct a technical defect in the Bill. As at present drafted, a local authority would be prohibited except in certain circumstances, specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill, from entertaining a grant application if the relevant works are or include works which have already been the subject of a prior grant approval either under Part I of the 1969 Act or Part VI of this Bill. While this provision is reasonable for so long as the applicant or, after his death, his personal representatives retain the requisite interest in the land under Clause 51(3), it is considered wrong to prohibit an authority from entertaining an application from any other person who subsequently acquires a qualifying interest in the land, not least because an approval cannot be inherited by the new owner. The Amendment would remove this limitation. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Amount of improvement grant]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 54, leave out line 24 and insert— ("determined by reference to the amount of that grant and the rate at which it was made, namely, twice the amount of the grant where that rate was one-half and one and one-third times the amount of the grant where (by virtue of the Housing Act 1971) that rate was 75 per cent").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a technical defect in the Bill. For some two years the improvement grant was at the rate of 75 per cent. Before that it was 50 per cent. and it is back to 50 per cent. The effect of this Amendment is to put people who had the benefit of 75 per cent. grant in the same position as those who were on 50 per cent. This is where the reference to twice the amount of the grant, and the reference in the Amendment to one and one-third times the amount of the grant is to put both types of grant recipients in the same position. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Approval of application for intermediate grant conditional dwelling attaining a particular standard]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 55, line 30, at end insert— ("(bb) that it conforms with such requirements with respect to thermal insulation as may for the time being be specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30. May I speak to Amendment No. 31 at the same time. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that one of the conditions to be fulfilled before an application for an intermediate grant is approved should be that the dwelling is adequately insulated against heat loss. In Standing Committee B of the House of Commons Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg moved an Amendment to Clause 54 which was designed to probe the Government's intentions regarding thermal insulation. He withdrew his Amendment upon being informed that the special issue of thermal insulation was under active consideration.

Subsequently, a decision was taken to the effect that for both intermediate grants and improvements grants it should be a condition of payment that the dwelling which is the subject of the application should have its roof space adequately insulated against heat loss. To give effect to this decision, it is necessary to amend Clause 60 so as to add thermal insulation to the list of requirements in sub-section (2) which must be satisfied before a dwelling shall be taken to attain the full standard for immediate grant purposes. It is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to secure the same effect in relation to improvement grants. That can be done administratively under the provisions of Clause 55. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is able to move this Amendment and to fulfil the promise which was given to my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 31.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 8, at end insert— (aa) to conform in every respect with the requirements referred to in paragraph (bb) of that subsection, or".—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 61 to 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Power of local authorities to impose grant conditions]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 32.

Page 62, line 16, leave out ("they may") and insert ("they").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 33. These two Amendments would have the effect of making it obligatory upon a local authority to impose the grant conditions which are set out in Clause 68 in all cases of dwellings improved with the aid of an intermediate grant, an improvement grant or a repairs grant which are within a housing action area or a general improvement area on the date of grant approval, subject to the exclusion from this condition of those cases which are specifically exempted by subsection (3) of the clause.

The Government indicated during the Second Reading debate and Committee stage in the other place that they were proposing to introduce an Amendment designed to achieve in housing action areas and general improvement areas the effect of that which is suggested by the Amendment. It is not appropriate to make these Clause 68 conditions mandatory in all cases of tenanted dwellings, regardless of whether or not they fall within one of the priority areas. For example, it would be inappropriate to attach to a grant conditions relating to an improved dwelling having to be let on a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract when that dwelling was occupied by an agricultural worker in a tied dwelling, since such a person does not and cannot have a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract.

Housing action areas, general improvement areas and special protection areas will, by their nature, be areas in which the retention of privately rented accommodation will be of special significance and for which there will exist machinery which is capable of monitoring the observance of grant conditions. Outside these areas the imposition of these conditions should be left to the decision of local authorities in the light of the needs of the district or area concerned, and in the light of the authority's resources for the policing of conditions. Limited to these special areas, the Amendment would have an immediate impact upon the relationship between the amount of public money expended on improvement works and (a) the returns in terms of better housing conditions for those people whom the Government are most concerned to help and (b) the rent payable for those improved dwellings. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.20 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 33.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 17, after ("below") insert ("the authority may and, in the case of a dwelling or dwellings situated in an area which, on the date on which the application is approved, is a housing action area or a general improvement area, they shall").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 [Grants restricted to applicant and his personal representatives]:

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 34: Page 68, line 27, (in the fifth line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2) leave out ("at such rate as may be prescribed").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 35. These are technical Amendments, the effect of which will be to bring Clause 75 into line with the remainder of the Bill by providing that instalments of grant repayable thereunder shall carry interest at the rate of interest for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of Section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 35.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 29 (the last line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2)) at end insert ("at the rate for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 76 to 98 agreed to.

LORD GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 36:

After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:

".—(1) No notice to quit issued in respect of a tenancy subject to the protection of Part I or Part VI of the 1968 Rent Act shall be valid unless it is issued on such a form as shall be prescribed.

(2) The prescribed form of a notice to quit issued in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall contain upon its face in letters no smaller than the text of the rest of the notice to quit—

1. (a) the name and address of the landlord of the premises in respect of which the notice to quit is issued, and
2. (b) the name of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is issued, and an exact indication of the premises to which the notice to quit applies, and
3. (c) a form of words as may be prescribed outlining the rights and obligations once the notice to quit has been issued of the landlord who has issued the notice to quit and of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is to be issued, and
4. (d) the address of the Rent Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the premises referred to in the notice to quit are situated.

(3) The expression 'prescribed' in subsections (1) and (2) above means prescribed regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State for the Environment which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Melchett. This Amendment arises from Amendments that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I moved on the Committee stage of the Rent Bill, when we both spoke of the need to provide certain basic information when notices to quit were served on tenants. Those Amendments were withdrawn on my noble friend Lord Shepherd making a promise that on this Bill an Amendment would be moved to accept the principle of the Amendments which, we then proposed, and I am delighted to see that at a slightly later stage in this Bill a Government Amendment will be moved by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. Of course I do not intend to press my Amendment and I shall give way to his, which comes a little further down on the Marshalled List.

Since this is an opportunity to speak about this rather different area of this Bill, may I briefly tell your Lordships why we took the initiative in the other Bill in putting forward an Amendment of this kind? It is because, as noble Lords will probably know, notices to quit are served on tenants by landlords—or more frequently by landlords' solicitors. They are very frightening documents. They peremptorily order a tenant to deliver up the possession of his tenancy within something like 28 days, while of course the law under the Rent Act does not require them to do any such thing.

Notices to quit in this form have two effects. On the one hand, they cause great distress to tenants who frequently, in the experience of advice bureaux, housing centres and law centres, come clutching these documents believing that they mean what the say. They are then advised that they do not, and that a tenant has rights under the Rent Act either to have a fixed tenancy or to go to the rent tribunal. But frequently, in what numbers nobody can state, tenants are induced by such a notice—and no doubt by other pressures from landlords—to accept them at their face value, and they believe that they are required to move. My noble friend and I had in mind that basic information should be given on notices to quit so that distress and indeed misinformation should no longer be a source of concern and prejudice. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle of this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend will speak to the Government Amendment at this stage, but having raised the issue and the Amendment having been moved, I beg to move.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

Let me say right away that the principle of this Amendment is accepted by the Government. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said at the Committee stage of the Rent Bill that we would see whether we could find a way of implementing that principle. I am pleased to say that we have tabled an Amendment to introduce a new clause after Clause 107. It may well be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss it now.

As I have said, the new clause is introduced as a result of the undertaking given in this House on the Rent Bill to look at the possibility of providing that notices to quit should be in writing and should contain certain particulars which would be of use to the tenant on whom the notice had been served. The Government have considered carefully the best way to achieve this, and it has been decided that in the interests of simplicity and flexibility the best method is the amendment of the existing provisions regarding notices to quit. Section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 provide that no notice to quit premises let as residential accommodation shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.

The new clause inserts into this provision the words set out in subsection (1). It provides that any notice to quit shall be in writing and shall contain such information as may be prescribed. The new subsection (2) to be added to Section 16 and Section 131 provides that the word "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument, subject to Negative Resolution in either House. It is clearly sensible to leave the details of such information to subordinate legislation which can easily be varied to take account of any subsequent changes in the law relating to landlord and tenant. The new subsection (3) provides that the regulations may make different provision in relation to different lettings and different circumstances. This is to allow for the fact that the information which is applicable to one class of tenant may not be applicable to another class. The subsection therefore allows for different information to suit different circumstances.

Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the provisions of the clause shall not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions. This is necessary to make it clear that notices to quit which are running under existing law (and which may in the case of a furnished tenancy have been suspended by a rent tribunal for any period up to six months) are not made invalid by virtue of these provisions.

I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friends Lord Gifford and Lord Melchett. We have honoured the undertaking given, and I hope that the new clause to be inserted after Clause 107 will commend itself to the Committee as fully meeting the points that have been raised.

9.30 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

I do not want at this stage to enter into further discussion with my noble friend about the sort of information that will ultimately be prescribed for such notices. I am sure he will accept that the kind of considerations which have been suggested in this Amendment and in previous Amendments to the Rent Bill proposed by myself and my noble friend, will be borne in mind when it is decided precisely what sort of information and in what form shall be contained in such notices. Obviously, one hopes that the regulations will be published and passed at an early date. If there is to be some delay, let it be used in consultations with bodies like the National Association of Citizens Bureaux, so that the information which goes into these regulations is what is necessary, and what is thought to be necessary by those who have to deal with these problems. I am sure it goes without saying that such consultations and considerations will be borne in mind.

Having said that, and before withdrawing my Amendment, may I add that even for someone who has sometimes expressed cynicism about the procedures of the House of Lords, to have the Amendment to be moved by my noble friend passing through this House is a rare pleasure. On the Second Reading of the Rent Bill, my noble friend said in terms that he felt the sort of considerations we had in mind were not necessary for legislation, certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A great effort was made to provide my noble friend and his colleagues with such evidence. A large number of organisations wrote in, the Government were impressed, and to-morrow I propose to write to those organisations to tell them they have had a hand in making an important change in the law. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 [Hostels provided by housing authorities in Scotland]:

9.33 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 92, line 20, leave out ("and 34") and insert ("32 and 34").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, which is simple. There is already provision in the Bill for meeting hostel revenue deficits incurred by registered housing associations, local authorities and New Town Corporations in England and Wales, but not for housing authorities in Scotland. This Amendment corrects this by making hostel deficit grants under Clause 32 available to Scottish housing authorities. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to.

Clause 104 [Raising of rateable value limits for enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act, 1967]:

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 94, line 32, at end insert— ("(3) For the purposes of this section, the provisions of section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall apply until the expiry of a period of two years commencing with the date of the passing of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: The Committee will know that this Clause 104 was amended in Committee in another place, to increase the level of the rateable values at which it was possible for a leaseholder to obtain his enfranchisement. This Amendment to this clause seeks to meet the difficulty which I think may arise, and is exactly in line with a similar clause in the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. Therefore, I hope that the Government will view it sympathetically.

It has been put to me that under the 1967 Act it was possible for freeholders to have a management scheme provided that they chose to apply for one within two years of the passing of that Act. Of course, the effect of management schemes is to enable the freeholder of a large estate to maintain the estate, and to provide for the upkeep and repair of it as a unit. This seems to me such a very desirable thing to achieve that my Amendment seeks to include in this Bill a similar provision whereby the freeholder would be able to have a management scheme within two years of the passing of this Bill. It may not be correctly drafted, and I shall quite understand if it is not, but I hope very much that the Government will accept it, because I should have thought this is a principle they would support. I beg to move.

LORD HUGHES

I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, but I hope to be able to assure the noble Baroness in what I propose to say. As she has stated, the clause took its present form as the result of an Opposition Amendment in another place. Although this Amendment was passed against the Government's advice, the Government have decided to accept the principle underlying it. It should, however, be noted that the Amendment, as the noble Baroness suspected, is defective in drafting. For example, it fails to protect the rights of any leaseholder whose house was within the original rateable value limits but in consequence of revaluation may be outside the new ones. Moreover, in introducing a variation of rights according to the date of granting of the tenancy, it employs a date which has no connection with leasehold reform legislation. The Government hope to be in a position to put down Amendments at Report stage to correct these defects.

The resuscitation of Section 19 is another matter, however. The Government fully appreciate the risk that this extension of enfranchisement rights of tenants of houses not previously subject to the Act could mean that estates, perhaps well managed estates, not formerly affected would be broken up, and that if management schemes are not possible for such estates the result could in some cases be a general decline in management standards. The possibility of reviving Section 19 was, therefore, reviewed at once. This revival, however, would not, unfortunately, be the simple matter which the Amendment suggests. It would have to be limited to estates whose landlords were unable to apply for certificates during the period that Section 19 was in force before. To do otherwise might give the section retrospective effect over properties already enfranchised, possibly resulting in the imposition of obligations on house owners who had bought their freeholds at prices reflecting the absence of any such obligations.

The Amendments necessary to apply Section 19 within the limited field where it is now needed without adverse retrospective effects could be too complex for drafting in the limited period available, and with the very heavy burden already placed on the draftsman by the Amendments already essential to the Bill. We will, however, look at this matter again before Report stage to see whether anything can be done. The Government, however, do not intend to let the matter drop. If it should prove to be too difficult to draft the necessary Amendments, the Government would propose to take suitable legislative action at the first convenient date in the future. I hope, therefore, in view of these two ways in which we are looking at the matter, the noble Baroness will be prepared at this stage to withdraw her Amendment.

BARONESS YOUNG

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his concluding remarks. I entirely accept that this is probably not correctly drafted, and I certainly did not intend it to have a retrospective effect. This I put down to the defects of drafting, not to the intention of the Amendment. What I think is important is that the purpose of the Amendment should be achieved and that it should apply on this Bill, because this is the Bill which increases the rateable values from April 1, 1973. I believe that it is most important that the great estates, particularly in London, should be able to have these management schemes, and I hope very much that the Government will be able to bring forward a suitable Amendment on Report. What I feel is that it would be a very difficult thing to leave that to further legislation. This is the kind of thing that can be lost sight of if it is left in that rather indefinite situation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to draft an Amendment in time for Report.

I shall look again at the drafting of this and take advice to see whether I can do anything from my side to improve it, because I think that we are both in agreement that there should be such a provision under this clause for all the environmental reasons that are very familiar to us all. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.41 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38A:

Page 94, line 32, at end insert—

After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted— ( ) At any time the tenant may take the action provided in Schedule (reduction of rateable value in case of certain improvements) to this Act, for his rateable value to he adjusted and in all such cases the agreed rateable value or that determined by the Court or District Valuer shall be the rateable value for the purposes of that Act.

The noble Baroness said: In the light of what has happened, this Amendment may prove to be unnecessary, but its purpose must be quite clear. It is to help a tenant whose rateable value has been increased as a result of improvements that he himself has made to his house, and which would mean that he would be just outside the terms of the Bill as drafted. It always seems unfair if a tenant outside of London, for example, now finds that the rateable value of his house has gone up to £751 as a consequence of the improvements that he has made to the house since April 1, 1973, and therefore he is not able to enfranchise himself, as would have been the intention behind this clause. This Amendment seeks to put right this position and to allow him to enfranchise himself if he wishes to do so. I beg to move.

LORD HUGHES

The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the rights of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act to tenants of houses which are outside the rateable value limits laid down by the Act, but which would have been within them had not the tenants, or their predecessors in title, undertaken improvements which would have the effect of raising the rateable values of the houses.

This complex Amendment, which would affect the courts and the valuation service as well as the Leasehold Reform Act, was put down very late, as the noble Baroness knows, and only reached the Department on Friday morning. In the circumstances, it has not been possible to give it the study essential to a proposal to amend the law. Even such examination as has been possible in the time allowed shows that in its immediate objective the provision, besides being unacceptable in principle, is defective. I know from past experience how easy it is to get a defective Amendment when the subject is simple; when the subject is as complex as this, it would be an absolute miracle if those without the benefit of skilled draftsmen got it right at first shot, so that is not meant as a criticism of the noble Baroness. For example, the Amendment makes no reference to the appropriate day for the house in question, although improvements undertaken after the appropriate day cannot affect the rateable value for the purposes of the Act, and it leaves uncertain the question of whether the reference rateable value in Section 4 of the Act is to be adjusted together with that in Section 1.

The Government are well aware that some leaseholders unintentionally deprived themselves of the rights they might have had, under the Act as it now stands, by undertaking before the appropriate day improvements that raised the rateable value of their dwellings above what later became the limits for the purposes of the Act. As the noble Baroness knows, the previous Administration were also aware of that situation. The need to deal with this matter has been removed by the Amendment introduced in another place. The Government intend to accept the principle of this Amendment, and at a later stage hope to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. When I say "in principle", I mean that the Government accept the principle of the Amendment made in another place.

BARONESS YOUNG

In order to make it clear, is the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, saying that the Government accept the principle of Clause 144 but not the principle of this Amendment?

LORD HUGHES

That is right. We hope at a later stage to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. The effect of the Amendment is to raise the rateable value limits operative under the Act to levels permitting enfranchisement of houses far more valuable than those enfranchisable at present. It may therefore be expected that tenants whose improvements raise the rateable values of their houses above the old limits will now find their houses well within the new ones. If the intention of the noble Baroness is to permit enfranchisement by tenants whose improvements have brought their houses outside the new limits, I must oppose even the principle of a proposal which would enable the affluent to render themselves more affluent.

The Government's reasons for opposing the Amendment carried in another place were that a house outside the present rateable value limits would be so valuable as to render enfranchisement attractive for reasons of financial gain rather than domestic security, particularly as persons able to afford the leases of such houses would have been able to afford freeholds of smaller houses. How much more would this be the case with a person able to afford the lease of a house the rateable value of which approached the new limits, who then improved the house so as to take it beyond them. Since any such houses unimproved could always by definition be well equipped with amenities, improvements in these cases would often be designed to render the house suitable for uses other than as the tenant's home; for instance, by subletting parts of it. This makes it all the more likely that in such cases enfranchisement would be sought for reasons of gain. For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

BARONESS YOUNG

I should like to apologise for tabling the Amendment at a late hour, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will understand that with the present difficulties of trying to read all the material one cannot act as quickly as one would like. I am sorry that he finds the Amendment unacceptable in principle. Again, I accept that the drafting may not be right but I think it could well meet a gap in Clause 104. However, I shall study with care what the noble Lord has said and I shall, if I consider it necessary, return to the matter again on report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?

BARONESS YOUNG

I wish to raise two points on the Question, That the Clause stand part. As has been said, the clause was amended in the Committee stage of another place. Its intention was that people whose rateable values were £750 outside London and £1,500 in Greater London should be able to enfranchise themselves. These rateable values were to date from April 1, 1973, when the new rateable values came in. They were not to be restrospective to 1965. The effect of the increased rateable values was to be an increase of two and-a-half times in rateable values as reflected by revaluation between the years 1965 and 1973, in line with the fair rent legislation.

It has been put to me that the clause as drafted is ambiguous on this point. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the Government would be tabling an Amendment. I should like an assurance from him that any Amendment would clarify the situation. Clearly, it would make a great deal of difference if it were thought that these rateable values could be retrospective to 1965 values, and not to 1973 values. That is the first point I wish to clarify, because it is the intention of those who moved the Amendment in Committee in another place that they should apply to current rateable values only.

The second point I wish to make is that, had there been time, I would have put down an Amendment to meet a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised in speaking to my last Amendment, No. 38A, when he said that he felt that under this Amendment a number of people could make an enormous profit at the expense of the freeholder. I intend to move an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill to the effect that those in Greater London whose houses have a value between £1,000 and £1,500 should be entitled to purchase their freehold only at market value and not under the special terms that are provided in the 1967 Act. I felt it was only right to give notice of that at this stage, and to apologise for not being able to get it down in time for the Committee stage.

LORD HUGHES

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for stating that intention. As she said, we are working under very acute difficulties at the present time; and, as I say, I am very grateful to her. So far as her question is concerned, the Amendment which the Government propose to put down for the next stage will take care of the point to which she referred.

Clause 104 agreed to.

Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [Disclosure of landlord's identity]:

9.52 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 95, line 2, leave out from ("within") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 at the same time as Amendment No. 39. These three Amendments fulfil an undertaking given by the Government in another place and clarify the effect of an Amendment that was accepted there. Amendment No. 39 is a simple clarificatory Amendment to establish the precise day on which the period of 21 days begins before the end of which the person asked the landlord's name and address must give it. A provision creating an absolute offence must define with the maximum precision the circumstances in which an offence is committed.

Amendment No. 40 replaces the existing subsection (2). It first provides that where, under subsection (1), the tenant has obtained the name and address of his landlord, and the landlord is a company, and the tenant makes a further written request for information under this sub-section, the landlord shall within 21 days supply in writing the name and address of every director and of the secretary of the company. It then provides that, for "address", whether sought under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), the address given, for a person, shall be the place of abode or place of business, and, for a company, the registered office; that a request under subsection (2) shall be duly made if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to the person who demands the rent; and that any such agent or person must forward the request as quickly as possible to the landlord. Finally, it provides that a person who without reasonable excuse fails to do this, or a landlord who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the request, shall be guilty of an offence under this clause, and liable to the same penalty as a person who fails to comply with the original request for the landlord's name and address.

Amendment No. 41 is consequential. I would say that linked also with it is Government Amendment No. 67 which inserts in Schedule 11—Minor and Consequential Amendments—the Amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962 in the present subsection (2). Schedule 11 is the proper place for this provision. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 40.

Amendment moved—

Page 95, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) In any case where—

1. (a) in response to a request under sub-section (1) above, a tenant is supplied with the name and address of the landlord of the premises concerned; and
2. (b) the landlord is a body corporate; and
3. (c) the tenant makes a further written request to the landlord for information under this subsection,

the landlord shall within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request under this subsection, supply to the tenant a written statement of the name and address of every director and the secretary of the landlord.

(2A) Any reference in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above to a person's address is a reference to his place of abode or his place of business or, in the case of a company, its registered office.

(2B) A request under subsection (2) above shall be deemed to be duly made to the landlord if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to a person who demands the rent of the premises concerned, and any such agent or person to whom such a request is made shall as soon as may be forward it to the landlord.

(2C) A landlord who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a request under subsection (2) above within the period mentioned in that subsection and a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed on him by subsection (2B) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding £200.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved—

Page 95, line 9, after "(1)") insert ("or subsection (2C)").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move Amendment No. 41A.

Amendment moved— After Clause 107 insert the following new clause "Form and content of certain notices to quit.

(1) In section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 or, in Scotland, section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (minimum length of notice to quit) after the words "shall be valid unless it" there shall be inserted the words "is in writing and contains such information as may be prescribed and" and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsections—

"(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containg any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances"

(2) This section does not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of this section.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 108 [Service charges]:

9.57 p.m.

LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 96, line 9, at end insert: (and if any works in respect of which a service charge is claimed are estimated to cost more than £250, at least two estimates of the cost of such works shall be obtained by the landlord or agent and one of the said estimates shall be from a firm wholly unconnected with them, in the manner described in Schedule 9 to this Act.")

The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Before starting to speak to Amendment No. 42, I should like to draw attention to a typographical error. The Committee will be aware of the printing problems which exist so I hope that the error will be excused. The last line of the Amendment reads: "Schedule 9 to this Act." It should read, "Schedule 10". This is quite obvious when examining the Schedules. There is one other small error which is scarcely worth mentioning—two words have been run into each other in Amendment No. 43.

I speak with considerable enthusiasm to this group of Amendments on service charges, partly because I have an interest to declare here as a former tenant of Freshwater and, latterly, as an ex-tenant of Freshwater; so I have knowledge at first hand of this problem. The second reason for my interest is that my honourable friend Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg has spent the last three years campaigning in this field, and I think that it is quite clear from reading the proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place what an enormous amount of time and effort he has spent in compiling information which is closely linked to his own experience in a particular area of London. At this stage, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment not only covers London but refers to the service charges on properties throughout the country. Therefore, it affects a very large number of tenants indeed. I hope, accordingly, that even at this late hour your Lordships will bear with me because there is a considerable amount of detail which I feel will justify the case if I examine it a little further.

The first Amendment as set out under Clause 108 deals with a special matter: if more than £250 is concerned in the estimated costs, two estimates must be given. Linked to this, the next Amendment, No. 43, states that if more than £2,000 as an upper limit is concerned, consultation is necessary with the tenants' association. The third Amendment, No. 44, gives a definition of the composition of tenants' associations and the recognition which is necessary of that said tenants' association or group.

In speaking first to Amendment No. 42, I should like to go into a little detail as to what is in the Bill under Schedule 10. If we turn to Schedule 10 it makes a specific reference under Service Charges: Amendments of Sections 90 and 91 of Housing Finance Act 1972.

I should mention to your Lordships the chronology of events, because shortly after the Housing Finance Bill became law in 1972, on November 6, Stage I of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act froze all service charges. So in a sense the freezing which took place was very beneficial to the case which my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg was trying to bring about. However, his contention, and indeed our contention, is that as the Bill is at present drafted under Schedule 10 the Amendment to Sections 90 and 91 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 is insufficient in itself to enable the special circumstances to be fully dealt with. Therefore, the Amendment which is set out here is felt to be desirable.

It is encouraging to learn from reading the proceedings in Standing Committee, that the Minister, Mr. Freeson, was able to make this statement, and I quote his exact words from column 383, Standing Committee B: The objectives which the honourable Member for Hampstead, Mr. Finsberg, has set before the Committee in respect of these Amendments are wholly acceptable—I mean that in a wholehearted sense—wholly acceptable to me as a Minister and to the Government.

That was a very encouraging statement, but unfortunately at a later stage in the discussions it became apparent that the Amendment as drafted was not acceptable as such but no very precise or convincing reason was given for this purpose. I here quote the Minister's final comment upon this matter, in which he stated that he felt it was undesirable to place the relationships between landlords and tenants in too rigid a form. I will read, if I may, his statement in column 396 of the Standing Committee. He said: I went on to spell out other reasons why I thought the Amendment was unnecessary. in so far as it was seeking a good objective but could be damaging in as much as it produced too great a rigidity to impose upon landlord and tenant relations.

We feel that this statement is insufficient as it stands. We believe that the Amendment is necessary and, as the clause is drafted at the present moment, I believe that Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 should follow. I beg to move.

10.5 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the way in which he spoke to these Amendments although he has increased my task by speaking to all three of them at the same time, because my three combined briefs will make a fairly long speech. I regret to say that they are rather clobbering briefs but I shall try to cut them down a bit. I shall have to try to cut them down a bit. On the first Amendment, Amendment No. 42, the advice I have received certainly hits it for six because it starts off by saying that it is defective in drafting, and I will pass that one over for the moment. It says that it is unnecessary and that perhaps is more to the point. Finally, it says that far from helping the tenants—and it was quite clear from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke that that was the intention of the Amendment—it is more likely to have the effect of harming their interests very seriously indeed in the long run.

Before coming to the reasons why the principle of the Amendment is so unacceptable to the Government, I should like to say something about the technical defects. The Amendment fixes a rigid amount of £250 as the estimated cost of works above which competitive tenders are to be obtained. I say "tenders" because I take it that that is what the Amendment means when it talks about getting two estimates. The Amendment does not define "works", which is a term which does not fit in with the definition of service charges. It does not prescribe who is to estimate the cost of the works as being likely to exceed £250. It prescribes a rigid sum as applicable to all blocks of fiats, the smallest and the largest alike, although in a small block £250 might pay for a real job of work, whereas in some of the very big blocks that sum might only cover insignificant items. It does not prescribe any machinery for ensuring that this statutory duty is carried out, and it incorporates a reference to the wrong Schedule—but that has now been corrected. Apart from this the Amendment is unnecessary. Its aims are met by the provision in the Bill as it stands.

In considering whether a service charge is reasonable, the court will have specific power to consider such questions as whether the work was done at reasonable cost, and hence to consider whether it might have been done more cheaply by someone else. It will clearly be sensible for landlords to guard against this by obtaining estimates before incurring expenditure. No specific provision to that end is therefore necessary. However, the most serious of the Government's objections to Amendment No. 42 is the risk that this redundant requirement could lead to delay in carrying out necessary works and hence, in times of inflation, lead to actual increases in the resultant cost to leaseholders.

At periods when the building industry is under pressure, it may be impossible to obtain competitive tenders, particularly for "once-off" jobs—and we are all very much aware of these difficulties at the present time. Difficulties in this respect would afford a justification for inaction to landlords inclined anyway to neglect maintenance and repair. They could also for long periods impede the conscientious in carrying out necessary work and result in the work ultimately being done at higher cost than if a single tender had been possible. Any such increases will be borne by the leaseholders and it is they who will ultimately pay the cost if their homes depreciate because of neglect of maintenance and care. Any measure which could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing delay in the carrying out of maintenance or of affording justification for neglect is contrary to the interests of leaseholders and, in the Government's view, this Amendment would have that effect. It is simply not going to make a good landlord do something which he would not be doing in the ordinary prudent carrying out of his duties, but it would present the bad landlord with an opportunity for putting things off and perhaps not doing them at all.

The second Amendment, No. 43, concerns the £2,000. The object here is to force landlords or their agents to discuss with tenants associations or with individual tenants any work which is estimated to cost more than £2,000 before competitive estimates are obtained, and to do so in such a manner that evidence of the consultation and of the views expressed by the tenants shall be produced for the court in the event of a subsequent dispute. I shall not go into the defects of the Amendment again, but will simply say that they are of a similar order of magnitude to the ones I have described in the previous Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, left me in no doubt about the purpose of the Amendment—to be helpful to tenants. The idea is one to which the Government are wholly sympathetic. The Government entirely agree that tenants should be consulted before large sums of money are spent on their behalf. But to require this consultation by direct statutory means, without at the same time imperilling the rights of minorities and the actual good repair of the building, would entail measures far more thorough, comprehensive and carefully prepared than it has been possible to do in this Amendment. It would involve a whole complicated series of clauses setting out the standards to be met by tenants' associations, the means by which the rights of individual leaseholders are to be protected, the form consultation was to take, and provision for arbitration where the satisfactory maintenance of the building was at stake. Any such procedure could present a whole series of opportunities for landlords and their agents to evade the procedure, challenge the process at every stage, and involve tenants in prolonged litigation before services are even provided.

As I have said, a measure like this, with no safeguards for minorities, could threaten individual tenants with the loss, as a result of collective action, of the rights their leases give them. Consider, for instance, the situation that could arise in, say, a three-storey block of flats with lifts, the flats occupied by tenants all of whose leases contain an obligation to contribute to the cost of servicing and renewing the lifts. The lifts become due for renewal, and, as is so often the case, the estimated cost is greater than the tenants expected. The ground and first floor tenants decide they would rather depend on the stairs than contribute to the renewal of the lifts; the top floor tenants to whom the lifts are more important, are ready to pay their share. They, however, would be outvoted by the other tenants and, under a process of consultation such as is envisaged in this Amendment, would lose the rights to which their leases entitled them. Again, consider the situation that could arise in a block where the majority of tenants were elderly people on limited incomes, unwilling, despite their contractual obligations, to contribute to maintenance, to spend money on the upkeep of a building they thought would last their time in any event. The minority of younger people, though theirs was the longer-term interest in the block, could be persistently outvoted till the block fell into extreme disrepair.

The new clause as drafted gives the individual tenant a clear and unequivocal right to go to the court, challenge the standard at which his services are being provided and their cost, and obtain a declaration from the court as to the standard and cost which are reasonable. These rights override any contrary provision which may be in the tenants' lease. The presence of such a right in the background, and the possibility of being prevented from recovering money even after they have spent it, will provide a strong incentive to landlords to consult tenants before incurring expenditure. It may also bring about the voluntary sale of freehold interests to groups of tenants.

Any further measures would be so complex legally that it would be better to examine instead, as the Government have every intention of doing, the possibility of statutorily enabling groups of tenants to acquire the freeholds of their own blocks of flats, so that they are not dependent on others to administer their services but have the power to do such things themselves in their own interests. In the long run, that will be the best solution. But this Government agree with the previous one that in the urgent short-term this measure offers the most sensible and realistic hope of easing the lot of those who must pay service charges.

The effect of Amendment No. 44, describing the form of tenants' associations, would be to face the courts and tenants' associations with prolonged and complicated actions to prove that tenants' associations represented 60 per cent. of those eligible to belong to them. This would involve, first, proving the number of tenants eligible to belong; and, secondly, proving to the satisfaction of the court that 60 per cent. of that number did so belong. In a large block of flats this could involve proving 300 individuals held tenancies of one sort or another, and further proving that at least 180 of them were members of the association. To obtain proof of evidence of this would take a very long time and would be extremely expensive.

To sum up, the intention of the three Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is one with which no reasonable person could disagree. Because of the complicated nature of the provisions which would be necessary to accomplish what the noble Lord wants, he has succeeded in producing Amendments which would not help a tenant who had a good landlord, but which would definitely place at considerable risk tenants whose landlords did not come into that category, because in the case of each of these three categories they would provide opportunities for delaying action which would be very much against the tenants' interests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that although the Government cannot agree to these Amendments, we are in complete sympathy with the objects which he has in mind and that the Government are just as determined as he is to ensure that the best interests of leasehold tenants in these circumstances are looked after. I hope, therefore, that he will find it possible not to press the Amendment.

LORD SANDYS

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner, if not for the content, of his remarks and for the cordial way in which he has expressed agreement in principle with what lies behind these Amendments. On Amendment No. 42, I shall continue to dispute with him the question of the yardstick, because one must start somewhere and £250 is a reasonable starting gate. In this field of service charges, one is the whole time at the mercy of two forces; first, the slow pace of bureaucracy in producing estimates; and, secondly, the very fast pace of the rate of inflation in building costs. Those two twin forces, the Scylla and Charybdis through which one must conduct oneself, provide circumstances which make it virtually impossible to draft a satisfactory Amendment.

May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider what has been suggested in this series of Amendments? I accept that they may have defects in their content, but if the Government are in agreement with me and with the principles enunciated in far greater detail in Standing Committee B in another place it seems appropriate that something should be done. Otherwise, we are faced with a counsel of despair: that this situation, which is clearly recognised and identified and seen to necessitate a remedy, appears to be outside the possibility of such a remedy in this Bill. I accept that there are lions in the path. I accept that there are particular lions to face in the problem of drafting a suitable Amendment which will be better than my Amendment No. 43. Also, I acknowledge that there is a problem under the eligibility factor in Amendment No. 44. Bearing those three matters in mind, and reserving my situation for putting down a further Amendment should it be thought possible to do so at Report stage, and at the same time encouraging the Government to consider the possibility of bringing forward their own Amendment at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded, but I should not like him to be under any misapprehension. Certainly, we shall have another look at the matter, but for the reasons I have stated—the virtual impossibility of doing anything which is an improvement in the Bill—I do not offer very high hopes. The fact is that the Bill gives protection to these people in the last resort by providing for them to go to the court. One does not want to provide, if one can help it, that the only remedy for dissatisfied tenants is to go to the court. But our main objection to the Amendments which have been drafted and put forward by the noble Lord is that they would almost certainly involve going to the courts at a much later stage, and perhaps at much greater expense. Nevertheless, we will have another look at it; but I am not at all hopeful that we can do better than the Bill does at the present time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108 agreed to.

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 [Improvement of property acquired by local authority]:

On Question, Whether Clause 110 shall stand part of the Bill?

10.22 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I beg to move that we leave out Clause 110. If I may, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 66 because the two Amendments are connected. Both of these are technical matters. Clause 110 was not included in the Bill as first introduced in another place but was added in Committee there, having been tabled by Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, the Member for Merton, Mitcham and Morden. His purpose then was to impose a duty on local authorities to ensure that the houses they have acquired or buildings which they have made suitable for use as houses are used as housing accommodation as soon as practicable. The Government indicated in Committee in the other place that they fully accepted the spirit of the clause, but unfortunately in looking at it again we do not think the drafting is quite adequate to achieve its purpose. So the Amendments seek to put the matter beyond doubt and to put the provision to a more appropriate place in the Bill. I beg to move.

Clause 110 disagreed to.

Clause 111 agreed to.

Clause 112 [Orders]:

10.24 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move Amendment No. 45. It is a simple Amendment designed to remove the present overlap between Clause 112(3) and Clause 115(3) by providing in effect that Clause 112(3) relates to Orders other than the appointed day Orders. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 100, line 18, leave out ("provision") and insert ("of the preceding provisions").(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 113 and 114 agreed to.

Clause 115 [Short tille, citation, commencement and extent]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 102, line 30, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, which removes an unnecessary reference to Statutory Instrument procedure. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

I feel somehow that this is the kind of occasion when the Government would rather welcome something said by myself. They have hardly presented us just recently with a series of Amendments about which it is possible to say a great deal, but I can see the difficulties in which we find ourselves. However, it gives me an opportunity to say that I have at least been grateful for all the Notes on Clauses which I have had on the various Amendments that the Government have moved, because on such a complicated Bill as this it makes all the difference if one has these notes. I do not think I have any further comment to make at this stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Housing Association Tenancies]:

10.25 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 108, line 34, leave out from ("made") to end of the line and insert ("or, where such an order has been made,—

1. (a) during any period while its operation is postponed or its execution is suspended; or
2. (b) after it has been rescinded").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 55. These Amendments correct a slight omission in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 5 and in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 11. The sub-paragraphs provide, one for England and Wales and the other for Scotland, that the reference in the preceding provisions in paragraph 5 and paragraph 11 respectively to a person duly retaining possession of a dwelling-house are references to his retaining possession without any order for possession having been made or after the rescision of such an order. I do not think that will present the Committee with any great difficulty. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 109, line 5, after ("then") insert ("subject to paragraph 7A below").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48. It is part of the concept of registration in Part II of the Bill that the privileges of housing associations whereby their tenancies are mostly exempt from protection under the Rent Act is in future to be reserved to registered housing associations only. Other associations are to be placed as nearly as possible in the position of private landlords. Clause 18 and Schedule 3 effect the transfer of tenancies from the one code to the other. In particular, paragraph 7 of Part II of the Schedule makes provision for the rent limit for such tenancies. It omits, however, to deal with the question of progression towards the registered rent by freezing, and this Amendment corrects the omission. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 109, line 19, at end insert— ("(3) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall affect the operation of section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 (cancellation of registration of rent) and, accordingly, where the registration of a rent is cancelled in accordance with that section sub-paragraph (1) above shall cease to apply in relation to the rent of the dwelling-house concerned.")

The noble Lord said: Section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 provides for the cancellation of registration of a rent where inter alia a new regulated tenancy is granted to the tenant for at least 12 months for a rent exceeding the rent under the previous tenancy if three years have expired since the date the registration took effect, and provided the rent officer is satisfied that the rent, or the highest rent, under the agreement does not exceed a fair rent. The application for registration must be a joint application by the landlord and the tenant. The Amendment makes it clear that Section 48A is to apply to statutory tenancies imposed by paragraph 5 if parties have come to terms and if the rent officer is satisfied that the rent or rents they have agreed do not exceed a fair rent and there is no reason why they should not proceed under this section as can any other landlord or tenant under a regulated tenancy where a rent has been registered. I beg to move.

BARONESS YOUNG

Do I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, has said that this Schedule now brings this Bill into line with the 1968 Rent Act, and as I understand the position on fair rents, a fair rent may be agreed between the tenant and the landlord three years after the first agreement was reached, taking into account the same considerations, provided it does not exceed the conditions which would apply to a fair rent, and that this is really a provision which is bringing this Bill into line with what the Rent Act says for other tenancies? Am I correct in my assumption?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is correct. Probably like me she would wish to have an opportunity of studying what I have said and I should like to read what she has said. If I am at fault in confirming her interpretation I will certainly write to her.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 110, line 11, at end insert: 7A.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph apply where—

1. (a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of section 18(1) of this Act or a statutory tenancy is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above; and
2. (b) immediately before the tenancy became a protected tenancy or, as the case may require, immediately before the tenancy referred to in paragraph 5(1) above came to an end, section 84 of the 1972 Act (phasing of progression to registered rent) applied to the rent of the dwelling-house let on that tenancy.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, section 84 of the 1972 Act shall continue to apply or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to such a protected or statutory tenancy as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.

(3) Section 84 of the 1972 Act shall cease to apply by virtue of this paragraph to the rent of a dwelling-house—

1. (a) on the date on which a rent is registered for the dwelling-house under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 if the date of registration, within the meaning of Part VIII of the 1972 Act, is after the operative date; or
2. (b) on the date on which a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house is granted to a person who is neither the tenant under the protected or statutory tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above nor a person who might succeed him as a statutory tenant.

(4) If and so long as, by virtue of this paragraph, subsection (2) of section 84 of the 1972 Act imposes for any rental period of a tenancy or statutory tenancy a rent limit below the rent registered for the dwelling-house as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section,—

1. (a) the contractual rent limit shall be the rent limit so imposed and not the registered rent (as provided by section 20(2) of the Rent Act 1968) and section 87 of the 1972 Act (increase of rent without notice to quit) shall apply in relation to the tenancy as if it were one to which Part VIH of that Act applied; and
2. (b) a notice of increase under section 22(2)(b) of the Rent Act 1968 (increase of rent for statutory periods) may not increase the rent for any statutory period above the rent limit so imposed, and any such notice which purports to increase it further shall have effect to increase it to that limit but no further.

(5) For the purposes of the application on and after the operative date of section 84 of the 1972 Act to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy which is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above, that section shall be deemed to have continued to apply throughout the period between the termination of the tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and the operative date; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the rent recoverable for that dwelling-house at any time during that period.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke on this when speaking to Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 110, line 12, at beginning insert ("In the application of").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, and to associate with it Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54. Section 25 of the Rent Act 1968 applies to a statutory tenancy where no rent has been registered. It enables the landlord where an improvement has been made to a dwelling house after the time as from which the rent under the regulated tenancy was agreed, to increase the rent by 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure. By virtue of Section 38(2) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, to be amended by paragraph 21 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, Section 25 does not apply to improvement where the grant is payable under Part I of the Housing Act 1969 or Part VI of the Bill. As paragraph 8 stands, Section 25 does not apply to a statutory tenancy arising after the termination of a tenancy which becomes protected by virtue of Clause 18, nor to a statutory tenancy imposed by paragraph 5 of this Schedule. Though it is proper that Section 25 should not apply to improvements carried out while Part VIII of the Housing Finance Act applies to the tenancy, on reconsideration it is thought only right that Section 25 should apply when the Rent Act applies to the tenancy as it applies to all other regulated tenancies. These Amendments have the effect of applying Section 25 to improvements carried out after the Rent Act applies to the tenancy. I hope that that sounds more clear to those listening to it than it does to me reading it. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move Amendment No. 52.

Amendment moved—

Page 110, line 14, leave out ("shall not apply").—(Lord Hushes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move Amendment No. 53.

Amendment moved—

Page 110, line 16, leave out ("nor to") and insert ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move Amendment No. 54.

Amendment moved—

Page 110, line 17, at end insert ("for the reference to 7th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a reference to the operative date").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55A.

Page 111, line 44, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 45 and insert ("head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a technical drafting amendment which substitutes "head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph" for the phase "subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55B:

Page 112, line 14, leave out ("these") and insert ("those").

The noble Lord said: This corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55D:

Page 112, line 28, after ("63") insert ("(2) to (4)").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment to paragraph 12(2)(c) of Schedule 3 restricts the application of Section 63 of the 1972 Act to subsections (2) to (4) of Section 63. This is because subsections (1), (5) and (6) are not relevant to the case being dealt with in this subparagraph of the Schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 55E. 55F and 55G.

Page 112, line 28, leave out from ("apply") to ("tenancy") in line 29 and insert ("or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").

Page 112, line 40, leave out (" continue to ").

Page 112, line 43, leave out from ("apply") to ("a tenancy") in line 44 and insert ("or" as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 55E, 55F and 55G are technical drafting Amendments designed to remove any doubt as to which tenancy is referred to by the words "that tenancy". With the permission of the Committee, I will move the three Amendments en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 113, line 7, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert ("(3) In the application of section 24(1) of the 1971 Act (increase of rent for improvements) to a tenancy to which this paragraph applies, for the reference to 8th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a refereince to the operative date.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deletes the existing sub-paragraph 12 (3) of Schedule 3 and inserts a new sub-paragraph. The effect is to apply Section 24(1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 so as to enable a landlord to recover as part of the rent 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure on improvements completed on or after the operative date. It therefore has the same effect as Amendment No. 54 for England and Wales. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

I think this may be a convenient moment to move that the House be resumed. We have made very good progress, having completed Schedule 3. I think it would be as well if we called it a day for the time being. I beg to move that the House be resumed.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.